It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Devino
redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by Devino
redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.
Newton's equation looks right but what is your source for that redshift equation
Originally posted by Devino
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by Devino
redshift equation
V=mz (10=100 x 0.1) so if we increase the Velocity we can have either a greater mass or higher redshift (z). This is the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.
Newton's equation looks right but what is your source for that redshift equation
This equation is a product of our discussion here to be honest.
I was thinking about objects like QSOs, their observed 'z' value and relativity. It was after thinking about the equivalence principle that I realized velocity could be a product of mass as well as its motion.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, you sort of made it up? I see.
Originally posted by Devino
Velocity is a measure of distance over time, "Time" being a key factor here, and acceleration is a measure of the rate of increase in velocity over time, again "Time" being a key factor.
If high accelerations from either linear or rotational motion and gravity cause the effects of time dilation and length contraction then what would the opposite effects be for little or next to no acceleration?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The opposite effects of no relative velocity, are no time dilation nor length contraction, but you already knew that right?
We see quantized red shift, which means the quasars and galaxies around us formed in concentric shells with the earth being the center of the universe (obviously impossible).
Originally posted by chiron613
It may well turn out that new information will some day require the Big Bang theory to be abandoned. In fact, the information currently known may require it. At that point, a better, more complete theory will need to replace it. This new theory will need to be tested against data. It will need to make predictions that are different from what the Big Bang requires, and those predictions will need to be more accurate than what the Big Bang says. If that happens, then there is a good reason to accept the new theory as more complete.
I don't know why the Steady State theory eventually lost support.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
A plot of galaxies red shift compared to their luminosity:
Why is it *obviously* impossible? Any point in space will look like the center of the Universe to an observer at that point.
Excellent post, starred. This is the stark reality that people ready to throw out the big bang theory need to accept. There is no theory to replace it that explains the observable data better, and until there is such a theory, the big bang theory is the best one we've got.
Any point in space will look like the center of the Universe to an observer at that point
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The graph you are looking at is for galaxy clusters, not quasars, which obviously refute the redshift = distance malarkey.
If it doesn't work for quasars, then there's probably going to be some problems applying equivalent theory to galaxy clusters. Correlation does not equal causation.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
See this thread: www.scienceforums.net...
Note: "This plot dramatizes the relative brevity of the quasar era when the universe was 2-3 billion years old".
Originally posted by mnemeth1
You're obfuscating a simple fact.
Quasar magnitude does not correlate with their observed redshift as it does for galaxy clusters.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't find any good reason that disproves the accepted explanation that the redshift data on quasars just shows that with few exceptions, they are very, very old...
Originally posted by Devino
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I can't find any good reason that disproves the accepted explanation that the redshift data on quasars just shows that with few exceptions, they are very, very old...
What do you mean by "a few exceptions"? Wiki informs us that there are 200,000 known Quasars, I'm sure redshift data does not even come close to that number.
How can Quasars be 10+billion years old when their redshift value is putting them at 40 to 50 billion LYs away?
The magical adjustable integer of expanding space makes the equation work.
How much and how fast has space expanded?
Space has expanded as much as is needed to explain this data.
Has it come down to this that people like us here on ATS have to come up with a unified field theory?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
We can look at statistical data on heights of people and without measuring the heights of all 6 billion people on earth
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...it's a statistical inference like saying "7-foot tall people are the exception"
Originally posted by thehumbleone
It's simple logic and it makes perfect sense. What's there to argue about?
Its like a fish unable to grasp the concept of water because it is omnipresent and right in front of his eyes that he misses it.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com