Confused about redshift and age of stars

I was thinking, if I was to look for the most redshifted stars,
and did assume a big bang, and the redshift caused only by Doppler,
then the most redshifted stars would be the furthest away, but just
as old as our sun?
This is why I think that:

Origin of BB:
O

After some years, A and B are stars speeding away from the BB origin:
A O B


After even more years:
A O B



Now suppose we are on star B, then for us star A will move faster away
then any star in position O, so star A will be more redshifted.

So when we look at the most redshifted stars, we merely look at the ones
that are speeding away at the highest speeds, and that are those on
the 'opposite' (sorry 2D picture) of the BB origin.

But they often say: 'this (the most redshifted) is the oldest......'

So where am I wrong?

Jan Panteltje wrote:
I was thinking, if I was to look for the most redshifted stars,
and did assume a big bang, and the redshift caused only by Doppler,
then the most redshifted stars would be the furthest away, but just
as old as our sun?
This is why I think that:

Origin of BB:
O

After some years, A and B are stars speeding away from the BB origin:
A O B


After even more years:
A O B



Now suppose we are on star B, then for us star A will move faster away
then any star in position O, so star A will be more redshifted.

So when we look at the most redshifted stars, we merely look at the ones
that are speeding away at the highest speeds, and that are those on
the 'opposite' (sorry 2D picture) of the BB origin.

But they often say: 'this (the most redshifted) is the oldest......'

So where am I wrong?


Assuming you are looking past the origin of the universe (there isn't
such a data point) to a star farther away. Unless you understand the
actual model of the universe, you will remain confused.

At an earlier epoch, all galaxies were closer than they are now. Stars
born at that time begin to live out their lives and shine into the
universe. In the time that it takes the light to reach us, the universe
has continued to expand. The light is redshifted because of that
expansion and the light we detect is also from that earlier epoch, not
from the current one. So, we are seeing the stars as they were at that
earlier epoch, not as they are now.

The stars shine continously over this time and the light they emit
becomes even more redshifted by the expanding space-time. It now has to
travel an even greater distance to reach us, which means we are still
seeing those stars as they were at earlier epochs, not as they are today.

The end result of all this is that those stars that are farthest from us
as determined by their large redshift (galaxies rather than individual
stars, for the picky!!) have had their light traveling the farthest
amount of time to reach us, being redshifted along the way and revealing
us as they were, not as they are.

Note that in this explanation that we may be the center of observation
but located randomly within the universe, so that the same observation
would be made no matter where one was in the universe. There need be no
center of expansion, just an apparent expansion from the point of
observation.

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
I was thinking, if I was to look for the most redshifted stars,
and did assume a big bang, and the redshift caused only by Doppler,
then the most redshifted stars would be the furthest away, but just
as old as our sun?
This is why I think that:

Origin of BB:
O

After some years, A and B are stars speeding away from the BB origin:
A O B


After even more years:
A O B



Now suppose we are on star B, then for us star A will move faster away
then any star in position O, so star A will be more redshifted.

So when we look at the most redshifted stars, we merely look at the ones
that are speeding away at the highest speeds, and that are those on
the 'opposite' (sorry 2D picture) of the BB origin.

But they often say: 'this (the most redshifted) is the oldest......'

So where am I wrong?


Think of the image of the stars as photos taken out of a family album. When
looking at local galaxy (no redshift) stars, we can think of these as
recently taken images of your children. Images of Andromeda galaxy are
photos of your children as babies, Virgo group galaxy images are your own
wedding photos, Coma cluster galaxies are you as a child. As we look at
further distances we see images of your parents' wedding day, and further
back, your parents as children, your grandparents in their prime, your
grandparents as children and maybe even your great grandparents.

A picture of your great grandparent as a child will be older than a picture
of the same great grandparent's wedding day - which is why they talk as they
do.






By the way, the "A O B" view of the expanding universe is misleading,
because as the universe expanded the O also expanded and the A and the B
remained inside it! This is irrelevant to the main point of your question,
but it is something that you will appreciate as you read more about the
expansion of the universe.

Jan, your problem has essentially nothing to do with the expansion of
the universe but with the finite speed of light. Whether or not an
object is moving relatively to you, you will always see it as it was a
time t=d/c ago (where d is the distance of the object and c the speed
of light). In this sense, you should actually say that an object at a
larger distance shows it at a *younger* stage, not an older (if you
look at a photo of somebody, then it will always show the individual at
an age younger than its present age).

Having said this, it is in my opinion actually more than questionable
that the redshift of galaxies is related to an expansion of the
universe (see my webpage
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ).

Thomas

Jan Panteltje wrote:
I was thinking, if I was to look for the most redshifted stars,
and did assume a big bang, and the redshift caused only by Doppler,
then the most redshifted stars would be the furthest away, but just
as old as our sun?
This is why I think that:

Origin of BB:
O

After some years, A and B are stars speeding away from the BB origin:
A O B


After even more years:
A O B



Now suppose we are on star B, then for us star A will move faster away
then any star in position O, so star A will be more redshifted.

So when we look at the most redshifted stars, we merely look at the ones
that are speeding away at the highest speeds, and that are those on
the 'opposite' (sorry 2D picture) of the BB origin.

But they often say: 'this (the most redshifted) is the oldest......'

So where am I wrong?

Space is isotropic and YOU are at O.

On a sunny day (Tue, 09 May 2006 18:04:20 -0400) it happened Scott Miller
wrote in :

The end result of all this is that those stars that are farthest from us
as determined by their large redshift (galaxies rather than individual
stars, for the picky!!) have had their light traveling the farthest
amount of time to reach us, being redshifted along the way and revealing
us as they were, not as they are.

Note that in this explanation that we may be the center of observation
but located randomly within the universe, so that the same observation
would be made no matter where one was in the universe. There need be no
center of expansion, just an apparent expansion from the point of
observation.

OK, it is clear to me now.
I want to thank you and the other posters for the replies.
Much appreciated.

On a sunny day (10 May 2006 01:46:56 -0700) it happened "Thomas Smid"
wrote in
. com:

Jan, your problem has essentially nothing to do with the expansion of
the universe but with the finite speed of light. Whether or not an
object is moving relatively to you, you will always see it as it was a
time t=d/c ago (where d is the distance of the object and c the speed
of light). In this sense, you should actually say that an object at a
larger distance shows it at a *younger* stage, not an older (if you
look at a photo of somebody, then it will always show the individual at
an age younger than its present age).

Having said this, it is in my opinion actually more than questionable
that the redshift of galaxies is related to an expansion of the
universe (see my webpage
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ).

Thomas

Hi, I have been at you webpage, and if i understood this right,
you say that the electric fields thayt exist around stars cause a
lightbeam to deflect, and that that is the reason for the Einstein Cross, not gravity?

It should not be too difficult to ionize some neon with a few kV or RF energy,
and beam a laser pointer through it.
has this been done?
If so did the ionized gass deflect the light and in what direction?
Or are you saying it is ONLY the electric field that causes this?
Experiments?

That is not mainstream, but why would the beam defelct around and for example not
away, what sort of electric fields (polarity and gradient) do you expect?

Your webpage brings up many many questions....

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (10 May 2006 01:46:56 -0700) it happened "Thomas Smid"
wrote in
. com:

Jan, your problem has essentially nothing to do with the expansion of
the universe but with the finite speed of light. Whether or not an
object is moving relatively to you, you will always see it as it was a
time t=d/c ago (where d is the distance of the object and c the speed
of light). In this sense, you should actually say that an object at a
larger distance shows it at a *younger* stage, not an older (if you
look at a photo of somebody, then it will always show the individual at
an age younger than its present age).

Having said this, it is in my opinion actually more than questionable
that the redshift of galaxies is related to an expansion of the
universe (see my webpage
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ).

Thomas

Hi, I have been at you webpage, and if i understood this right,
you say that the electric fields thayt exist around stars cause a
lightbeam to deflect, and that that is the reason for the Einstein Cross, not gravity?

It should not be too difficult to ionize some neon with a few kV or RF energy,
and beam a laser pointer through it.
has this been done?
If so did the ionized gass deflect the light and in what direction?
Or are you saying it is ONLY the electric field that causes this?
Experiments?

That is not mainstream, but why would the beam defelct around and for example not
away, what sort of electric fields (polarity and gradient) do you expect?

Your webpage brings up many many questions....

I am suggesting that it is *only* the electric field that causes this.
Otherwise, it would hardly be able to cause a redshift in intergalactic
space as the distance between two particles is larger than the length
of a 'photon'.
With regard to the deflection, which I specifically treated on my page
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/lensing.htm : as mentioned
there, the electric field around the sun should have a strength of
about 10^-6 V/m (due to the sun being positively charged at a potential
of about 1 kV) However, it extends over about 10^6 km , so you need
correspondingly higher field strengths for lab dimensions. If you
assume a quadratic dependence (as suggested on my webpage), then you
find that you would need lab field strengths of the order of the
inner-atomic field, which are obviously impossible to create (as it
would tear the whole lab apart at the same time) . The whole effect is
thus very much associated with astronomical distances and it is
therefore not surprising that it is unknown in classical mainstream
physics.

Thomas

On a sunny day (11 May 2006 02:22:39 -0700) it happened "Thomas Smid"
wrote in
.com:


With regard to the deflection, which I specifically treated on my page
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/lensing.htm : as mentioned
there, the electric field around the sun should have a strength of
about 10^-6 V/m (due to the sun being positively charged at a potential
of about 1 kV) However, it extends over about 10^6 km , so you need
correspondingly higher field strengths for lab dimensions. If you
assume a quadratic dependence (as suggested on my webpage), then you
find that you would need lab field strengths of the order of the
inner-atomic field, which are obviously impossible to create (as it
would tear the whole lab apart at the same time) . The whole effect is
thus very much associated with astronomical distances and it is
therefore not surprising that it is unknown in classical mainstream
physics.

Thomas
OK, my apologies, I did read it again (but full day of stuff was in between),
and did see you addressed all that.
Now for the question I hope you did not already address:
You know black holes have been detected by these passing in front of 'stars' and
causing us to see the Einstein Cross.

So, if your theory is right, also black holes would beam electrons outward?

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Now for the question I hope you did not already address:
You know black holes have been detected by these passing in front of 'stars' and
causing us to see the Einstein Cross.

So, if your theory is right, also black holes would beam electrons outward?

A good point, but I don't think that it invalidates my theory.
First of all, 'black holes' in the strict sense as suggested by
Relativity are still very much hypothetical objects that lack
definitive observational proof (see for instance section 5 in
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2...jp5_1_199.html ). Even
if you assume they exist and that thus no electrons can escape from it,
the point is obviously that the object was not always a black hole and
thus electrons would have been able to escape before the black hole
stage was reached, which also would leave the latter positively
charged. Also, plasma surrounding the black hole would lose electrons
by the same mechanism and therefore would also produce an apparent
charging of the black hole.

Thomas