interpreting hubble data

[controversialEngineer]

please review my 4 page document and reply.

EVC.doc

[Strange]

1 hour ago, controversialEngineer said:

please review my 4 page document and reply.

EVC.doc

You need to present your theory here (according to the rules you agreed to when you joined - you did read them, didn't you  )

I'm not sure I can make much sense of what you are claiming. You claim we see an increasing velocity with distance, and that this is real velocity away from us. But that the galaxies are decelerating over time. Is that right?

This raises all sorts of questions:

• what causes the galaxies to all be receding from us?
• why are we in the centre of the universe?
• why do you think they are slowing down?
• what is causing them to slow down?
• how is it possible for there to be galaxies moving faster than light?
• why do we observe that the recessional speeds started increasing a few billion years ago?
• you claim that there was no Big Bang and yet you say that galaxies are all receding from us and so they must have all been "here" at some point in the past; how do you explain that?
• you also seem to agree with the video that shows a simulation of the large scale structure of the universe forming from an early hot dense state - that IS the Big Bang model, so how can you also deny it?

I have also asked the mods to move your post to the correct place ("Speculations") as it seems to be non-standard physics.

[controversialEngineer]

thank you for responding, i will respond in the order of your inquiries.

they are no longer receding from us, hubble's graph implies that the velocity of everything at time 0, now, is 0. this was referenced in the file, V(0) = 0 on the graph.

we are not the center of the universe, the plot has us at the origin because that is where we are measuring from.

the oldest velocities are the fastest and decrease as time moves forward.

gravity, just as the pre-hubble theories have suggested.

i have not seen data suggesting any galaxy moving faster than light, just close to C.

i don't understand the question - the acceleration implied in the graph is constant.

we see no galaxies beyond 14 billion years ago, just large clouds of energy condensing into galaxies.

as far as i understand, the big bang suggest all energy/mass was condensed into a singular point. the referenced video shows all the energy evenly distributed and is in the process of condensing into galaxies, which is my understanding of the hubble data.

do you agree that distance is proportional to negative time?

[beecee]

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

please review my 4 page document and reply.

EVC.doc

You are obviously in the wrong section.  Hypothetical and speculative rhetoric should be in speculations.

Quote

we see no galaxies beyond 14 billion years ago, just large clouds of energy condensing into galaxies.

Actually the observable universe/space/time is around 46 L/years distant in all directions.

 

Quote

as far as i understand, the big bang suggest all energy/mass was condensed into a singular point. the referenced video shows all the energy evenly distributed and is in the process of condensing into galaxies, which is my understanding of the hubble data.

The first step for anyone attempting to invalidate such an overwhelmingly accepted and evidenced theory such as the BB, is to know the model/theory they are trying to invalidate.

In actual fact the BB says nothing about any beginning, rather it describes the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds.

Quote

i have not seen data suggesting any galaxy moving faster than light, just close to C.

Firstly C is actually "c"......secondly the recessional velocities of galaxies near the edge of our observable universe are receding at greater then "c". The spacetime expansion is not curtailed by the universal speed limit which only applies to anything with mass. The recessional velocities are evidenced by the cosmological redshift.

http://users.etown.edu/s/stuckeym/AJP1992a.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0011070v2.pdf

The BB is overwhelmingly supported because it aligns with four very important pillars of cosmology.

[1] The observed expansion:

[2] The CMBR

[3] The abundance of the lighter elements.

[4] Galactic structure and formation.

Edited August 16, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

they are no longer receding from us

Then why is there measurable red shift?

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

hubble's graph implies that the velocity of everything at time 0, now, is 0

No it doesn't. The recessional speed is proportional to distance away from us. 

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

the oldest velocities are the fastest and decrease as time moves forward

This was generally assumed to be the case. But, surprisingly, it turns out that velocities started increasing a few billion years ago. 

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

i have not seen data suggesting any galaxy moving faster than light, just close to C

Then you should learn a little bit about the theory your are criticising. Arguing from a position of near ignorance is not very convincing.

For example, Davis and Lineweaver: "We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light." https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

i don't understand the question - the acceleration implied in the graph is constant.

The graph is wrong in that respect. Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess got the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering that the rate of expansion is increasing: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/

Actually, that raises another question: why are you using such old data, based on a very limited number of samples? Why don't you use more modern data?

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

we see no galaxies beyond 14 billion years ago, just large clouds of energy condensing into galaxies.

We can't see anything earlier than 13.8 billion years because the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.

But that doesn't appear to answer the question. If we see galaxies moving away from us (which we do) then they must have been closer in the past. Which means that, at some point in the distant past, all the matter we can see must have been right here. If you don't agree with that, please explain why.

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

as far as i understand, the big bang suggest all energy/mass was condensed into a singular point. the referenced video shows all the energy evenly distributed and is in the process of condensing into galaxies, which is my understanding of the hubble data.

The video shows that, at one time the universe was entirely full of hot, dense matter which then collapsed under the effects of gravity as the universe expanded and cooled. This is known as the "Big Bang model" - you might have heard of it. So if you accept what the video shows (even though it seems you may not understand it) then you accept the Big Bang model.

3 hours ago, controversialEngineer said:

do you agree that distance is proportional to negative time?

I don't know what that means. Do you want to try again in English. Or maybe show us what you mean mathematically.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Strange
correction

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section. Support your arguments with evidence.

 

[Strange]

And another thing, if you are denying the Big Bang model then you need to come up with an alternative explanation for the CMB. How do you explain that? (Good luck with that; this was the final nail in the coffin of steady-state and pseudo-steady-state models.)

Also, how do you explain the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe? (The Big Bang model predicts this.)