Hubble deep field question

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 (PST), dlzc wrote:

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the expansion is not from
an explosion in space. So there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

David A. Smith
I did not discuss 'center'. My statement treats of a line joining the
observer and his star- there's no explosion.

I derived the velocity for you as a function of z, but you neglected
to examine it.

No center you say, OK, but then space has no substance either, that
could stretch by 1+z, ostensibly to fend off superluminal problems.
But these problems stem from erroneous use of the illegal expression
cz leading to 2c, 3c, which are not impossible, just that there's
nothing to see past 1c and we need to see redshift.
The red shift is from Doppler alone, but a whole legend has developed
from this 1+z stretch fixation.
The paper below argues for a replacement of z with z/1+z but from
purely mathematical consideration of algebraic poles and the like.
http://arxiv.org/abs/ 0710.1887. This notion is correct as I have
shown in the prior note.

I repeat, it is a serious error with serious consequences

John Polasek

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift, with the inherent
energies required to blast masses away from us at significant
percentages of the speed of light.

My statement treats of a line joining the
observer and his star- there's no explosion.

Sure, if you completely ignore what your "model" requires.

....
I repeat, it is a serious error with serious
consequences

You are right. So why don't you face those consequences?

David A. Smith

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 (PST), dlzc wrote:

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,
which, I think you will agree, is merely the most plausible
*explanation* for a universally acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and
which involves mere kinematics.

with the inherent
energies required to blast masses away from us at significant
percentages of the speed of light.
You seem to have accepted the responsibility of providing an
explanation for Doppler redshift, but I resent your making me a party
to this hypothetical detonation.

In any case, this dynamite thing is just an obfuscatory distraction,
which in no way undermines my assertion that z/1+z is the proper
distance modulus, not z.

You stated that recession velocity at z =1 is c, and tolerated a
reported measurement of z = 6 making v = 6c, without considering how
you could see the redshift. Of course with D = z/1+z you get v = c*6/7
and we are back in real physics.

My statement treats of a line joining the
observer and his star- there's no explosion.

Sure, if you completely ignore what your "model" requires.

...
I repeat, it is a serious error with serious
consequences

The inherent error lies in failing to recognize that while the Doppler
effect has a transparent explanation as a frequency phenomenon, it is
*measured* as a wavelength phenomenon and then persisting to employ
wavelength algebra through thick and thin despite the glaring
incongruities.
You are right. So why don't you face those consequences?

You better modify all those z*c expressions to zc/1+z.
David A. Smith
John Polasek

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 28, 8:51*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a cosmology.
Essentially, it requires that we are the center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

David A. Smith

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:07 -0800 (PST), dlzc wrote:

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 28, 8:51*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a cosmology.
Essentially, it requires that we are the center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

David A. Smith
You are confusing redshift with the Hubble precept that the radial
velocity is proportional to range (an extrapolation by others, as
Hubble didnt go that far). At first glance that makes us the center,
as you seem to presume, but that is easily debunked.

If I see a star with redshift it is inescapable that the perceived
frequency will be reduced by the factor 1 - v/c where v is the
separation rate between source and observer. The wavelength will
therefore be increased in the factor 1/1-v/c, observed in the lab as 1
+ z. z is not v/c but that seems to be the popular 'take'. So space
stretches by 1+z. That's puerile. There's no 'it' to stretch.

John Polasek

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 28, 5:57*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:07 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:51*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a
cosmology. Essentially, it requires that we are the
center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

You are confusing redshift with the Hubble precept
that the radial velocity is proportional to range (an
extrapolation by others, as Hubble didnt go that far).

He actually did, but Hubble is not the problem...

At first glance that makes us the center, as you
seem to presume, but that is easily debunked.

Actually required by your mathematics. You simply say "well that is
puerile", but you do not follow your mathematics to their inescapable
conclusion.

David A. Smith

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:45:47 -0800 (PST), dlzc wrote:

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 28, 5:57*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:07 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:51*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a
cosmology. Essentially, it requires that we are the
center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

You are confusing redshift with the Hubble precept
that the radial velocity is proportional to range (an
extrapolation by others, as Hubble didnt go that far).

He actually did, but Hubble is not the problem...

At first glance that makes us the center, as you
seem to presume, but that is easily debunked.

Actually required by your mathematics.
If you would please be specific, what is required?
You simply say "well that is
puerile", but you do not follow your mathematics to their inescapable
conclusion.
What inescapable conclusion? Be specific.
This has all the earmarks of a debate that could continue far into the
spring.
Just for starters, accept or reject:
f' = f(1-dS/cddt)
where S is the separation.
David A. Smith

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 29, 1:59*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:45:47 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:57*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:07 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:51*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a
cosmology. *Essentially, it requires that we are the
center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

You are confusing redshift with the Hubble precept
that the radial velocity is proportional to range (an
extrapolation by others, as Hubble didnt go that far).

He actually did, but Hubble is not the problem...

At first glance that makes us the center, as you
seem to presume, but that is easily debunked.

Actually required by your mathematics. *

If you would please be specific, what is required?

Motion in a Euclidian Universe, with all objects visible moving away
from us, with speed (more or less) proportional to distance.

You simply say "well that is puerile", but you
do not follow your mathematics to their
inescapable conclusion.

What inescapable conclusion? Be specific.

I have been. You do not acknowledge the cosmology required by your
"simple solution".

This has all the earmarks of a debate that
could continue far into the spring.
Just for starters, accept or reject: *
* * * * f' = f(1-dS/cddt)
* * * * where S is the separation.

No, the "debate" ends now.

David A. Smith

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:49:13 -0800 (PST), dlzc wrote:

Dear John Polasek:

On Jan 29, 1:59*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:45:47 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:57*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:07 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:51*am, John Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:45:37 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:14*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:33:28 -0800 wrote:
On Jan 23, 9:51*pm, John Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:01 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
Dear Craig Franck:

"Craig Franck" wrote in message
snip

No. *A Z of 1 is "receeding" at c.

I beg to differ. This is a common and grievous
error, if we attribute redshift to straight Doppler.

The Universe has no unique center, therefore the
expansion is not from an explosion in space. *So
there is no theoretical support to your
"manipulations".

I did not discuss 'center'.

But you did invoke straight classical Doppler shift,

which, I think you will agree, is merely the most
plausible *explanation* for a universally
acknowledged phenomenon, redshift, and which
involves mere kinematics.

It is the first baby step to be taken in exploring a
cosmology. *Essentially, it requires that we are the
center of the Universe.
Again.

No, I don't find that "plausible".

You are confusing redshift with the Hubble precept
that the radial velocity is proportional to range (an
extrapolation by others, as Hubble didnt go that far).

He actually did, but Hubble is not the problem...

At first glance that makes us the center, as you
seem to presume, but that is easily debunked.

Actually required by your mathematics. *

If you would please be specific, what is required?

Motion in a Euclidian Universe, with all objects visible moving away
from us, with speed (more or less) proportional to distance.

You simply say "well that is puerile", but you
do not follow your mathematics to their
inescapable conclusion.

What inescapable conclusion? Be specific.

I have been. You do not acknowledge the cosmology required by your
"simple solution".

This has all the earmarks of a debate that
could continue far into the spring.
Just for starters, accept or reject: *
* * * * f' = f(1-dS/cddt)
* * * * where S is the separation.

No, the "debate" ends now.

David A. Smith
You must think my logic requires a Hubble-expanding universe to have a
center, (why didn't you say so?). Not at all.
There is little science that can be extracted from Hubbles constant,
since cosmology cannot put a definite value on it, nor is it possible
to implicate it as a possible cause of expansion (for which cosmology
presently has no raison). But since it and z are about the only real
data available, we analyze the Hubble principle:
There is no center, as follows, using stars A(us), B and X:

A sees X with vector distance and its colinear velocity = AX
Clearly, B equally sees a different distance and velocity BX
which, given large separation of A and B, the vectors mismatch by a
wide angle yet BX can claim legitimacy also. How? the 3d leg AB.
So A can view B and get redshift range and velocity = AB.
And B can view A and get BA. Simply combine:
Now it's obvious that AB + BX = AX so B is like A, and v.v.
BA + AX = BX so A is like B.
There's only one conclusion: they are separating without the semblance
of a center.
So to cover this contretemps, cosmology uses the anomalous coefficient
a, which for us now is a0, and its value, fortuitously is unity: We
are just the right size now!
In fact that's just what H is: H = 100%/age of our star 13Gyr.
So, what do you think, is
* * f' = f(1-dS/cdt)
or not?
John Polasek

In article ,
"Craig Franck" writes:
I'm reading "Chasing Hubble's Shadows" by Jeff Kanipe, and he
states on page 140 that "blobjects" at redshift 6 that were
13,000 light years across would appear 0.2 seconds of arc in
size.

Let's check that with Ned Wright's cosmology calculator:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

What we want is the "angular size distance." The calculator gives
1.2 Gpc, and the next line of the output gives the angular scale
directly. One fifth of an arcsecond at z=6 is about 1.2 kpc or about
4000 light years, so 13000 light years would be closer to 0.6 arcsec.

An interesting property of the angular size distance is that it
reaches a maximum around z=1.5 (for the current best estimate of
cosmological parameters). Beyond that, objects are magnified, and
the angular size distance decreases. Of course object surface
brightnesses drop drastically as they are magnified, which is why
distant objects are hard to detect.

But that's assuming the light left when the object was 12.7
billion light years away.

It's assuming a specific cosmological model, which will also give a
light travel time. According to the calculator, the light left the
object 12.7 Gyr ago, but the object was much closer to us then than
it is now.

I had thought that the objects would have been much closer when
the light first left and it took 12.7 billion years to reach us because
of cosmic expansion,

Yes, that's right.

which would not have made the objects look smaller.

I'm not sure how you figure that. Look at the explanations of the
angular size distance linked from Ned's calculator. In general,
there's a complicated relationship between angular size distance and
other distances.

At redshift 6 they would be traveling at about 0.9c,

More like 0.96 if you are thinking of Doppler shift, but it's not
best to think of cosmological redshift that way. See Ned's
explanatory material.

but how would you figure out how far away they were when the light
first left from that?

As noted on Ned's calculator, there are many different distances.
What you probably mean is the "proper distance" (which Ned calls
"co-moving radial distance"), which is now 27.5 G-light-year. When
the light was emitted, the scale factor of the Universe was 7 times
smaller than now (1+z), so the proper distance then was about 3.9
G-light-year. Unless I'm confused, but I don't think so.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)