Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured

On Jul 2, 3:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:07 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

First they say farther objects are more redshifted then they say they
are less redshifted than much closer objects

The statement following "then" is NOT what "they" say at all. What is
true is that farther objects are still more redshifted than closer
objects, but just not quite as much as would be expected from a
straight-line relationship between distance and redshift. That's a
much different statement than what you just said.


the more redshift observed then the "faster" the star is moving away
from us.

#1. RESTATING YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE HERE and replacing redshift with
"speed":

"What is true is that farther objects are still "moving away" more
"FASTER" than closer objects."

#2 Same but this time it's substituting Distance with TIME.

"What is true is that objects in the "past" are still "moving away"
more "FASTER" than objects in the present."


FROM YOUR OWN WORDS : Both past and present are still expansions (as
opposed to contraction), but as you just said the expansion speed is
less in the present and not more ...thus the expansion RATE is less.




EQUALS a very LARGE
MARGIN OF OBSERVATION ERROR.

***For the above reason***, it would be difficult to believe these
same scientist that say the Universe is expaning uniformily in all
directions. And if possibly it isn't expanding uniformily then it
would be possible to determine "WHERE" the big bang occured.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured
    ... straight-line relationship between distance and redshift. ... "What is true is that farther objects are still "moving away" more ... less in the present and not more ...thus the expansion RATE is less. ... the second at 160 km/sec. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured
    ... true is that farther objects are still more redshifted than closer ... straight-line relationship between distance and redshift. ... less in the present and not more ...thus the expansion RATE is less. ... the second at 160 km/sec. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured
    ... true is that farther objects are still more redshifted than closer ... straight-line relationship between distance and redshift. ... What may be confusing you is that the expansion rate is not how fast ... And THAT number is smaller for more distant ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
    ... redshift increases with distance seems to be less out ... objects than for closer objects" to be "the RED-SHIFT ... No. Farther supernovas are more redshifted. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured
    ... true is that farther objects are still more redshifted than closer ... straight-line relationship between distance and redshift. ... Hubble would have noticed the farthest start less redshifted than the ... the closer stars are still consistant. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)