tmdarkmatter

It is interesting that they measured the blue shifting of the light coming from the sun due to the graviational well (about 633m/s), but not the red shifting because of its movement into our direction in the morning or away from us in the evening (difference of about 600 m/s as a maximum).

What experiment can I do to get that evidence? So far, the closest possible object where we have detected "blueshift" is Andromeda and I guess it is not possible for us to speed up a light source to 15 km/s to measure a very slight redshift, especially not in a lab. We cannot even detect the red/blue shifting of the planets of our solar system.

What proof do we have that expansion of the universe creates red shift?

Once again, the only evidence is red shift. This is like the current explanation of gravity: "The only proof of space-time curvature is gravity and the only explanation for gravity is space-time curvature." By the way we can say: "The only cause of red shift is expansion of the universe" or "The only cause of red shift is gravitational pull." but we cannot say "Sometimes the cause of red shift is expansion of the universe and sometimes the cause of red shift is gravitational pull (according to need)." So far, we could only confirm the existance of red shift due to gravitational pull so why should we seriously believe in some kind of expansion of the universe? If we say that all the red shift in the universe is only caused by the expansion of the universe, this would mean that the only place where graviational pull causes red shift is in the Harvard tower or that the galaxies out there simply have no mass at all.

Well, the evidence would be red shifting and the cause would be gravitational pull. Why would light that changed its direction millions of times have the same energy than light that never changed its direction? Your question would now be: "why should it not? lol We could define a ray entering a gravitational well as losing a small amount of its energy when it leaves the gravitational well because you would need a certain amount of energy to bend the light back to its original direction. And these little losses of energy would just sum up, even if the gravitational pull of different stars might override each other.

Hello, I am wondering why this topic was not closed yet, as usually happens with my topics. So what is beeing discussed here is that light is "getting tired" over long distances. In that case why should we still think that the universe is expanding, if all the redshift can just be because of this "getting tired" effect? If we want to evaluate how "tired" light gets, we would need to have two spaceships beaming each other at increasing distances. Unfortunately, the gravity of our solar system would always manipulate this experiment, because we just cannot move away far enough into interstellar space. On the other hand, it should even be this gravitational pull what might be creating the redshift. I know that according to current theory, a gravitational well should increase the frequency when "going down" and decresing it when "going up" in the gravitational well and that the total effect should be zero. But what about light beeing bent while travelling through the universe? Can we affirm that light is beeing bent more the further away the source was? For example, if there are 5 stars in between us and the source, maybe the light is slightly beeing bent into one direction by one star, then in the other by the second star, then maybe the same direction by the third star and again back into the original direction by the fourth and fifth star. Maybe the total "shift" might not be very obvious to us, but we should admit that there was more graviational pull exerted than if there were only 3 or 4 stars in between or if the stars had less space/time to bend light. This would mean that on average light is more manipulated the further the source is away from us and this should be the cause of the "getting tired" effect. If that´s the case, there might be no expansion at all and we just have no clue about how old the universe actually is. And what is worse, we might even have to stop using redshift as a "best method" to define the distance between us and the stars.

This "reputation" seems to be only related to resentment the guys here have lol How can asking questions reduce your reputation? This definitely does not make any sense, but it´s funny and shows me where human science stands today. This would have been totally different 30 years ago. This page does not seem to be serious. I came to this conclusion: "If asking questions reduces the reputation, then this is the wrong place to ask questions." "And if this is not a place to ask questions, then it is not a "scientific" forum at all."

And I have another question: If Earth is moving at a speed of about 30 km/s around the sun, shouldn´t we see the milky way more red shifted when it is moving away from us compared to when it is moving towards us? If we can detect the effect of gravity in a little tower on the red shift of light, I think we should also be able to detect this difference every year. And if we move at a speed of about 300 km/s around the center of the milky way, shouldn´t we see the galaxies behind us on this journey more red shifted than the galaxies in front of us? Unfortunately, it seems that we can still not confirm in what direction we are moving around the center of the milky way, but what if we are moving towards Andromeda and this galaxy therefore appears to be moving into our direction because it is more "blue shifted"? By the way, you can give me a -1000 too, I really don´t care about this "reputation" or whatever that should be. If asking the wrong questions means a lower reputation then something is wrong here. Bad reputation should be if I insult somebody or if I do not let others speak or if I post racist text or pornography. So this reputation is just that you do not like somebody showing up with different ideas or asking questions that "apparently were already answered". So the lower my "reputation" gets while asking questions in a civilized manner, the lower the reputation of this website gets and the less credibility I have that people here are objective and open-minded. I am really lucky for not beeing one of your children.

So I started the thread at a higher level. Interesting. I think science is not about me or how smart I am. I think it is about finding answers to questions. But if you think that space does not need a good definition or that we already know everything about space, ok, whatever. Then explain to me how this space expands and why. And I must say that the article swansont posted here is quite interesting. Thank you.

Yes, I understand what you mean. But instead of increasing the distance between the galaxies, we can also say that all the galaxies are just shrinking and the result would be the same. This would mean that all atoms and even photons are shrinking. If space cannot be defined as an identity or size, there is no real reference for us to compare our sizes with, so the measuring tape we are using to measure objects on earth would also be shrinking and therefore we would not even realize that we are indeed shrinking. Maybe the size of the universe is always the same and it just began with a lot of huge galaxies with enormous atoms that have been shrinking since the beginning. This would be the "shrinkverse" lol. If we could observe the universe from outside (with other benchmarks) and it would not change its size, then the "shrinkverse" would definitely be a reality. It is also strange that there is absolutely no expansion within galaxies because of the effect of gravity holding the galaxies together. It seems artificial that there should be absolute borders between regions with expansion and regions without. Will gravity (a weak force) really be strong enough to hold all kind of objects together, even some highly scattered huge nebulae? On the other hand it is also quite strange that the expansion of the universe is completely homogeneous. Why would that be the case? It seems completely unnatural, because it would be the only force or effect in the universe that is absolutely homogeneous. I think there are two ways to absolutely confirm that the universe is expanding. 1. If we can really confirm that galaxies are getting smaller because they are moving away from us. In order to do this, we would need to observe the same galaxy for millions of years. 2. If, from the 200 billion galaxies we found so far, there is at least one of them becoming invisible because it is crossing the visible horizon so we can no longer see it. That would also be a perfect proof that galaxies are moving away. Until we get this confirmation, we will just keep holding on to red shift as the only "proof" of expansion, but considering that gravity can also be the cause of red shift, I think that this "proof" alone is insufficient. But this is only my opinion. The only thing we would need to find is a mechanism of why light coming from the furthest galaxies has to leave a bigger gravitational well than light coming from closer galaxies and suddenly the universe never expanded. Therefore, I wish we would have one of the methods mentioned above to actually confirm the expansion.

But you mean that the space between each pair of galaxies should expand at the same speed and therefore those that are far away move away faster because there are more of these "distances between galaxies" and this speed is even increasing (acceleration). So you suppose that the "network of galaxies" is perfect and homogeneously expaning? Of course, all this should apply if the universe is infinite.

Ok, so it is wrong to even ask these questions about space. So you mean that galaxies all move away from us at the same speed and that from our perspective we see the ones further away moving away faster only because the light needs more time to reach us?

Also, this is not compatible with a universe where the acceleration depends on the distance away from us. If galaxies 13.5 billion light years away move away from us almost at the speed of light and galaxies next to us almost do not move away from us in the same time frame, this is not possible. Do you mean that space cannot be measured?

Because of the stretching while it was en route, presumably. Hi Joigus, long time no see! But if we stick to the idea that we are point A and the galaxy we see 13.5 billion years away is point B and the light coming from this point B travelled for 13.5 billion years only to travel 2.8 billion light years, how can you explain that if not combing both movements, the movement of photons and the movement of expansion? Why do we need to separate both movements when the photon travelling remains the same under influence of both movements? I also think that we still need a better definition of space. If space expands, shouldnt its characteristics change with time? Can a certain amount of space at the beginning of the universe contain the same amount of atoms than space billions of year later, or is there a difference? Will space always allow for the same movements of particles passing through it or will particles need more/less energy to cross this space in the future? Will the speed of light through this expanding space always remain the same? Will the effect of gravity through this space always remain the same? Will time allways pass by the same in this space? I think we should still investigate all this. On the other hand, I wanted somebody to tell me if the light coming from a galaxy far away would not need much more time to travel through the first lightyear of space (effective distance) then to travel through the last lightyear (effective distance) before reaching us, because the effect of expansion on these photons is much higher at the beginning of their journey, because the distance to point A is much longer and therefore there is more expansion of the space in between. Of course this is if we are allowed to combine the movement of photons with the movement of expansion in a common space. I also still do not understand why the image of the light coming from this galaxy far away would not be more similar to a galaxy at a distance of 2.8 billion light years or even closer, because this light never was 13.5 billion light years away from us. But I think Genady already said that the galaxy looks much bigger than it should be. What does that mean? We just make the same space bigger?

Please explain.

I can see that with the expansion, we are just creating new space out of nowhere and we are parking our extra light from these old galaxies there, so it needs more time to reach us. So, actually we suppose that this universe is going to be converted into a lightverse (space only filled with light) without any visible galaxies and that all these galaxies are going to disperse completely unevenly (soccer field with pinhead in the center) until they all desintegrate. During the "big bang", matter was created out of nowhere, so why can we not create "space" out of nowhere too? What if we are wrong with all the redshift theory? Isn´t it much more logical that the universe is not expanding at all, instead of the need to create space and matter out of nowhere? What if gravity is responsible for red shifting instead and bing bang never happened? Did you ever question all these ideas? Isn´t it highly suspicious that we are existing exactly in a perfect time to see a sky full of galaxies? Why do we not exist a couple of billions of years later when most of these galaxies are gone, or a couple of billions of years earlier, when the density of the galaxies would be extremely high so we could not sleep at night. I am wondering what kind of sky the first cyanobacteria on earth had above them. Was it a sky full of galaxies or was it the same then today? Also, the entire universe should be slowly cooling down due to this expansion, so the galaxies we see far away should actually be much hotter than ours. Anway, of course this is what we have so far. I am just trying to challenge you. There is no need to define me as a troll. I can also accept everything that is beeing offered to me since I was born and never question anything. I can repeat everything like a parrot too. But if we all think alike, no one is actually thinking.

It's not perfect and it's not mine.. Another of your misunderstandings. Your misstatements show that you clearly don't understand the model. Don't take it personally. I was just offering up a suggestion that I thought might help. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose to dismiss my suggestion. Thank you, these are the things I want to read. I prefer to not understand a model instead of eagerly defending a model that is incorrect. But I still do not know what model would be correct. I am just asking questions. Anyway, you already recognized that there should be an "effective speed of light" that is different than the "actual speed of light". Now the only thing I need to do is to convince you that this "effective speed" does not depend on time, but it depends on the distance a galaxy is away from us. The further away, the lower the "effective speed" and the closer to us, the more would this "effective speed" be equivalent to the "actual speed of light" until reaching equality at distance zero. Another fact I should convince you of is that this light is never further away from earth than these 2.8 billion light years. So this light never travels the distance of 13.5-2.8 = 10.7 billion light years, while the galaxy in fact does move away on this path (or a similar path).

So you admit that this light was travelling at only about 20% of the speed of light or that the "average effective speed of light" was just 0,20740741 C. Using the word "presumably" indicates me that your model does not seem to be perfect yet or that you are not completely convinced yet.

If this model works, I think you should be able to tell me where this galaxy was 13.5 billion years ago, where the light was emitted, where the galaxy is now and how fast this light travelled what distance to reach us to see if it makes sense. And why we are seeing tiny dots instead of clusters like the neighboring clusters of our milky way. But how is it possible that this light travels for 13.5 billion years if the galaxy was only 2.8 billion light years away?

It is now at 34 billion and back then was at 2.8 billion? So what are the 13.5 billion we are talking about??? If your model is perfect, I think it should be easy for you to answer my questions, instead of cuestioning my understanding of this model. I would prefer to have answers. It is much easier to say that somebody simply does not understand.

Bufofrog said this previously, so I am confused: Don't forget that the light from a galaxy that is 13 billion years old was a emitted a lot closer to us than 13 light years! So please tell me what was the distance of this galaxy 13.5 billion years ago. but the distance would never stretch faster than the speed of light because we would never see this light. The light coming from these furthest galaxies would never be farther away than the initial distance of these galaxies. The galaxies would keep moving away, but the light needs to move into our direction.

That´s correct, I never saw my car. I only saw light coming from it. Ok, what I want to say is that once the light from a galaxy that is further away reaches the observer, the light obviously becomes smaller and dimmer. But if we are currently watching the first sheets of light coming from these distant galaxies, we should still observe a much bigger galaxy and the image should correspond to a galaxy just 30-40 million light years away, if the galaxy was at that position 13.5 billion years ago and the light needed these 13.5 billion years to reach us.

Imagine we stand on a field and a 1x1x1 meter box about 100 meters away is a galaxy we are observing. Now the galaxy expands moving the box 1 meter away to a distance of 101 meters, but at the same time a sheet of carton of exactly 1x1 meter is positioned about 1,1 meter away from the box, at a distance of 99,9 meters. This would be the light coming from the box (galaxy). Now imagine we make our universe expand another meter. The box is moved another meter to a distance of 102 meters and in front of the box you have two cartons of the size of 1 x 1 meter each, one at a distance of 99,8 meters and one at a distance of 100,9 meters. You can continue doing this until you have the box at a distance of 1100 meters, with 1100 different sheets of carton positioned in between you and the box and the first sheet of carton finally reaching you at distance 0. What would this carton look like? Would it be a tiny spot in the distance? I think it is confusing for us that we are only seeing light coming from galaxies, we do not see the galaxies themselves. Of course you would say that these sheets of cartons should get smaller when seeing them from far away, when the galaxy moves away. Even the carton sheets approaching us should get smaller while travelling, but the area of the first sheet should always have the same proportion of the entire area we can see. The sheets would only get smaller once the galaxy moves away. Maybe the best way to imagine the shrinking of the cartons while travelling into our direction is to use some ropes at each corner of the box that would be uniting when the carton reaches us. But we would see thess ropes just as four dots from our perspective. The further away the galaxy is, the closer these 4 ropes would be and therefore we would see the galaxy smaller once these cartons reach us. But when we observe a galaxy very far away, we are still watching the first cartons.

Maybe "unnatural" is the wrong term. "Highly concentrated in the center and therefore not evenly distributed at all" would be better. Let me think about all the things mentioned here. I will come up with a better experiment later today so I can show you my point of view regarding an expanding universe. So what does the universe currently look like according to this concept?

I think there is a huge difference between "visible universe" and "currently estimated universe taking into account that expansion is real". If we suppose that we can see the microwave background at a distance of 46 billion light years and the furthest galaxy at a distance of 13.5 billion light years, then taking these distances as radios we would get to the result that almost 96% of the universe is empty. But if the visible galaxies should now be 33.6 billion light years away, I am wondering how far the microwave background should be away now. Maybe 200 billion light years? This would finally confirm that the concept of a very odd and unnatural universe (soccer field with a pinhead containing 99% of the galaxies) should be true.