G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Deep field images show a clustering effect. Galaxies tend to merge in their evolution. Yes there is monster jets that are found in clusters of galaxies that eject matter out in huge amounts creating and triggering new star formation and in turn evolving dwarf galaxies that merge to form larger galaxies.

The expansion of the universe is not actual, But! spacetime expansion. 

G'day from the land of ozzz

Dusty said

 No, matter is not expanding.  It's only on the very macro level. 

Give the science explanation.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Hello Dusty, I think you read my text our of context.

I did not say that the universe is expanding at subatomic.

Although this process apllies to BBN and the matter and enery that is ejected from the centre of compact objects.

Also the red shift is in dispute because of the lack of understanding of the objects that create a flow of EMR from the source.

G'day Dusty

What type of expansion are you talking about? 

On the macro scale there is no expansion as a total universe.

On a micro scale there is no expansion as a total universe.

===================================

As for the ability to expand as a process via jets, thats normal.

As for expansion on Micro scale, degenerate matter found in compact object when ejected such as Neutron matter, quark matter and so on reforms and expands into atoms.

I am talking about the expansion of the universe that we all live in.

Here is something to think about: Imagine the biggest Black Hole, so BIG that averything that can be seen recites inside that Black Hole, including other Black Holes. This gigantic Black Hole will be the one thats Expanding and the so called Dark Energy is the one that recites outside of that Black Hole. All else constitute empty Space but not so empty cause there are others Gigantic Black Holes that contain the same fabrics as our views of the Cosmo that is to say that everything is constantly reproducing from the very small to the very large. Our universe therefore, is being influnce from all directions but at the same time is being held by the same forces acting upon one another. All are keeping things in their respective places instead of random choas. To understand these ideas you need to expand your mind.....................................................................................

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Dusty

If we are living in an expanding universe.

Tell me what do you see that is expanding? Its not our Milky way, its not the local group of galaxies that M87 is the centre of, its not the cluster of groups of galaxies and its not the cluster of clusters of galaxies. Observations rule out any hyperthetical theory. The expansion that you talk about is spacetime and not actual distance.

Hello Fluflu

Good imagination.

The largest so called black holes are compact bodies that live in the centre of galaxy clusters. The largest being about 20 billion Sun masses. From these giant jet stream eject matter that is able to reform galaxies far far way in other galaxies.

 Thes can can google for.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Science is always questioning.

I posted this link before, it maybe of interest.

Fluflu, it's great to imagine things. Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge.

Nevertheless, imagination should lead us to something that agrees with known observations and data, not just in any direction we can cleverly imagine. For myself, it isn't difficult to imagine hundreds of could be scenarios, but that doesn't do anyone much good, other than myself.

Imagination is what first led me to think about an alternative cosmology. At first, the idea wasn't too good, according to what is known about the universe. After a lot of work, I was able to hone it into something that agreed with the data as much as BB theory does, if not better.This isn't to say it is THE answer, as we just don't have enough observational data to clearly agree on this yet. It's just another answer.

Now if you can show how your idea fits with what we see, fantastic. I wish you luck with it. 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This may be of interest

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4169
No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data

Authors: David F. Crawford
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

Abstract: Gamma-Ray Bursts have been observed out to very high redshifts and provide time measures that are directly related to intrinsic time scales of the burst. Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. Thus gamma-ray burst measures should show a time dilation proportional to redshift. An analysis of gamma-ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is rejected with a probability of 4.4$\times10^{-6}$ for redshifts out to z=6.6. Traditionally the lack of an apparent time dilation has been explained by an inverse correlation between luminosity and time measures together with strong luminosity selection as a function of redshift. It is shown that the inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures is confirmed, but using concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selection, some luminosity evolution and some time measure evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in order to produce the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

At the and of the day, I do not get emotional over which theory is correct. So I read to find what scientific evidence best supports what ever model.

It is generally understood Harry, that it is spacetime that is expanding.  Now while our local galaxies are not expanding away from each other, as they are gravitationally bound, on the larger scales spacetime is expanding.  This you agree with? 

Now, if spacetime is expanding and we are all part of the universe.  (Galaxies that is) (Have you ever seen the expanding mesh example with little points on the mesh, and when the mesh is expanded by people pulling on it from it's sides, the little dots get further apart.) how can you reconcile this fact and yet say that galaxies are not getting further and further apart on the larger scales?  How can you reconcile an expansion and growth of spacetime without an increase in distance of the objects residing within spacetime?

How can you reconcile that while the local galaxies that are getting closer to each other and show a blueshift in the light spectrum, the more distant galaxies are showing a red shift, which means that they are receding from us?  

First there is no such a thing as SpaceTime as far as Space itself is concerned. Space is an entity that has no dimensions and has to time cause it had no beggining and it has no end or ending. Science gets somehow confuse with what is Space and what is Time. Time only exist where elements and particle exist these includes all things that are observable within our reach of Space. Some hold to the idea that Space bends or that is warp that is totally false, what is warping or bending are the particles and elements which are occupying Space when these are interacting with one another along with other events. Again Space is not created nor can it be created, it has no Time --- it cannot be measure, you can only measure the objects that occupied Space from one point to another. You can't do that with Space cause there is no starting point or ending point. Another mistery about Space is that it has no Dimensions but it supports all others. To conclude you must think of all the things that SPACE IS NOT to find what Space is.

fluflu:

First there is no such a thing as SpaceTime as far as Space itself is concerned.

That is inconsistent with General Relativity, which has been confirmed repeatedly by experiment and observation.

Space is an entity that has no dimensions

Since we exist in space, and observe at least three dimensions, then your statement is inconsistent with what we perceive as reality.

and has to time cause it had no beggining and it has no end or ending.

There certainly are those who will agree, and disagree, with that. Plenty of room for discussion on that point.

Science gets somehow confuse with what is Space and what is Time.

Not really, not since Einstein and the adoption of relativity as our worldview. In that worldview, space and time are linked. There is plenty of agreement on that point, and, again, it's been confirmed by experiment and observation.

... Some hold to the idea that Space bends or that is warp that is totally false ...

No, once again it has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment and observation. If you want some interesting reading along those lines, Google "frame-dragging" and "gravitational lensing" ...

... what is warping or bending are the particles and elements which are occupying Space when these are interacting with one another along with other events.

Can you cite a published and refereed reference for the above? As far as I'm aware, we have never observed matter warping or bending. However, there is the idea that this sort of thing happens near singularities (which have not themselves been observed directly, though they are believed to exist beyond event horizons). For interesting reading about the stretching of matter at event horizons near singularities, read Neil de Grasse Tyson's Death By Black Hole or Kip Thorne's Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein's Greatest Legacy.

It is totally okay to disagree with these points. I'm just pointing out to you that you're swimming against the (considerable) mainstream tide if you do.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Fluflu may have a point. The point being that time has no identity.

Hello dusty, what you say is main stream thinking and I'm well awear of the logic. The problem i have is that when we observe the super clusters they have clustering and that the ajoining super clusters are bound by gravity. As for redshift data the errors within cannot explain the intrinsic properties of compact bodies. This will not be resolved for a number of years and to rely on the data to say it is evidence for expansion or acceleration is a mistake in science.

and

G'day from the land of ozzz

Science is an ongoing journey.

Although the originating point of many of the Gamma ray bursts are from distant locations, this does not mean that the gamma rays have stayed in their original form all throughout their travels.  And now they have satelites that can quickly turn and see where these gama ray bursts have come from, and yes the light from these explosions is redshifted, so your information is out of date. 

In regards to these giant galactic jets that you speak of that supposedly produce other more distant galaxies, can you provide us with some pictures perhaps from the Hubble that show such processes happening?  I've never seen this.  I'm not denying that jets exist, but I've never heard of such powerful ones that can create other galaxies, or seen them. 

If you don't except redshift as an explanation, then do you also ignore blueshift as well?  (that some galaxies are actually getting closer to us)

If the universe is not expanding, (say that it is at a standstill) and I'm sure that you accept gravity as a force, then what is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself? 

Constant movement is keeping keeping the Universe from not collapsing in on itself. MOVEMENT had not been given is due place in physics and in cosmology. Movement is something that is attached to Gravity these two go hand in hand and keeps our planetary system in checked from not running away in all directions or flying into the sun. All of these bobies are acting upon one another and their rotations and evolutions all equal movements that compliments gravity or vise versa.