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.
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Space does not expand faster then EM radiation. By that do you mean, if you had an empty universe and in one lane expandable space according to the laws in which space expands, and in another lane you had an emitter of light, and said ready set go, you are saying the space would reach the finish line (no matter how far the finish line was) first?
dragonridr
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
No I do not subscribe to alternative explanation either. Lol , like tired light
But imo similar Doppler shift should be apparent in CMBR as well.
Ok i think your confused first CMBR is shifted and they actually take that into account. Lets start with saying CMBR averages about 2.73 kelvin. Now this is thrown off when we look towards leos constellation. Well theres a shift when we look at leo reason is our solar system is heading in that direction at 370 kilometers per second relative to CMB, and the earth is orbiting at a speed of about 30 km/s. Now how do we know this well we can use CMBR to figure it out and when we display the information we can account for shifts in the spectrum and show what it looks like if we were standing still.Thats one of the reasons we know there is a doppler shift occurring we didnt just make it up.
It matters how far the finish line is, so no, you can't say that is true no matter how far the finish line. The speed of light is constant, the expansion of space is not, it's accelerating. So, if the finish line was close, light would win. If the finish line is far enough away, space would win. The "tipping point" corresponds to a redshift (z value) of about 1.46 according to this source which says that in the lambda CDM model all objects with redshift greater than z ~ 1.46 are receding faster than the speed of light.:
ImaFungi
Space does not expand faster then EM radiation. By that do you mean, if you had an empty universe and in one lane expandable space according to the laws in which space expands, and in another lane you had an emitter of light, and said ready set go, you are saying the space would reach the finish line (no matter how far the finish line was) first?
You mean like this?
Angelic Resurrection
Just wondering if you have any link to a gif / and or some ball park
calculations to show the co relation between the 2 observed Doppler shifts
Say the source is 14.5 billion years in the past and you are making sense.
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Not really, its a good pic tho.
The source of CMBR is theoretically 14.5 billion light years away,
According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about ... 45.7 billion light years
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If its 45.7 billion light years, then we should see ( but we don't ) the Doppler shift in CMBR
corresponding to metric expansion of space at faster than light speed.
The observed pattern of the CMBR does not imply that, does it?
According to wiki, the Doppler shift in CMBR corresponding to metric expansion of space has the highest redshift z value of anything:
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If its 45.7 billion light years, then we should see ( but we don't ) the Doppler shift in CMBR
corresponding to metric expansion of space at faster than light speed.
The observed pattern of the CMBR does not imply that, does it?
As I said before a redshift over 1.46 corresponds to faster than light, so 1089 is over 1.46, is it not?
The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.8 billion years ago
The paper I posted with the CMBR red/blue shift picture already explained that:
Angelic Resurrection
well but if that is the case, we shouldn't be detecting any CMBR
and or galaxies speeding away faster than light
We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Figures read than
well but if that is the case, we shouldn't be detecting any CMBR
and or galaxies speeding away faster than light
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by dragonridr
Hey im an engineer and as such understand red shift, Doppler shift and the theory
about space being created and what have you.
But thanks for your effort.
So you think it's bound to fail because according to you general relativity is wrong, and time speeds up in a gravitational field, contrary to thousands of very precise measurements showing that time slows down in a gravitational field, etc?
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later
dragonridr
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by dragonridr
Hey im an engineer and as such understand red shift, Doppler shift and the theory
about space being created and what have you.
But thanks for your effort.
Your the one that thought being able to see CMBR somehow disproved the expansion of space when in actually it confirms it.
Arbitrageur
So you think it's bound to fail because according to you general relativity is wrong, and time speeds up in a gravitational field, contrary to thousands of very precise measurements showing that time slows down in a gravitational field, etc?
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later
Angelic Resurrection
Arbitrageur
So you think it's bound to fail because according to you general relativity is wrong, and time speeds up in a gravitational field, contrary to thousands of very precise measurements showing that time slows down in a gravitational field, etc?
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later
Yes time slows down in a gravitational field, otherwise the big bang wouldn't have happened.
Thousands of the so called expts have been interpreted erroneously, to suit GR
Im telling ya, what I say will be proved right sooner or later.