Re: Hubble deep field question

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 29, 1:59 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:45:47 -0800 (PST),dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:57 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:07 -0800 (PST),dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:51 am, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 (PST),dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 (PST),dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" <craig.fra...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
snip

No.  A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space.  So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a
cosmology.  Essentially, it requires that we are the
center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

You are confusing redshift with the Hubble precept
that the radial velocity is proportional to range (an
extrapolation by others, as Hubble didnt go that far).

He actually did, but Hubble is not the problem...

At first glance that makes us the center, as you
seem to presume, but that is easily debunked.

Actually required by your mathematics.  

If you would please be specific, what is required?

Motion in a Euclidian Universe, with all objects visible moving away
from us, with speed (more or less) proportional to distance.

You simply say "well that is puerile", but you
do not follow your mathematics to their
inescapable conclusion.

What inescapable conclusion? Be specific.

I have been. You do not acknowledge the cosmology required by your
"simple solution".

This has all the earmarks of a debate that
could continue far into the spring.
Just for starters, accept or reject:  
        f' = f(1-dS/cddt)
        where S is the separation.

No, the "debate" ends now.

David A. Smith
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... The assumption is that redshift is entirely due to Doppler shift, ... us appear to be at the center of the universe. ... difficult to say that space itself is expanding and than use a stable ... ignites the radiation and this energy expands back out, ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: Physics for ex-farmers
    ... >>Galaxy Ageing, Supernova Redshift, MOND, and Pioneer Blue-shift? ... >>consistent with observation for a universe expanding at half the rate ... >>and twice as old as indicated by a linear law, ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: A negative cosmic acceleration cH0 explains the "tiring" of light
    ... > the velocity of a satellite orbiting the Earth is only apparent because ... I don't believe, nor does anyone else I know, that the entire redshift of ... No, GR describes gravitation. ... And GR already fails in the quantum foundation that supports the Universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics for ex-farmers
    ... thus not inconsistent with our universe. ... but by deriving a general law and comparing it ... >In the instances of supernova redshift and galactic rotation curves ... >>>The Pioneer blue shift is also present in the observation of distant ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Gravitational redshift (potential well) query?
    ... This is a standard photon climbing out of a potential well problem ... potential rather than redshift. ... {Which in the earth case would be the density of the universe, ... ignoring local lumpiness} Now distance R or ...
    (sci.physics.research)