HI Folks,

There have been some very good points made for both expansion and static models,  and so far this thread has been very interesting,

It has been observed that galaxies do cluster and, are gravitationally bound to each other, yet Hubble's discovery of red shifted shifted galaxies show that if the red shift interpretations are correct, then the further we look out in space the the more the objects are red-shifted and the faster they are moving away form us.

Since Hubble's discovery of redshifts of far away galaxies , if we were to observe today the same far away galaxies as Hubble did, shouldn't these galaxies show more of a redshift than was first previously measured? after all it has been a long time since he measured some of the redshifts.

Has anyone gone back and re-measured those galaxies and compared the data from Hubble's original spectral analysis, to see if the expansion is continuing?

Doesn't logic dictate that the galaxies with the largest redshifts are moving even faster now than when Hubble fist observed them? if so, then shouldn't we see that these red shifts have increased since Hubble's discovery way back in the early 1900's?

I believe that in order to settle the expansion question, we need a long term analysis and comparison of the farthest Galaxies that we can detect, record their redshifts and then re-examine their redshift values. If the expansion is continuing, we should see a difference in the redshifts, given enough time. if these values ares still the same many years later, then clearly something is wrong with our interpretations of the Hubble Redshift.

Sometimes I can't help but to think that the Universe as a whole, is creating the illusion of expansion at larger distances, or that gravity wells evenly distributed throughout the Universe are pulling objects in many different directions which gives the illusion of expansion,  yet at closer distance scales, we see galaxies clustering together and the space between them is not expanding. which is sort of contradictory isn't it?

I can't seem to wrap my mind around the simple logic, that if space is expanding and gravity permeates thru the Universe, then all space should see that same expansion evenly across the whole Universe.

Could it just be that unseen gravity wells well outside our local group are pulling these galaxies into other clusters?

The only way I can think of verifying that our expansion interpretations are correct is with the passing of time and increased redshift values of previously measured galaxies.

Any other Ideas?

Dennis

What the General Relativity has done is to confirmed observable matter and under experiment of the same. It cannot be applied to SPACE and does not applied. An experiment can't be performed to demonstrate the existence of SPACE. The invisible occupies SPACE not the other way around.This theory is more concerned with the working of the Universe but has anyone thought about the MASS of SPACE, the formula E = mc(2sqare) can't be applied to Space. If under experimental conditions Space is created then I will agree with Einstein and his Relativity but since there is only ONE SPACE no experiment and no observation can CREATED it. You as well as science are wrong and unable to see it yet you know that Space is there but you want to give it the life that it does not have, so the only thing left is to falsely tried to proved that is made of some particle which at the same time is expanding creating more space and creating the termed SPACETIME. One day you will find that I'm more than correct, SPACE is something that I had study for many years, putting it off and going back again. Science has moved in the wrong direction as far as SPACE is concerned.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

It is redshift data that's under question.

We need to research and understand the intrinsic properties of compact bodies. Such as Jets from compact bodies that seem to be moving away but in fact its their intrinsic property.

Harry,

What about the blueshift data, is that in question also?

I would still like to see the pictures of those jets that are creating other galaxies, and why do you believe that space/time is expanding?  The expansion of the universe is based on the doppler effect on the light spectrum. (red shift)  It is how we assume the speeds at which distant galaxies are receding from us.  It is also the reason behind the statement that space/time is expanding.

If you disagree with the whole doppler thing regarding light,  (I am assuming that you don't agree with blue shift either, and that galaxies are getting further away or closer.) then why do you accept the idea that space/time is expanding, and what proof are you using for it's growth? 

Dennis,

Exactly what are the good points for a static universe?

Hubble's equipment was not as good as the equipment we have today, so he didn't see as far as we can.  The Hubble expansion rate is considered to increase at about 1/140th of a percent per million years, so in about 130 million years they would increase their rate by about 1%.  For the close galaxies that Hubble saw, this increase is too small to measure, but perhaps with a bit more time and better equipment, we could measure this with the far distant galaxies that we are now seeing today.

fluflu, you are correct that the universe is in motion, but it is not a rotational motion that is keeping the galaxies apart.  Picture this.  A rope attached to a bucket of water.  You swing the bucket by the rope and the water stays in.  The bucket is almost straight out in front of you.  Now try and put the bucket over your head upside down while still turning.  You will get wet because the centrifugal force is not active in that position.  If the universe were spinning, it would flatten out due to a loss of centrifugal force except for in the plane of rotation.  We do not see this, but instead we see galaxies everywhere, all around us.  The motion therefore that is keeping the galaxies apart, is the motion of expansion.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Spacetime is not expanding?

The BBT asks for spacetime to expand plus alot of other ad hoc ideas to make it work.

Fluflu your close to reality.

 As for jets

News Release - heic0817: Hubble sees magnetic monster in erupting galaxy

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0817.html

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7471

 Galactic Black Hole Fires a Jet at a Nearby Neighbour

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/17/galactic-black-hole-fires-a-jet-at-a-nearby-neighbour/

If you are interested in more images let me know.

Dusty,

One good point of a static Universe would be,  While there may have been a beginning, there will be no end to our visible Universe's existence,  the furthest galaxies we can see, would not get scattered away into infinite distances.

Also a static Universe could be a lot older than we could ever imagine, thus there is more of a chance for life to take hold somewhere else besides here on Earth.

As far as the current expansion rate  I believe the current results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc). If the WMAP data is added with other cosmological data, then the best estimate is 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc, give or take 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc).

These results assume that the universe is spatially flat, which is consistent with all available data. However, if we do not make this assumption, the uncertainty in the Hubble constant increases to 4 (km/sec)/Mpc, or slightly over 5%.

Cepheid variables are the std candles we use to calibrate distances, but we now also know that we are peering through intergalactic dust, lets now make the situation more complex,  with the addition of dark matter, that is the only logical conclusion for what is observed other than MOND.  Dr. Vera Rubin's work shows this very well it's a wake up call.

So besides the normal dust, we have dark matter to peer through, along with molecular interstellar dust clouds, now add the paradox of the Two farthest space probes that we have, that showed they have actually slowed down after leaving our local solar system, what forces are they running into that we cannot see? it's contrary to what we expected.

If dark matter exists, which we believe we have now finally directly observed dark matter, from the Bullet Cluster Collision observations, (Strange Halos have been observed separating from the collision and its host galaxies),  Dark matter also effects gravity, we see this in Dr. Vera Rubin's rotational Curves, we know gravity effects light, so how does dark matter effect the photon? 

This may be the mechanism that could be skewing the Doppler Red_shifts  but only at very large scales, in other words as we peer further away into deep space, we are looking through even more unseen dark matter.

The Bullet Cluster observations seem to imply that dark matter can be separated from its host Galaxy. So why couldn't the vast voids between the furthest galaxies from us, be filled with even more dark matter from past collisions?

Could it be this simple? Until we know more about dark matter and its interaction with the Photon at vast distances, and what is going on with orbital speeds of stars that surround their host galaxies, we may never know for sure.

We are on the right track, we must keep questioning the std model, with other hypothesis. 

Dennis

G'day from the land of ozzz

Giant jets

 http://chandra.harvard.edu/search_results.html?cx=008640298979322525961%3Arpcb8voz8ci&q=giant+jets&client=google-coop-np&cof=FORID%3A11#1430

 ====================================

Through out history people were held back because of existing assumptions and coontrols. The BBT is hypertheical built on ad hoc ideas that observations cannot back up. So why is that people have assumed the BBT to be a fact, than calculate to age the universe without the understandings of its working parts.

Know this, in deep field images 13.2 billion light years away we observe about 100 billion galaxies, knowing the complexity and the billions of stars that make up one galaxy, you would think that modern scientists would come up with a stronger theory than the BBT. Behind the scenes there are many scientist working extremely hard in trying to understand the working parts. The BBT backed up by the church and politics has restricted funds to only the BBT projects making it the standard model. Whre scientist researched alternative models they were removed from the project and their working place.

Dennis,

What is meant by static is that the universe has always been here.  It is essentially never changing.  It would be infinitly old.  If this is true and it is not expanding then why hasn't gravity taken hold and pulled everything all together by now?

Dark matter is invisible.  There is nothing to look through, other than the warped spacetime that it resides in.  If you can't except redshift readings, then you shouldn't accept blueshift readings either.

You and I are obviously looking at the Hubble Constant through different perspectives and I don't have time to examine your calculations right now, but suffice it to say we cannot see an increase in Galaxy expansion in only 80 years time with just the galaxies nearby.  If you can find a different answer to your own question however then please share it.

Harry, thank you for the pictures.  I don't see any jets creating whole new galaxies though.  I will address this issue further at a later time, when I have more of it.  Thank you though. 

Harry Costas : Good morning from the land of Humpty Dumpty. I do agree with the idea that galaxies are built from the thing they call a black hole in the center of galaxies. However both sides of this conversation have good points.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Primordial you are right and that's life.

Hello dusty.

Research more on the influence of giant jets and how they expand and alter their surroundings for millions of light years than you will begin to understand that the end is not in a black hole.

G'day dusty

There is no problem with jet formatiion small or large or huge or mega huge.

You need to research and read more so that you can understand their full potential.

There are various forms of jets and their locations vary.

The biggest mistake I made many years ago, was to think that I knew about star formation galaxy evolution the so called black holes and jet formation. One of my teachers said read this and that, by the time I realized it, I felt that the more I read the less I knew.

Dusty_Matter : Why not look at this possibility. The black holes in the center of the galaxies are an ongoing process of the building of the universe, in which case the black hole is composed of antimater and through Mr. Stephen Hawkings " Hawkings Radiation" and the existance of vertuial matter, builds the universe through the convertion of virtuial particles into real anti-matter and real matter, thus building both the galaxy and the black hole at the same time, while due to the same process the virtuial matter diminishes and buy this process developes a virtuial matter defferential pressure accross the expance of the galaxy that results in a virtuial matter flow(casmir effect), which could possibly answer the dark matter problem, and in the overall effect explain the dark energy problem as the virtuial matter becomes quantized into matter and antimatter eventualy reaching a ballance between the two forms of matter at some point in the future, however there is the possibility of an over shoot resulting in an oscillation between matter, anti-matter dominance. This is just one of such scenarios that could be the real scenario.

Harry Costas:

The BBT backed up by the church and politics has restricted funds to only the BBT projects making it the standard model. Whre scientist researched alternative models they were removed from the project and their working place.

Finally you have come out of the closet.  This statement goes a long way to explaining your boorish behaviour to and utter disdain for anyone or anything connected to the BBT theory.  This disgusting and wholly paranoid statement sums up your utter lack of understanding of the scientific method and besmirches the intellegence and integrity of the entire scientific community.

Do us all a favor and refrain from posting this type of drivel in the future.

L

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Leo is a prime example of what science is not.

He is part of history, Galileo found many of the same.

Science is a journey sometimes on the right path sometimes on the wrong path. To feel right is not the point to prove right is. 

There are many scientists out there that work on topics and never get credit for because of the status quo, the standard thinking, the religious overtones and so on.

So when you read a paper, look at the science. 

Harry, I resent your religous sniping.  While your silly recycling arguments have become boring, your attacks on other members belief systems are absolutely offensive and have no place in these forums.

zachsdad:

Harry, I resent your religous sniping.  While your silly recycling arguments have become boring, your attacks on other members belief systems are absolutely offensive and have no place in these forums.

I agree 100%, so therefore I am locking this thread. Harry has been warned by more than one moderator, and the administration of this forum, and I will lock any thread that he continues in this fashion.

 After discussions with the original poster, and the forum administration. We've decided to unlock this thread. Please keep discussions on topic, as any attack on another member, or their beliefs will result in this thread being locked permanently.

Thanks Kevin.

I personally believe in no religion, and all religions at the same time. It stems from my own belief in an ambiguous reality that gives rise to paradox and mystery and a complete inability of the limited human mind to come to terms with all of it.

While I wouldn't expect anyone else to subscribe to my personal beliefs, which I understand are uniquely my own, I certainly respect everyone's right to believe as they see fit. 

Beyond religious belief, it is clear that most people hold very rigidly to one viewpoint or another for a variety of reasons, when it comes to the creation or existence of the universe. If this post has shown anything, it is the fact that we are not going to agree on these viewpoints, no matter what is said.

 It seems best to just enjoy each point of view for what it is: a point of view. 

Best wishes,

Mick Malkemus