Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[captcass]

Sorry, I phrased that last question all wrong. Sound like an idiot. If the universe wasn't expanding, do we have an estimate of how far we could see visible light? It wouldn't red shift out of the visual spectrum with only Doppler effects. Would it just be a matter of luminosity? And if so, do you know of any estimates?

Tks

The reason I can't accept that is that I believe in an eternal awareness that finds being alone in the dark not just boring, but extremely unpleasant. Imagine being in total sensory deprivation. No sound, light, taste, touch or smell. Just a sense of self.......

Welcome to Divine Discontent.

 

Hate to tell you, but that is what you are. That is your greater self. Like boredom? loneliness? People die from loneliness......the eternal awareness incarnates itself to escape it. And it always gets to die.......

 

Just saying.

 

Any suggestion for two galaxies, one at about z = 5 and one at z = .1? I found the NASA database but need names to search.

Tks

Do you know a data base, website, where I can find both z and lookback time data for galaxies?

[Mordred]

I'm not too sure. You might try Sloan sky survey

[captcass]

I found this table on an edu site. I believe it suits my needs perfectly, considering my concepts, without finding specific galactic data, wich as it happens turns out to be a real pain......

 

Do yo agree this table is a good basis to work from?

Tks

 

Redshifts, Distances, and Look-Back Times

Redshift v/c Distance
(Mpc) Distance
(ly) Look-Back
Time (yr)^* Age of the
Universe^** 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 100% 0.05 0.049 222 7.26 x 10⁸ 7.08 x 10⁸ 93% 0.10 0.095 430 1.40 x 10⁹ 1.336 x 10⁹ 87% 0.50 0.385 1694 5.52 x 10⁹ 4.57 x 10⁹ 54% 1.0 0.600 2704 8.82 x 10⁹ 6.48 x 10⁹ 35% 2.0 0.800 3901 1.27 x 10¹⁰ 8.10 x 10⁹ 19% 3.0 0.882 4616 1.51 x 10¹⁰ 8.78 x 10⁹ 12% 4.0 0.923 5103 1.66 x 10¹⁰ 9.13 x 10⁹ 9% 5.0 0.946 5462 1.78 x 10¹⁰ 9.35 x 10⁹ 7% 6.0 0.960 5742 1.87 x 10¹⁰ 9.51 x 10⁹ 6% 10 0.984 6448 2.10 x 10¹⁰ 9.75 x 10⁹ 3% 100 1.00 8312 2.71 x 10¹⁰ 1.00 x 10¹⁰ ~0% 1000 1.00 8939 2.92 x 10¹⁰ 1.00 x 10¹⁰ ~0% infinity 1.00 9231 3.01 x 10¹⁰ 1.00 x 10¹⁰ 0% ^*Assuming flat geometry ^** Percentage of age for present Universe when light emitted (flat geometry)

The look-back time in the above table is expressed both in years and as a percentage of the present age of the Universe when the light was emitted. For example, at a redshift of z = 2 we are seeing light that was emitted 8.1 billion years ago when the Universe was only 19% of its present age. Here is a Java calculator that allows you to calculate the recessional velocity, look-back times, and distances from the redshift for arbitrary values of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter. (The preceding table can be reproduced with this calculator by setting the Hubble constant to 65/km/s/Mpc and the deceleration parameter to 0.5, corresponding to a flat Universe with no cosmological constant.)

Sorry, the full table didn't copy, just the text. Didn't want you to have to make sense of it.

[Mordred]

You can also use the calculator in my signature. Change number of steps. Play with the min max stretch range.

 

The calculator can graph or fine tune to any time period. You can calculate distance now, distance at time it was closest. The various horizons etc... Open column definitions.

[captcass]

OK. I used a lookback time of 4.268 Gyr.for a redshift of .5, using an Ho of 69.6, an Omega M of 1 and an Omega vac of 0 to compute the lookback time and the derivation works. It is not exact, but close enough that a slight adjustment in the distance by adjusting the Ho, slightly increasing the distance, will come out.

What I need to ask, is if you agree with my computation of the lookback time.

Tks

[captcass]

Sorry, I found an error this morning so it didn't work. Back to the calculations.

[captcass]

Holding your breath? Don't, you were right, the correlation doesn't hold as I visualized it. I finally figured out that all the lookback times I was using were derived using Ho, in an expanding universe so wouldn't correlate.

 

Turns out we really don't know based solely on other observations just how far objects are..

 

Surprising that the relationship does refine with distance so it works at the farthest visible distance.

 

I am now working derivations for each step in the Ro doubling process to study the relationship. This is not affected by Ho as it begins at only one galactic Ro. I'll let you know if I find anything significant.

 

As you can tell, I'm not a pro. If I was I would have checked at other distances before concluding I was correct.

 

I do appreciate your time. But still no way I accept the BB, etc.....

 

Still, I think I'll go have a piece of humble pie....

[Mordred]

Glad to see your still working at it. I may suggest studying the equations of state behind Hubble expansion.

 

Thermodynamically you can equate the mathematics to an adiabatic and isothermal expansion of a mixed ideal gas.

[captcass]

Thanks, been there the last few days....made me realize all data these days is based on BB and expansion.

 

Trouble is, everything is now based on expansion and the BB, which, by my reasoning, have to be wrong. Since Hubble, we have been making things fit, even though they lead to ridiculous conclusions. It seems we are getting closer, as in the refinement of Ho, but it is still a forced fit with no ultimate explanations of anything.....just more improbable questions like DE.

 

I'm going to work through these derivations, not based on any distance to any object, just to see how they relate frame to frame.

 

I'm thinking that the different rates of time also effect the elongation, actually shortening it, through each set of frames since closer frames are evolving forward more slowly.

 

I think I'm thinking that, anyway.

 

I am also partially distracted by the energy of a photon these days. E = hv. Being a mystical person, I can't help believing there is something much more significant there than people, including me, realize. The wavelength actually is a time interval between pulses, not peaks.........

 

Playing with concepts in time this last year has greatly increased my perspective of possible lines of inquiry. And given me crossed eyes more than once......

 

Tks for the reply

 

Love playing with this stuff!

If I may ask.....don't know if it is forbidden here, not used to forums and their rules and too lazy to read them....but I like to know something about who I am speaking to.

 

I am a retired sea captain: a Cum Laude graduate of the United Sates Merchant Marine Academy, one of five federal academies. I have been in over 50 countries on every coast of every continent except Antarctica. Turned down the southern trip, I'd already been 600 miles from the north pole and it's a miserable voyage to the south.

 

I tell my kids I was looking for a great conversation and never found one......

 

I have always been a loner, which is why a career at sea appealed to me. People are just not interested in what I am. Having learned to wash my hands in acid harmlessly when I was 22 because I had "faith", and knowing the difference because I did it without faith, too, and burned my hands badly, I have always had a strong mystical inclination. I won't go into what I have studied in my 27 years at sea here. Quite a list.....

 

At 24, I had an epiphany resulting from my studies looking to increase my faith.......long story, but since then I have lived in the world of light. I see my world being wonderfully created for me in response to my endeavors and desires..I see probability densities acting on my behalf in a totally improbable way. The odds don't fit.....LOTS of things everyone would agree were miracles.

 

Just expecting your arm to end up where you want it when you move it is totally improbable. Why the hell should it do that if all we have for each particle is probability densities based upon previous evolution?

 

I love the quantum world because I see what I see there, too. I understand what we experience and why QM works, and have since I was 24. I totally understand superposition. I have no conflict with dual particle/wave properties. I can see why. I just have never been able to put forth the math that explains it. Still can't, that. The answer is simple, but requires a spiritual belief.

 

Do you brush your teeth regularly?

 

Religiously?

 

If so, you have religion. To me, "religion" has nothing to do with spirituality and the wonder of the world. It is merely what we do, or don't do, for our own health and the health of our communities based upon the wisdom of our ancestors.

 

Spirituality, to me, is in taking the time to love our Greater Self. Although all our lives are constantly miraculous, 99% never see it. Spirituality allows one to see, and enter, a far more miraculous life: the life of the great spiritual teachers and founders of faiths..

 

Since my epiphany, I have lived in that extraordinary world that is created just for each of us.

 

So, I don't care if you are religious, because I know you are. You might not know it, but I do. Absolutely everyone is.

 

My question is, are you a spiritual person?

 

If so, how can you possibly believe in a BB and accelerating expanding universe.?

 

I am not trying to be confrontational here. I am looking for intelligent conversation with...............well,anyone.

 

I've looked in over 50 countries.

 

If you would like to understand where I am coming from better, Google captcass and look for the symbol of unity site.

 

If you would like further discussion on those things we will have to find another forum, I guess, but I always enjoy that..

 

 

 

[Strange]

Since Hubble, we have been making things fit, even though they lead to ridiculous conclusions.

 

 

Actually, since before Hubble. I am fairly sure that Lemaire had worked out the theory, found that the data matched and published an initial estimate of what we now call the Hubble constant a couple of years before Hubble published his results.

 

Also, red-shifts are one of the least compelling bits of evidence for expansion.

 

It was the detection of the CMB that was the final nail in the coffin of steady state theories. How are you going to explain the CMB?

 

 

If so, how can you possibly believe in a BB and accelerating expanding universe.?

 

It is the best model that fits all the evidence.

 

Many smart people over the past nearly a century have attempted (and are still attempting) to find alternative models.

 

But GR just seems to work so well. It seems very unlikely it is totally wrong. Therefore you seem to be suggesting a finely balanced universe where "something" prevents expansion but something else produces all the evidence consistent with expansion. How can you believe that?

[ajb]

...but I like to know something about who I am speaking to.

There is an introduce yourself thread - http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75313-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/

 

Otherwise, trying to bring your qualifications into the discussion is usually rather off topic and not helpful.

[michel123456]

 

 

Actually, since before Hubble. I am fairly sure that Lemaire had worked out the theory, found that the data matched and published an initial estimate of what we now call the Hubble constant a couple of years before Hubble published his results.

 

Also, red-shifts are one of the least compelling bits of evidence for expansion.

 

It was the detection of the CMB that was the final nail in the coffin of steady state theories. How are you going to explain the CMB?

 

 

It is the best model that fits all the evidence.

 

Many smart people over the past nearly a century have attempted (and are still attempting) to find alternative models.

 

But GR just seems to work so well. It seems very unlikely it is totally wrong. Therefore you seem to be suggesting a finely balanced universe where "something" prevents expansion but something else produces all the evidence consistent with expansion. How can you believe that?

Lemaître

[ajb]

Lemaître

That's the guy...

 

Also in the direction we should meantion Friedmann

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann

[captcass]

I can't explain why those things seem to indicate the BB and expansion. I understand the evidence and why it so strongly indicates that. As I said, I used to accept it until we got to the accelerating expansion.

I believe if we can put the expansion to bed, we will find other reasons for the CMB, etc. We do pretty well at making things fit......

[Mordred]

Well you may not agree with it but here is a seperate study that helps fine tune Hubble constant.

 

The Sloan sky survey detailed below uses Baryon accoustic oscillations,monte carlo and the Sache Wolfe effect. Coupled with a huge sky survey to measure expansion.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03155&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi_v4vg75HOAhUQ-GMKHb1KD1MQFggTMAE&sig2=J_pdZqmUqGB2rkvIUQFNlA&usg=AFQjCNGH9zH2298XtMkhQM70NPSEqkuE-A

 

this is one study that does not rely upon CMB. It also focuses on looking for redshift distortions.

 

One thing to note this study is more focussed on our local region. The paper greatly restricts the alternative F ® gravity model alternative.

 

Its also a recent study

Edited July 26, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Thanks. That will take some time to read through.

[captcass]

I've worked through derivations for several frames at each end and in the middle and think I might have discovered how the effect is manifested and that I was correct about it being related to the length of a meter. I am seeing the relationships in the rate of change between frames. I am going to finish all the derivations and plot them out and see if it holds true.

[captcass]

The Hubble shift derivation definitely doesn't work at closer distances. Derivations based on both distortions in time and space give a constant of z = 2.72, even at closer distances, which does not agree with observations. There has to be another effect contributing to the shift. I will be revising the paper shortly while I go back to the drawing board.

Thanks to all for their time and consideration.

[Mordred]

I assume your talking about your own formulation by Hubble shift doesn't work.

 

This is where you might want to study Hubble expansion in some detail. Its not constant... I believe on this thread Ive already discussed that.

[captcass]

Thanks. I've studied the Hubble expansion and understand how the thermodynamics of the CMB fit. The conclusions, however, are nonsensical so there must another explanation. That is what I am looking for, as are many others.

I definitely found an effect that changes over distance, but the change is very small until the distance gets fairly small, too close.

I haven't given up. I'm looking for another effect. Today I am looking at the CMB.......turning things around in my mind.

Thought for the day, Time is faster with altitude but the difference in the rates decreases with distance until, at infinity, the rates of time equalize again. This means the fastest relative time is just outside your skin above your head.......

[michel123456]

Thanks. I've studied the Hubble expansion and understand how the thermodynamics of the CMB fit. The conclusions, however, are nonsensical so there must another explanation. That is what I am looking for, as are many others.

I definitely found an effect that changes over distance, but the change is very small until the distance gets fairly small, too close.

I haven't given up. I'm looking for another effect. Today I am looking at the CMB.......turning things around in my mind.

Thought for the day, Time is faster with altitude but the difference in the rates decreases with distance until, at infinity, the rates of time equalize again. This means the fastest relative time is just outside your skin above your head.......

I have been reprimanded for asking this question again and again so it would be nice if you could give some reference for this. (the bold part)

 

Does that mean that time dilation is an effect where time is always observed as slowing down and never getting faster?

To me it is a fundamental question because in many explanations of time dilation (especially on graphics representations but almost everywhere), when an object travels back to Earth, it is observed as if time was speeding up. If it can be proved that this observation is not possible, then many explanations collapse.

Thank you.

[captcass]

Time goes faster with altitude, but does so at a slower rate the higher one goes until the rates of time equalize again at 1 s/s at infinity.

At 17 Gly the difference in the rates is in the 10^-12 order, while nearby it is in the 10^-10 range. Thus time is relatively faster close to us.

 

This is a real head twister. Traveling down the gradient from a distance, time appears to be going faster until it suddenly drops off at the end to be slower than all the reference frames above in our own inertial frame. The closer frames have a higher difference in the rate, so they appear to be faster than both distant frames and our own inertial frame.

Thus to the observer on Earth, time seems to be going faster as the reference frames get closer to the Earth until it suddenly drops off to be slower than all elevated frames above.

 

There is no sudden drop off at the infinity end. Time just keeps gradually slowing until the rates equalize.

 

As I am seeing it, to an outside observer at an equilateral distance from both the Earth and the infinite point , the rate of time seems to be the same both on the Earth and at infinity (not another body, just an infinite point). From both the Earth and infinity the rate of time increases with distance, but at a slower rate as altitude increases. From a point midway between infinity and the Earth, the outside observer would see time slowing in both directions as the distance to both the Earth and the infinite point decreases, making the midpoint the fastest rate of time for the outside observer. Time would seem to slow as both infinity and the Earth are approached from the midway point.

 

The infinite point is never reached within the universe due to the other bodies. From both the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky way, the rate of time changes as above until the point between the galaxies where the relative rates equalize (the same rate of time relative to each body), but to an equilaterally placed outside observer, time would seem to slow as the center of each galaxy (gravity well) is approached.

 

I don't know if anyone has proven this from the point of view of the outside observer, but this is how it appears to be to me. Time has to appear to slow as one heads down into a gravity well.

[Strange]

At 17 Gly the difference in the rates is in the 10^-12 order, while nearby it is in the 10^-10 range. Thus time is relatively faster close to us.

 

That doesn't sound right. The CMB, which is at nearly 14 billion light years, has a Z of about 1100. In other words, the difference in clock ticks would be about a factor of 1,100.

[captcass]

You are correct if one is using a BB model and an expanding universe. I am using a static universe model where the formula for a stationary, non-rotating, body is To/Tr = Sq root ((1 - (Ro/r)) all the way to infinity. I cannot rationally accept a BB or accelerating expanding universe even though I know ll the evidence seems to indicate that and the CMB seems to fit a BB nearly perfectly. I am looking for other relativistic effects that can explain the perception of a nonexistent BB.

 

I am currently looking at the CMB and might have found an effect just yesterday that, when taken into consideration with other effects in time and space, could explain what we see. I will be working on this as time allows (no pun intended) and hope to find out shortly if it works conceptually and mathematically.

[captcass]

Hubble shift. Still working on it. What a mind-bender. Some people think time goes faster as you increase elevation, and keeps going faster and faster. It doesn't. Nearly no one states that the difference in the rates actually decreases with distance from the observer, though this is what it does, until, at infinity, 1 second apparently equals one second of the observer's time. As stated above, this would mean time is going fastest just outside your skin and drops off dramatically in you and me back to 1 sec/sec. and also gradually over distance from us until 1 s/s = 1 s/s again at infinity. .

 

Of course this makes no sense. Vodka, please!

 

This is a dual perspective problem because the observer would experience the same effects at both ends of infinity, looking back the other way in time. Great possibilities here as regards perspectives in time relationships and distance. Just flashes so far for me......

 

Let's go to some math. Let's look at the differences in the rates of time just outside the Ro (event horizon) and at infinity. Please excuse the number of decimal places, Infinity is of course not infinity, but a distance of 10^47 is used here as that seems to be enough decimal places to prove the point.

 

Infinity - (NOT):

Ro/r = (2.3632233436064572597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718904230091785651897*10^15)/(2.3632233436064572597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718904230091785651897*10^47) = 0.00000000000000000000000000000001

T_o/T_r =

0.999999999999999999999999999999995

dRt = 1 - T_o/T_r =

0.000000000000000000000000000000005

 

This is a near parity where 1 sec equals 1 sec.

At actual infinity, 1 sec = 1 sec.

 

The obverse of being extremely close to the Ro:

Ro/r = (2.3632233436064572597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718904230091785651897*10^15)/2363223343606457.2597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718914 =

0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996

T_o/T_r =

0.00000000000000000000000000000002

dRt = 1 - T_o/T_r =

0.99999999999999999999999999999998

This is almost a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time, not a 1 s per 1 sec equality

 

At Ro,

T_o/T_r = 0

dRt = 1 s/s

 

This means at the Ro the difference in the rates of time for the observer vs the the external frame (the external frame overlaying the observer's frame in superpostion) is 1 s/s and the rate of time for the observer is actually 2 s/s. This relates directly to my proposition in my theory that in a time vortex (gravity well), the update recurs nearly immediately at the rate of X*10^-65 s/s and that this equates to C² in a time vortex. The observer sees time at C refresh at C. 1 s/s becomes 2 s/s.

 

So over distance, the increased rate of the observer is reducing from 2 s/s in a gravity well to 1 s/s over infinity. Because an observer's watch always ticks at 1 s/s, double time is cut in half to the proper time of the observer on the Ro surface and the obverse of seeing time accelerate over distance to 2 s/s at infinity prevails. (I hope this makes sense- it is difficult to verbally describe).

 

Beyond infinity, time continues to slow until events simply disappear. They are red shifted beyond detection. Time does not stop, events simply disappear as time between events passes and the difference in time increases. I am very strongly considering that apparent distance is related to the separation of events in time.....primarily distance in time, not space.

 

We see all objects at distance accelerating away from us at greater speeds the greater the distance; the rising loaf of bread with raisins embedded in it.... This is equal in all directions.

 

This is not a true analogy. Imagine observers at all points around a sphere of infinity looking in at us. We would appear to be accelerating away from all of them at increasing speeds. If one says this is because they are all accelerating away from us equally according to their distance, then we are at the center of the universe, because their acceleration is related directly to distance from us, no matter the direction. The raisins in a rising loaf do not accelerate away form each other equally. They do so according to their distance and relative position from the center of the initial piece of dough. Raisins on the same plane but opposite sides from the center should accelerate away from each other twice as fast as objects on the same plane on the same side of the center. They do so relative to their initial positions within the loaf before it rises. This means we should be able to locate the origin of the BB, but we can't because all objects appear to be accelerating away from us equally in all directions directly in relation to their distance, which is directly related to how far back in time we see them. Soooooo many possibilities here.......

 

As for the Hubble shift, it plots out as a combination of the two perspectives, but describing that mathematically remains elusive. My children will probably commit me....

 

 

Because this is a dual perspective problem, an event originating in another gravity well is originating at a rate of time of 2 s/s in its originating frame and we perceive it as occurring at 1 s/s in our own frame. Likewise, in our own 2 s/s frames, we perceive everything outside us to be occurring at slower and slower rates over distance, until they are occurring at an apparent rate of 1 s/s.

 

Vodka, please......

To clarify, a photon emitted from infinity would be emitted by an energy density (mass) that would also have a Ro and would be originating at 2 s/s and the rate of time would appear to equalize at us at infinity.