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

On Jul 3, 6:54 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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."

That's correct.


#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."

That's correct.

What may be confusing you is that the expansion rate is not how fast
objects are receding from US; it's how fast objects are receding from
their nearest neighbors. And THAT number is smaller for more distant
objects (longer ago) than it is for closer objects (more recent). Try
to understand how distant objects can be receding more slowly from
their nearest neighbors (than closer objects are) but be receding from
us at a higher rate than our closest neighbors are.


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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Perhaps still possible to determine where the big bang occured
    ... are less redshifted than much closer objects ... true is that farther objects are still more redshifted than closer ... straight-line relationship between distance and redshift. ... directions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravity
    ... "They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by ... which gives how fast it is receding from us. ... PLEASE NOTE, it is distance AND redshift, "which gives how fast" ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
    ... It showed redshift increasing with distance at all ... Observation Errors between Hubble's fixed expansion rate versus 1998's ... Likewise there may still be observation error (only 60 supernovas were ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
    ... redshift increases with distance seems to be less out ... The "expansion rate" refers to the universe, ... It is measured by how much the redshift changes ... of one star, you are talking nonsense. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
    ... at 6 GPC? ... closer objects had more redshift than farther objects where as they ... it was the expansion rate versus distance: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)