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

On Jul 3, 7:54 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."

#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."

OK so far.


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.

This is the leap you keep making. The expansion rate is not
the motion of individual objects.

Consider two objects, at 10 ly distance, and 11 ly distance.
Let us suppose the first is moving away at 150 km/sec, and
the second at 160 km/sec. They are getting away from
each other at 10 km/sec. If that separation is due to
universe expansion (let's assume it is) then the expansion
rate is 10 km/sec over a light year. Each light year is
expanding by 10 km/sec. Not 150, not 160, 10.

Now assume the first is moving at 190 km/sec, and
the second at 195 km/sec. They are separating from
each other at only 5 km/sec. That is the rate at
which those two points are drawing apart from each
other. That is the rate of expansion of that region
of space.

Now assume, as you are, that the data means that
the nearby object is moving at 160 km/sec and the
farther at 150 km/sec. Then they are GETTING CLOSER
TOGETHER at 10 km/sec. We would not describe that
as an "expansion of the universe".

Your interpretation of "less expansion rate at
farther distance" actually implies "compression
of the universe". Since nobody is saying that
the universe is compressing, perhaps your interpretion
of the statements is wrong. Perhaps farther objects
have not been observed to recede slower than nearer
ones, so that the universe is getting squeezed together.

Do you think the universe is getting squeezed together?

- Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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 is true is that farther objects are still "moving away" more ... less in the present and not more ...thus the expansion RATE is less. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading