Expanding universe?

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:36:03 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:


"Chuck Farley" wrote in message
news snip
Odd how astronomers tell us the universe is EXPANDING, i.e. almost all
the other galaxies/stars are moving AWAY FROM us and EACH OTHER, yet
they often invoke "colliding galaxies" as explanations for various
astrophysical phenomenon!
How DO objects that are flying AWAY FROM each other manage to get in
collisions?
Are we being lied to?

No. The universe is expanding and as such everything in it is being moved
along with the expansion. For the most part "everthing is moving away from
each other" simply means that the mass in the universe is fixed but the
space in which it resides is getting bigger, so the distances between the
mass are growing. This does not mean that mass within the universe cannot
have a velocity and direction that could cause it to impact other mass.

Yes, but if you observe from far enough away, whatever you are
observing will be receding at such a tremedous velocity due to the
ever increasing expansion, that the local velocity will be
insignificant.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:30:08 GMT, "Luigi Caselli"
wrote:

"SunDancingGuy" ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .

If you do a search for "transverse velocity" and M31, you'll find that
astronomers hope to use missions like SIM and GAIA to look at M31, to
see if it really will hit us.

Hit us? What a laugh. If the sun were scaled as a tennis bal in
Toronto, then the nearest star to us in our local group would be
another tennis ball located in Florida. Sounds like a real collision
risk!

It seems almost impossible to see so many galaxy collisions with distances
like these...
But I know that computer simulations shows that's possible.
We trust a lot in computer nowadays...

Luigi Caselli

gigo - Garbage in, Garbage out, as the computers boys say.

In message , SunDancingGuy
writes
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:43:45 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:


It does and it is. Its heliocentric radial velocity is about
300km/second, measured at both radio and optical wavelengths. Chuck
doesn't know what he is TALKING about.

Chuck QUOTED the G. V. Schiaperelli Observatory in Italy. Are you
claiming THEY don't know what they are talking about?
Oh, and BTW the web page has the spectrum to back up what they say.


So does the Goddard Spaceflight Center page at
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/Hspec-intro.html. You
might find it instructive.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:34:59 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , SunDancingGuy
writes
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:39:49 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

[....]
" The 1913 paper measured the blueshift of Andromeda to be 300 km/s.

1913? GUFFAW!



Chuck? Is that you? Just what is your problem with that?

Yeah, it's me - forgot to restore identity after a little fun on
tor.gen........anyhow, problem with that, well, er, it's a bit dated!

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:30:08 GMT, "Luigi Caselli"
wrote:

"SunDancingGuy" ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..

If you do a search for "transverse velocity" and M31, you'll find that
astronomers hope to use missions like SIM and GAIA to look at M31, to
see if it really will hit us.

Hit us? What a laugh. If the sun were scaled as a tennis bal in
Toronto, then the nearest star to us in our local group would be
another tennis ball located in Florida. Sounds like a real collision
risk!

It seems almost impossible to see so many galaxy collisions with distances
like these...
But I know that computer simulations shows that's possible.
We trust a lot in computer nowadays...

Luigi Caselli

gigo - Garbage in, Garbage out, as the computers boys say.

Well, you would know. The point is that it isn't garbage out. The
simulations accurately model the real sky - and I'll add the Antennae
galaxy (NGC 4038/4039) to the two examples you've ignored.

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:34:59 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , SunDancingGuy
writes
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:39:49 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
d wrote:

[....]
" The 1913 paper measured the blueshift of Andromeda to be 300 km/s.

1913? GUFFAW!



Chuck? Is that you? Just what is your problem with that?

Yeah, it's me - forgot to restore identity after a little fun on
tor.gen........anyhow, problem with that, well, er, it's a bit dated!

So? The first spectrum of M31 was apparently recorded in 1899.
There are some photos of spectra at
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Morgan4/Morgan3.html and the
linked page
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-b...me=M31&extend=
no&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sor t=RA+or+Longitude&zv_br
eaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES notes that the blue shift is
known to within +/- 0.00001. There's a link there to 25 determinations,
including a radio measurement (finding a process other than recession
that blue shifts radio and visible light by the same amount will be a
challenge, I think)
Here's a link to Slipher's paper but it doesn't seem to be available
online
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=1913LowOB...2...
56S

In message , SunDancingGuy
writes
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:49:51 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You're late :-) That isn't true for bound systems like clusters of
galaxies, according to current ideas.
It's customary to put quotation marks around direct quotations from your
source.

Yeah - that's why they are there. Have you seen your optometrist
lately?

My eyes are good enough to see that the quotation wasn't in the linked
text :-)

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:36:03 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:

No. The universe is expanding and as such everything in it is being moved
along with the expansion. For the most part "everthing is moving away from
each other" simply means that the mass in the universe is fixed but the
space in which it resides is getting bigger, so the distances between the
mass are growing. This does not mean that mass within the universe cannot
have a velocity and direction that could cause it to impact other mass.

Yes, but if you observe from far enough away, whatever you are
observing will be receding at such a tremedous velocity due to the
ever increasing expansion, that the local velocity will be
insignificant.

So?

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:45:19 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:


So if we peer out and see great expansion at several billion
light years distance, then this tells us that this expansion may
have taken place several billion years ago. There is so far
no way to tell what may be happening right now at this
moment several billions of light years away from us.

Given that redshift has now been found to be "quantized", this rather
casts doubt on the Hubble expansion, doesn't it!

Except that it hasn't "been found to be quantized". William Tifft's
sample says it is. Other, bigger studies, have shown otherwise. Such as

I'd refer you to the No Quantized Redshifts article by Alan MacRobert
from the December issue of S&T that talks about a conclusive
disproof offered by 2dF... Quote: ...A leading version of the
hypothesis,
advanced by Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Napier, is that
quasars seen near a foreground galaxy show a particular periodicity in
their redshifts with respect to the galaxy. At Napier's urging, Edward
Hawkins and two colleagues at the University of Nottingham, England,
recently sifted through the massive new 2dF redshift surveys of
galaxies and quasars to test this idea. These surveys provide, "by far
the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study," writes
Hawkins in the October 11th Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society. All parties agreed on the procedures for the
test. Among the 1,647 galaxy-quasar pairs, no sign of any quantized
redshifts appears.

Http://www.haltonarp.com/?c=view_top...pic_id=11&page
_index=20

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 05:46:19 GMT, "Paine" wrote:

"Chuck Farley" wrote in message...
.. .

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:45:19 GMT, "Painius"
wrote:
[....]
Given that redshift has now been found to be "quantized", this rather
casts doubt on the Hubble expansion, doesn't it!

Seems as though cosmologists are keeping their mouths shut on
this issue.

Interesting times! Will Halton Arp be vindicated?

Thus far, all one can find on it is a bunch of religious
mumbo jumbo. Since i'm not a cosmologist, i guess that means
i can blast away. g

I would think that this is a cosmologist's dream observation!

Or a nightmare!
To
me, the confirmation of redshift quantization *supports* that the
Universe is (or at least was long ago) expanding away from a
violent beginning.

Well, if some factor other than just doppler effect produces redshift,
it is certainly going to upset the big bang crowd.

If we know nothing else about Nature, we know that everything
vibrates. Even the atoms of a lifeless rock vibrate. Vibration is
the hallmark of all energy and matter, and perhaps even of space
itself.

Why should it astound cosmologists that the Universe vibrates?
Quantization is an observation which, when the time distortions
due to peering farther and longer into the past are allowed for,
may almost certainly be a result of wavelike oscillations of space
expanding outward from a tiny origin.

In a Universe where oscillations and vibrations are the keystone
of all existence, how can cosmologists expect the expansion of
space to be "smooth" and vibrationless?

Music of the spheres?

I'm hoping that there are ballsy cosmologists out there who plan
soon to dig into these redshift quantizations with an eye toward
analyzing periods, frequencies, wavelengths, and so forth. May
find some interesting results!

Let's hope it's that, and not another ad hoc patch on the BB theory!