# Expansion of Light Waves verses Expansion of Space

• March 6th, 2007, 05:46 AM
Mike NS
Expansion of Light Waves verses Expansion of Space
Expansion of Lightwaves verses the Expansion of Space

Since I am supporting the former, I decided to try and establish a 'distance' relation to the EoLWs. Since the SSU is based on a flat Euclidean space, that is what I will use.
My first attempt to do this is by using the HDFN as a measure for the EoLWs.
The 'data' on this field is that the most distant objects were determined to have redshifts (RS) of 6+.
So I decided to use M87 in the Virgo Cluster as a model for establishing a distance if placed at the distance of the tiny specks that would have RSs of about 6.

M87 is measured to be at a distance of 16.7 megaparsecs or 54^6 light years.
Its angular diameter is 9.7 arc minutes (Nearby Galaxies Catalog by Brent Tully).

A photo of the HDFN is in the Sky and Telescope Magazine, May 1996, page 49. The photo is equivalent to 1-1/2 arc minutes wide. So using this width in relation to the small specks, I determined that they were about one arc 'secomd' wide.
So with this data, I determined that if M87 was placed at a distance of 'one arc second', it would be at a distance of 9.7' (582") x 54^6 lys, = 31^9 lys.
Then if we give it a RS of 6, we could establish a RS distance relation by dividing 31 by 6 that establishes a distance relation for a single RS of 5.16 lys for the lightwaves.
To reduce the RS to a single LY and use yellow light that has a wavelength of
5.56^-7 meters, we can divide the wavelength by 5.16^9 lys that gives us a RS of
1^-16 meters per ly.

Now to evaluate the RSs of the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster for an evaluation.
Rather than using the M87 data as the distance candle for this RS, I and another member of our Astronomy Club used the recessional velocities (RV) of a large number of the galaxies and I used a compromise RV of 1060 kms/s/mpc. M87s
RV is 1200 kms/s/mpc. This discrepancy includes the local RV of 140 kms for M87.
1060 kms/s divided by 2.99^8 meters/s = 3.53^-3 RS actual. This is the RS at the distance of the Virgo Cluster. This is a partial RS. So we invert to get a ratio for a RS of one. That is 1/3.53^-3 = 283 portions. We multiply this by the Virgo distance of 54^6 lys and we get 15^9 lys for a RS of one or a RS of 3.7^-17 meters per ly.

Dividing the RS above for the LWs by the local Virgo RS, we get 1^-16 divided by 3.7^-17 = a ratio of 2.7 to one.

The LWs are expanding at a greater pace than the space expansion! Wow!

How do we explain this?
Well, the Malmquist Bias may be one solution since it deals with the luminosity of objects as distance candles and Arps RS Anomaly shows that light energies by the radiating objects have different RSs.
So, we can conclude then, that the distant galaxies in the HDFN are 'high energy radiating objects' that have higher than average RSs for their distances as compared to the local Virgo Cluster composed of mostly ordinary galaxies.

So this comparison supports a SSU and the EoLWs as the Cosmological RS, IMO.

NS
• March 6th, 2007, 02:57 PM
I think this is Psuedo-science....
• March 6th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Zelos
i concure
• March 6th, 2007, 04:49 PM
william
Mike,
Some quick scratches on some paper and I get this;
Using the distance you gave for the Virgo cluster (~16.7 Mpc), I get a redshift of 4.18 x 10<sup>-3</sup>. I got this using H<sub>0</sub> = 75 km s<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup>, a common value used for the Hubble constant. To match your redshift, we would need H<sub>0</sub> to be ~63. The value for H<sub>0</sub> that pops out of your numbers is not the convention... but it may be correct (the value for H<sub>0</sub> is still uncertain, only known to within a factor of two last I heard).

But, that doesn't matter too much. Basically, your conclusion applies to only one system - the Virgo cluster. You need to apply your reasoning to many distant objects. You can't do statistics on a sample of one. Doing this would lead you to the conclusion that either these "peculiar velocities" are a common thing, or only the Virgo cluster displays this unique feature, or that you made a mistake in your calculations/data analysis.

Some other pitfalls here, are for one, the distance to the Virgo cluster. This 16.7 Mpc is not as rock solid as you may think. Here is some more data on the distance to the Virgo cluster (notice the range of values and uncertainties);

Method: Distance (Mpc):
Cepheids: 14.9+/-1.2
Novae: 21.1+/-3.9
PN L-function: 15.4+/-1.1
Glob. cluster L function: 18.8+/-3.8
Surface brightness fluctuations: 15.9+/-0.9
Tully-Fisher relation: 15.8+/-1.5
D-sigma relation: 16.8+/-2.4
Type Ia SN: 19.4+/-5.0

The common accepted value is around 16 Mpc, but with this much range in values, and this much uncertainty, you are not going to overturn the big bang with your conclusions. Drawing the conclusions that you have, with this much discrepancy in the data, and only working the numbers on one cluster (Virgo), and only using one value for the distance to Virgo, is "jumping the gun" to say the least! You might try redoing your calculations using all the distances above to compare. That is the first thing a professor would say to his/her graduate student....

Furthermore,
Quote:

The LWs are expanding at a greater pace than the space expansion! Wow!
okay... I am not quite sure what an "LW" or an "EoLW" is (because I haven't been following your posts much lately...:) ), but the
Quote:

Wow!
is not really all that "wowful."

The Virgo cluster consists of about 250 large galaxies and more than 2000 smaller ones. At least seven of these galaxies display blueshifted spectral lines! Their velocities of approach overpower the receding Hubble flow. So, you see, it would not be that unusual to find a few that move faster than the Hubble flow in the direction away from us if we observe at least seven that can move fast enough toward us to display a blueshift! Indeed, that is the remarkable thing about Virgo!

In essence, I wouldn't suggest you redo your calculations with the different distances I gave, nor would I suggest that you apply your reasoning to other clusters, because there is nothing unusual about objects moving faster than the Hubble flow!

Mike, you're going to need more chalk. :wink:

Cheers,
william
• March 7th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Zelos
couldnt have said it better william. Mike the hubble movement is GENERAL all objects move more or less with it, or against
• March 7th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Mike NS
William

Brent Tully, who wrote the catalog I used as a reference has done the math using other references and provides the formulas that were used in his results.
Read his catalog. It is the most complete book on galaxies.

He also published an Atlas entitled 'Nearby Galaxies Atlas' that incudes most Clusters in our local space.

You should see and read both.

Regarding the Hubble Constant, Santage and others are still squabbling about the HC that currently is considered to be fron 88 kms/s/mpc to around 55 kms/s/mpc.
Santage relies on thr SN1a's as his primary source for this HC.

I do not give the SN1a's any credibility as distance candles because of the range of the WD's in mass and especially temperatutures.

The HDFN is the best probe in deep space and its wide range of redshifts is good enough for me in trying to establish a solution for the redshift/ distance question.

BB math is a joke in trying tp determine its size and possibly its age as well.

NS
• March 7th, 2007, 07:25 AM
Mike NS
Quote:

Originally Posted by Megabrain
I think this is Psuedo-science....

This is NOT pseudoscience because I provide figures and list sources.

NS
• March 7th, 2007, 11:29 AM
william
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike NS
William

Brent Tully, who wrote the catalog I used as a reference has done the math using other references and provides the formulas that were used in his results.
Read his catalog. It is the most complete book on galaxies.

It doesn't matter if Superman wrote the book. Everyone is limited by the same uncertainties and estimates. It's okay to use the average or standard accepted distance, but it is foolish to not also check the robustness of your results using other estimates of the distance.

Quote:

He also published an Atlas entitled 'Nearby Galaxies Atlas' that incudes most Clusters in our local space.

You should see and read both.
Brent Tully is the "Tully" in the Tully-Fisher relation.... 8)

Quote:

I do not give the SN1a's any credibility as distance candles because of the range of the WD's in mass and especially temperatutures.
Mike, Type Ia SNs all explode in the exact same way... that is why they are good standard candles. A Type Ia is when a white dwarf accretes matter from a binary until it just reaches 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), and then it explodes. They all explode at the same mass! They are indeed reliable. Does this change your feeling about them now... or will you still discredit them because it benefits you to do so?

Quote:

BB math is a joke in trying tp determine its size and possibly its age as well.
You sound frustrated....

If you continue doing calculations, you really should check the veracity of your results with all possible data instead of running with the first answer that gives you what you want. This is standard operating procedure in the sciences.

Anyway Mike, your conclusion in the original post is not that unusual and is in no way controversial. It has no bearing on big bang cosmology whatsoever. In fact, it is what one should expect.

If you really want a challenge, why don't you drop your silly errand of refuting the big bang and work on the (at least) seven galaxies in the Virgo cluster that display blueshifts....

Have a peachy day Mike, :)
william
• March 7th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Zelos
Quote:

BB math is a joke in trying tp determine its size and possibly its age as well.
if thats a joke you shouldnt go outside your door. youd kill people, all of them laughing to death seeing you hahahaha :lol:

Quote:

This is NOT pseudoscience because I provide figures and list sources.
"Im not mad im just odd"

it is pseaduscience. i can give you referenses on that dogs see 4D but we, atleast most of us do about you im not sure, that isnt true

Quote:

Mike, Type Ia SNs all explode in the exact same way... that is why they are good standard candles. A Type Ia is when a white dwarf accretes matter from a binary until it just reaches 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), and then it explodes. They all explode at the same mass! They are indeed reliable. Does this change your feeling about them now... or will you still discredit them because it benefits you to do so?
i couldnt say it better
hahahahah mike you want to be taken seriusly and dont know even this hahahaha :lol:

mike ive done some math on my own and it fits BB perfectly the distance we can see with the hubble we use today. they fit like a glove
• March 8th, 2007, 10:40 AM
Mike NS
Quote:

Originally Posted by william
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike NS
William

Brent Tully, who wrote the catalog I used as a reference has done the math using other references and provides the formulas that were used in his results.
Read his catalog. It is the most complete book on galaxies.

It doesn't matter if Superman wrote the book. Everyone is limited by the same uncertainties and estimates. It's okay to use the average or standard accepted distance, but it is foolish to not also check the robustness of your results using other estimates of the distance.

Quote:

He also published an Atlas entitled 'Nearby Galaxies Atlas' that incudes most Clusters in our local space.

You should see and read both.
Brent Tully is the "Tully" in the Tully-Fisher relation.... 8)

Quote:

I do not give the SN1a's any credibility as distance candles because of the range of the WD's in mass and especially temperatutures.
Mike, Type Ia SNs all explode in the exact same way... that is why they are good standard candles. A Type Ia is when a white dwarf accretes matter from a binary until it just reaches 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), and then it explodes. They all explode at the same mass! They are indeed reliable. Does this change your feeling about them now... or will you still discredit them because it benefits you to do so?

Quote:

BB math is a joke in trying tp determine its size and possibly its age as well.
You sound frustrated....

If you continue doing calculations, you really should check the veracity of your results with all possible data instead of running with the first answer that gives you what you want. This is standard operating procedure in the sciences.

Anyway Mike, your conclusion in the original post is not that unusual and is in no way controversial. It has no bearing on big bang cosmology whatsoever. In fact, it is what one should expect.

If you really want a challenge, why don't you drop your silly errand of refuting the big bang and work on the (at least) seven galaxies in the Virgo cluster that display blueshifts....

Have a peachy day Mike, :)
william

Will get back to you tomorrow

NS
• March 8th, 2007, 04:09 PM
Nevyn
oh no, get back? *groan*, oh well, Zelos is going to have his work cut out for him
• March 8th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Zelos
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevyn
oh no, get back? *groan*, oh well, Zelos is going to have his work cut out for him

hopefully not :twisted:
• March 8th, 2007, 04:57 PM
william
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike NS
Will get back to you tomorrow

NS

Mike,
There are many interesting unsolved (real) problems in astronomy. Why won't you turn your attention toward them and give up this fantasy of yours? Instead of trying to overturn all of science, you could apply your efforts toward something in which people may find useful.

Cheers,
wm

P.S. When are you going to get an avatar (the picture under the usernames)?
• March 9th, 2007, 04:15 AM
Zelos
Quote:

Originally Posted by william
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike NS
Will get back to you tomorrow

NS

Mike,
There are many interesting unsolved (real) problems in astronomy. Why won't you turn your attention toward them and give up this fantasy of yours? Instead of trying to overturn all of science, you could apply your efforts toward something in which people may find useful.

Cheers,
wm

P.S. When are you going to get an avatar (the picture under the usernames)?

• March 9th, 2007, 08:44 AM
Mike NS
Quote:

Originally Posted by William
3-8, 8:10 PM
It doesn't matter if Superman wrote the book. Everyone is limited by the same uncertainties and estimates. It's okay to use the average or standard accepted distance, but it is foolish to not also check the robustness of your results using other estimates of the distance.

There is only one redshift distance velocity to determine and that is the 'center' of gravity for the entire cluster and that is between M87 and the Binary M86 and M84.
This would be true for any other clusters.
Those different estimates you quoted above are irrelavent.

Quote:

:
Mike, Type Ia SNs all explode in the exact same way... that is why they are good standard candles. A Type Ia is when a white dwarf accretes matter from a binary until it just reaches 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), and then it explodes. They all explode at the same mass! They are indeed reliable. Does this change your feeling about them now... or will you still discredit them because it benefits you to do so?
Chandra's math may be accurate but that 1.44 SMs figure is probably an average for these type of SN explosions. It is ludicrous to think that those WDs explode at that exact mass level with the huge variations in temperatures.

Quote:

If you continue doing calculations, you really should check the veracity of your results with all possible data instead of running with the first answer that gives you what you want. This is standard operating procedure in the sciences.
Willi, I am a 'free thinker', not a regimented parrot for the current educational system

Quote:

Anyway Mike, your conclusion in the original post is not that unusual and is in no way controversial. It has no bearing on big bang cosmology whatsoever. In fact, it is what one should expect.

If you really want a challenge, why don't you drop your silly errand of refuting the big bang and work on the (at least) seven galaxies in the Virgo cluster that display blueshifts
It does have a bearing on BB cosmology because the BB expansion rate is 'less' than the 'expansion of the light waves (EoLW). That LW and ELW are abreviations I used.

When you use the mpc size and divide that into the HC of 75 kms/mpc/s, you get
the 'true' expansion rate of the BB that is 2.43^-18 meters per light year which is less that the 'expansion' of the light waves.
This should raise some doubts about the BB besides all the other questions.

There is no point in using the 'blue shifts or redshifts' of galaxies in any cluster. Like I said, the only real redshift for any cluster is the 'center of gravity' for that cluster.
That reduces all the galaxy data to just 'one' common denominator.

NS
• March 9th, 2007, 11:12 AM
Zelos
Quote:

Chandra's math may be accurate but that 1.44 SMs figure is probably an average for these type of SN explosions. It is ludicrous to think that those WDs explode at that exact mass level with the huge variations in temperatures.
no it isnt its been proven over and over again same mass, same exlosion every time, its like a clockwork

Quote:

Willi, I am a 'free thinker', not a regimented parrot for the current educational system
translation required once again
"I am a mad man, i dont listen to logic, sense and facts i make stuff up cause i like it and in my mad man world im allways right"

mike shut up about parroting thats not how education work this days, maybe in your time sometime in stone age but not today

Quote:

When you use the mpc size and divide that into the HC of 75 kms/mpc/s, you get
the 'true' expansion rate of the BB that is 2.43^-18 meters per light year which is less that the 'expansion' of the light waves.
This should raise some doubts about the BB besides all the other questions.
and we should take your word for anything when youre not even able to do some simple dimensional analyse? :lol:
• March 9th, 2007, 11:42 AM
william
Mike, you make no secret that you are a proponent of the steady-state universe. No matter what anyone counters you with, it becomes quite apparent that your thought processes, are also, in a steady state....

Take care,
william
• March 9th, 2007, 01:38 PM
Zelos
Quote:

Originally Posted by william
Mike, you make no secret that you are a proponent of the steady-state universe. No matter what anyone counters you with, it becomes quite apparent that your thought processes, are also, in a steady state....

Take care,
william

lets not forget the obvius part of him lacking any significan processing power ánd intelligence.
• March 10th, 2007, 09:10 AM
Mike NS
Correction

2.43^-18 should be corrected to 6^-16 meters per light year.

Still less expansion than the light waves

NS
• March 10th, 2007, 09:31 AM
Mike NS
Willi

Your idea (paradigm) to research all those different methods of evaluating the Hubble Constant has given me a idea of how to reduce these different methods to just ONE paradigm.

In all the galactic clusters, you seek out the central area where all the ellipticals are located and find the heaviest ones. Determine their velocities and masses to find the 'Center of Gravity' for that cluster. It will be an open space between the most massive ellipticals.
Than derive the recessional velocity for that cluster from that ONE point.
That point will be the recessional space velocity for all the other galaxies in that cluster.

Of course, this is just for the BB universe but it could also be applicable to the SSU.

NS