In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself.
The cosmological redshift is not due to the relative motion of galaxies. The photons redshift because of the stretching of the local spacetime through which they are traveling.
This shift is different from the Doppler effect, which is caused by the motion of the light source itself.
Apparently Hubble himself did not connect his results to the expanding universe scenario. He refers to the possibility that his observations may relate to the then discussed - now long abandoned - de Sitter static model where the Doppler shifts arise mainly from slowing down of time at large distances rather than from an expanding universe. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1424299112
Prerequisite for scientificity is not only the distinction between object and concept, but also between observation and interpretation!
Neither is space, spacetime, an object, nor is the redshift the expansion of a concept-ion;-)
Edwin Hubble. The Realm of the Nebulae. 1936:
Did he not clarified that the Doppler effect is an interpretation? But he not mentioned also, if this interpretation should be wrong, it would be a so far undiscovered principle of nature? And for the sake of simplicity the velocity scale would be usable? The adjective "apparently" would always implicitly attached to the "velocity interpretation"? Like this?
Neither is space, spacetime, an object, nor is the redshift the expansion of a concept-ion;-)
Edwin Hubble. The Realm of the Nebulae. 1936:
Did he not clarified that the Doppler effect is an interpretation? But he not mentioned also, if this interpretation should be wrong, it would be a so far undiscovered principle of nature? And for the sake of simplicity the velocity scale would be usable? The adjective "apparently" would always implicitly attached to the "velocity interpretation"? Like this?
Distant galactic clusters are not moving away from us, space is simply expanding between them and us.
Space is somehow 'growing' in between galactic clusters without the clusters themselves actually moving!
There is "real movement" and "apparent movement".
"Real movement" corresponds to the fact that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are on a collision course due to their mutual gravitational attraction.
"Apparent movement" corresponds to the fact that the distances between distant points in the Universe are increasing.
Last edited:
It would be inaccurate to consider that the expansion of the universe has a "velocity".
The expansion doesn't have a speed; it has a speed per unit distance which is equivalent to an inverse time. (v = d/t, so v/d = 1/t).
The expansion rate of the universe is 70 km/s/pc (kilometres per second per parsec).
If you take the inverse of the expansion rate, you can calculate the "time" of the expansion of the Universe. The answer is approximately 13.8 billion years, which just happens to be the age of the Universe.
Not sure about that. I do see him donning the holy prophet robe of different/relative religion.
He's ignorant of science and proud of it. This website is full of engineers and our daily bread is science.
Religion is 100% BS for morons. He's a certifiable moron.
Religion is 100% BS for morons. He's a certifiable moron.
Oh well, this thread was interesting while it lasted!
I can only contribute from the perspective of the science I was taught.
Discussions on alternative science or pseudoscience are of little interest to me.
I can only contribute from the perspective of the science I was taught.
Discussions on alternative science or pseudoscience are of little interest to me.
You are running out of arguments;-)-;
You don't even know large parts of the discourse, like Edwin Hubble's further observations and criticism of the expanding universe;-)-;
There is nothing wrong with not recognizing concepts, for example. Our "imagination in pictures", for example, also stands in the way of this, which are equal to a "reification". For example, it took generations, that some had understand the zero in the decimal system. Or "money". Or "law": "King of the Franks" versus "King of France". And and and. And also you are not alone: also for example Einstein and Hawkins and Feynman had visualized, reified concepts;-)-;
You don't even know large parts of the discourse, like Edwin Hubble's further observations and criticism of the expanding universe;-)-;
There is nothing wrong with not recognizing concepts, for example. Our "imagination in pictures", for example, also stands in the way of this, which are equal to a "reification". For example, it took generations, that some had understand the zero in the decimal system. Or "money". Or "law": "King of the Franks" versus "King of France". And and and. And also you are not alone: also for example Einstein and Hawkins and Feynman had visualized, reified concepts;-)-;
This thread does not have a "ghost" of a chance of continuing.
What do you think Fast Eddie D? 😉
What do you think Fast Eddie D? 😉
An extract only!
The light of Andromeda is blue-shifted in observation. Already a "real movement" towards each other is an assumption; all further conceivable causes for a blue shift would have to be excluded for all time;-) A "collision course" is a complete overstretch of interpretation;-)
So this is not even elementary school level!
The fact that the Doppler effect is a real thing is not at all under discussion here. It is for discussion whether it is the sole cause for the observed redshift of many galaxies and "quasars"-) Also you hang beside the track;-)
Here a little discussion material:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25323369.pdf
"This thread does not have a "ghost" of a chance of continuing."
Entertainment value is keeping it alive.
I have a morbid fascination with ignorant superstitious beliefs.
I the jungle when nobody was around god was your friend. On the verge of powering up your newly made amplifier for the first time god was your friend. Idea is the more you get in those situations the more superstitious you became. Scientists are intelligent people why will the upset a being that in theory can mess up their work and them.
The Doppler effect is not the "sole cause" of the galactic redshift - it is not the cause at all! 🙄
There are two possible ways to explain the redshift of distant galaxies.
One is that atoms are different everywhere in the Universe, and virtually all of them emit light with longer wavelengths than those in our galaxy.
The other possibility is that something happened to the light on its journey from the galaxies to our telescopes that caused the wavelengths to increase.
If the redshift is due to the expansion of the Universe, then we can predict that light from the most distant galaxies should have the biggest redshifts, because the light has been travelling for longer, meaning that space will have stretched more.
This prediction is increasingly borne out as our observational data sets become larger.
Note that here we are talking about cosmological redshift, whereas the blueshift of Andromeda is caused by the Doppler effect.
(My thanks to "Universal" by Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw from which I've freely quoted.)
No one picked up on my error! That should be 70 km/s/Mpc (kilometres per second per megaparsec).
Today, space is expanding such that two objects that are 1 megaparsec apart are receding from each other at an apparent speed of 70 km/s.
This means that objects that are 2 megaparsecs apart are currently receding from each other at a rate of 140 km/s, and so on.
(A parsec is approximately 30.9 trilion kilometres or 19.2 trillion miles.)
I should get a life! 😉
You know... YOU ALL NEED TO READ THOMAS KUHN
Gestalt ( how a priori bias affects the interpretation of perception )
Paradigm ( a priori bias )
Paradigm shifts ( how science advances via revolutionary steps ).
As I read all of your recent posts, I wonder why don't you guys at least read a little bit about The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.
Take a brief break in posting and read.... because right now you are proving Kuhn's observations.
For one thing, you all could use a common language to argue the concepts of science. You all are using different terms and spending lots of energy fighting over them.
The bottom line is we don't know much about the cosmos... so let's realize that having people with a bone ( financial, academic ego, etc... ) in the current cosmological paradigm will always react to a different paradigm not very kindly. Indeed they will engage in ridicule.
Gestalt ( how a priori bias affects the interpretation of perception )
Paradigm ( a priori bias )
Paradigm shifts ( how science advances via revolutionary steps ).
As I read all of your recent posts, I wonder why don't you guys at least read a little bit about The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.
Take a brief break in posting and read.... because right now you are proving Kuhn's observations.
For one thing, you all could use a common language to argue the concepts of science. You all are using different terms and spending lots of energy fighting over them.
The bottom line is we don't know much about the cosmos... so let's realize that having people with a bone ( financial, academic ego, etc... ) in the current cosmological paradigm will always react to a different paradigm not very kindly. Indeed they will engage in ridicule.
Kuhn thought that science was mainly about theory, but an increasing amount of cutting-edge scientific research is data driven.
The role of the data scientist has been dubbed the “sexiest job of the 21st century” and data science the "fourth paradigm" of science.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/four...:,fourth paradigm - powered by data science.
The role of the data scientist has been dubbed the “sexiest job of the 21st century” and data science the "fourth paradigm" of science.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/four...:,fourth paradigm - powered by data science.