Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

AFAIK, if speed increases proportional to distance then there is only one slope following the relation between them.

(Look at the blue line in the latest picture you posted, one single slope for all objects.)

The last diagram from wiki is a distance/redshift aka distance/speed.

My diagram is a distance/time.

Posted

The last diagram from wiki is a distance/redshift aka distance/speed.

My diagram is a distance/time.

If space don't expand and speed of light is constant then distance and time is also proportional to each other.

Posted

If space don't expand and speed of light is constant then distance and time is also proportional to each other.

Yes, "speed of light is constant then distance and time is also proportional to each other".

In my diagram represented speed is not SOL, represented speed is the recessing speed of galaxy clusters.

Posted

Isn't it wierd how you can refrence all three: distance, time, and rate of expansion using the SOL. It might nip confusion in the bud.....or on second thought, might further it.

Posted (edited)

Isn't it wierd how you can refrence all three: distance, time, and rate of expansion using the SOL. It might nip confusion in the bud.....or on second thought, might further it.

Yes. It is weird.

Except that rate of expansion has less to do with SOL.

It remains that the 3 concepts are tightly linked.

An object observed at a distant location is also far away in time and also receding from us. The largest the distance, the more in the past and the more receding. As seen in the diagram of post #36.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is even more amazing:

if you know the distance to a galaxy cluster and only the distance, you can plot it on the diagram without knowing a priori neither time nor receding speed.

If you know only time, again you can plot the new G accurately on the diagram.

If you know only the receding speed, again you can plot the new G exactly, without knowing a priori time or distance.

Edited by michel123456
Posted

Yes, "speed of light is constant then distance and time is also proportional to each other".

In my diagram represented speed is not SOL, represented speed is the recessing speed of galaxy clusters.

You are going in circles Michel, discussion is back at my post #48.

Posted

ScreenShot190.jpg

Those 2 diagrams represent the same thing: speed is increasing with distance.

Left is corresponding to wikipedia redshift diagram.

Right is corresponding to diagram of post #36.

 

What is that you don't understand? (or what is wrong?)

Posted

What is that you don't understand? (or what is wrong?)

Now we have returned to post #44 where I asked you to explain why light makes a detour...

 

If space don't expand then T and D are proportional to each other and as such all objects in diagram nr.2 should be on a line, just like in nr.1.

 

Without expanding space, then if G1 emitted light at D=1 billion lightyears and G2 emitted light at D=2 billion lightyears, nevermind their receding speed, it would take 1 billion years for light from G1 to reach us and 2 billion years for light from G2 to reach us. In you #36 diagram you have placed G2 on a 1/1 relation and G3 on a 3/2 relation and G4 on a 6/3 relation, but if lightspeed is constant then they all should have the same relation and be placed on a straight line.

 

So what I don't understand and want you to explain thoroughly is why your galaxies don't have equal proportional relation for T and D.

Posted

When you think about it, it should curve when time is conserned. If a galaxy is moving away from you and you are moving away from it, the faster your moving away the longer it takes for that light to reach you. It would show more of a curve the closer you get to the SOL. But time should be the only thing that curves on the graph.

Posted (edited)

Now we have returned to post #44 where I asked you to explain why light makes a detour...

 

If space don't expand then T and D are proportional to each other and as such all objects in diagram nr.2 should be on a line, just like in nr.1.

 

Without expanding space, then if G1 emitted light at D=1 billion lightyears and G2 emitted light at D=2 billion lightyears, nevermind their receding speed, it would take 1 billion years for light from G1 to reach us and 2 billion years for light from G2 to reach us. In you #36 diagram you have placed G2 on a 1/1 relation and G3 on a 3/2 relation and G4 on a 6/3 relation, but if lightspeed is constant then they all should have the same relation and be placed on a straight line.

 

So what I don't understand and want you to explain thoroughly is why your galaxies don't have equal proportional relation for T and D.

 

because V is not the speed of light.

V is redshift.

ScreenShot192.jpg

Edited by michel123456
Posted

because V is not the speed of light.

V is redshift.

The redshift or receding speed does not alter the speed of the image towards Earth, it doesn't matter what redshift an object has, if it sends out light from an distance of 2 billion lightyears then it will take 2 billion years for the image to reach us.

Posted (edited)

So what I said earlier about there being a curve when graphing the time duration the closer to the speed of light, is that right or wrong? The time duration of lights travel shown on a graph should get lower the closer the object gets to moving away at the SOL.

Edited by JustinW
Posted

The redshift or receding speed does not alter the speed of the image towards Earth, it doesn't matter what redshift an object has, if it sends out light from an distance of 2 billion lightyears then it will take 2 billion years for the image to reach us.

Yes, that is correct.

But the speed under discussion is not the speed og light, it is the recessing speed.

 

What I do is simply this:

 

G1 at the origin

 

Take a galaxy cluster G2:

what's its distance: say 1 Billion LY.

what's its recessing speed: say 1 BLY/10 Billion Years or 1/10 (note 1BLY/1BY is SOL)

plot G2 on the distance/time diagram.

 

Take G3

distance say 3 billion years.

recessing speed: 3 BLY/20 BY or 3/20 > 1/10

plot G3

 

Take G4

distance say 6 BLY

recessing speed: 6 BLY/30 BY or 6/30 > 3/20 > 1/10

plot G4

 

And so on. You get a curve.

Posted

So what I said earlier about there being a curve when graphing the time duration the closer to the speed of light, is that right or wrong? The time duration of lights travel shown on a graph should get lower the closer the object gets to moving away at the SOL.

Justin don't get confused by my and Michels discussion, Michel like to explore other possibilities and right now I think he is trying to make a model which would simulate what we see but without space expansion. The current scientific consensus is the graph I posted in my post #41 on top of page 3.

 

What I do is simply this:

...

And so on. You get a curve.

Michel, I don't understand what your curve is supposed to show, you have not plotted the locations where we see the objects emitt the light from and it does not have a proportional recessing speed to distance. What does the plotted locations represent and why change the 10, 20 & 30 numbers?

 

If it should fit with what we observe and without expanding space, then G2 with a distance of 1 billion lightyears should be plotted at the time of 1 billion years, G2 of 3 billion lightyears at the time of 3 billion years and G3 of 6 billion lightyears at the time of 6 billion years. The you have to choose on one slope for the proportion of distance versus speed, if you for example pick the one for G3 then recessing speed for G3 could be 3/20 but that would also mean that recessing speed for G2 would be 2/20 and for G4 it would be 6/20.

Posted (edited)

Justin don't get confused by my and Michels discussion, Michel like to explore other possibilities and right now I think he is trying to make a model which would simulate what we see but without space expansion. The current scientific consensus is the graph I posted in my post #41 on top of page 3.

 

 

Michel, I don't understand what your curve is supposed to show, you have not plotted the locations where we see the objects emitt the light from and it does not have a proportional recessing speed to distance. What does the plotted locations represent and why change the 10, 20 & 30 numbers?

 

If it should fit with what we observe and without expanding space, then G2 with a distance of 1 billion lightyears should be plotted at the time of 1 billion years, G2 of 3 billion lightyears at the time of 3 billion years and G3 of 6 billion lightyears at the time of 6 billion years. The you have to choose on one slope for the proportion of distance versus speed, if you for example pick the one for G3 then recessing speed for G3 could be 3/20 but that would also mean that recessing speed for G2 would be 2/20 and for G4 it would be 6/20.

you are sticking to SOL. This diagram is about observed velocity.

Maybe you should do it for yourself.

on a simple diagram Distance/Time like this one

ScreenShot115.jpg

 

You have to plot 4 moving objects, G1, G2, G3, G4.

the placement upon the diagram indicates velocity: meters/sec.

_You know from Hubble's law that velocity of G4> vG3 > vG2 > vG1

_You know from Hubble's law that distance of G4 from origin is > G3 > G2 > G1

_You know from Hubble's law that velocity is proportional to distance.

_You know that velocity at origin is null.

Edited by michel123456
Posted (edited)

I already did, look at the green dots in my graph at post #41 on page 3.

green dots represent position. Not relative velocity to the observer.

 

Increasing velocity with distance gives a diagram similar to an accelerating body: a curve.

Edited by michel123456
Posted (edited)

green dots represent position. Not relative velocity to the observer.

Each green dot represent a speed with redshift 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, 5.00, 6.00, 7.00, 8.00 relative us.

 

 

Increasing velocity with distance gives a diagram similar to an accelerating body: a curve.

Increasing velocity with distance gives a straight line if the relation is proportional.

 

"In mathematics, two variable quantities are proportional if one of them is always the product of the other and a constant quantity, called the coefficient of proportionality or proportionality constant. In other words, x and y are proportional if the ratio is constant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

Edited by Spyman
Posted (edited)

Increasing velocity with distance gives a straight line if the relation is proportional.

 

"In mathematics, two variable quantities are proportional if one of them is always the product of the other and a constant quantity, called the coefficient of proportionality or proportionality constant. In other words, x and y are proportional if the ratio is constant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

 

YES. VELOCITY is proportional= the rate of change of VELOCITY increases along a straight line = for the same time DISTANCE increases following a curve.

 

Velocity increase:

At T0, D0, V0

T1, D1, V1

T2, D2, V2

T3, D3, V3

If V3>V2>V1 this is accelerated motion: there exist a rate of change of VELOCITY

Wiki

In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time

 

Here below a Distance/Time diagram representing increasing velocity.

 

After 1 sec, object G has a velocity of 1m/s (displacement 1m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

After 2 sec, G has velocity 2m/s (displacement 2m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

After 3 sec, G has velocity 3m/s (displacement 3m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

 

 

ScreenShot117.jpg

 

Hubble's law states that VELOCITY increases with distance. Not that velocity remains the same.

Edited by michel123456
Posted (edited)

...there exist a rate of change of VELOCITY

The observed rate of change of velocity is CONSTANT.

 

EDIT: Feel I need to add: constant over distance and not over time.

 

 

Here below a Distance/Time diagram representing increasing velocity.

 

After 1 sec, object G has a velocity of 1m/s (displacement 1m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

After 2 sec, G has velocity 2m/s (displacement 2m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

After 3 sec, G has velocity 3m/s (displacement 3m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

You need to check your math, if acceleration is uniform and initial speed is zero then displacement=a*t2/2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

 

If a=1m/s2 then G would be located at L=0.5m when T=1s, at L=2.0m when T=2s and at L=4.5m when T=3s.

Edited by Spyman
Posted (edited)

The observed rate of change of velocity is CONSTANT.

 

EDIT: Feel I need to add: constant over distance and not over time.

 

 

 

You need to check your math, if acceleration is uniform and initial speed is zero then displacement=a*t2/2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

 

If a=1m/s2 then G would be located at L=0.5m when T=1s, at L=2.0m when T=2s and at L=4.5m when T=3s.

 

So you accept finally that there is a rate of change of velocity.

 

You need to check your math, if acceleration is uniform and initial speed is zero then displacement=a*t2/2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

If a=1m/s2 then G would be located at L=0.5m when T=1s, at L=2.0m when T=2s and at L=4.5m when T=3s.

 

You are right

Here you are

 

ScreenShot118.jpg

 

Is it a straight line, or a curve?

Edited by michel123456
Posted

So you accept finally that there is a rate of change of velocity.

We must have misunderstood each other, I never ment to say that there was not a rate of change of velocity.

 

 

Is it a straight line, or a curve?

Yes, of course it is a curve, but the important question is: Is velocity proportional to distance in it?

Posted (edited)

We must have misunderstood each other, I never ment to say that there was not a rate of change of velocity.

 

 

 

Yes, of course it is a curve, but the important question is: Is velocity proportional to distance in it?

 

good question.

Let's check out with Hubble's law.

V=HoD where Ho is Hubble's constant

 

with Ho=72

and units of distances as unity

 

Vo=0

V1=72

V2=72.2= 144

V3=72.3= 216

V4=72.4= 288

 

Correct so far?

 

------------------

Damn.

Got it.

-------------------

Actually I got nothing.

Can you put that into a graph?

 

Here what I get

 

ScreenShot121.jpg

 

Note: time=1/72=0.0138888 approx

Edited by michel123456
Posted (edited)

Can you put that into a graph?

You already made it:

 

ScreenShot118.jpg

 

Since you have declared that:

 

Here below a Distance/Time diagram representing increasing velocity.

 

After 1 sec, object G has a velocity of 1m/s (displacement 1m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

After 2 sec, G has velocity 2m/s (displacement 2m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

After 3 sec, G has velocity 3m/s (displacement 3m on the horizontal, 1 sec on the vertical)

We know the speed at T1, T2 and T3, simply replace 1s with 1m/s, 2s with 2m/s and 3s with 3m/s.

 

Is velocity proportional to distance?

Edited by Spyman

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.