hubble

[John Carswell]

...please forgive a stupid question...I have no education. If the light left the quasar 12.7 billion years ago, when the quasar was 12.7 billion lightyears closer, then why doesn't the quasar appear to us as it would have 12.7 billion years ago...like really close and really big? Thank you for APOD...I look at the universe first-thing every morning...the scale puts my life in perspective, the joy nourishes my awe and reverence...

[William Roeder]

12.7 billion years ago, when the light started it's journey to us, the quazar was 12.7 billion lightyears away.

[rigelan]

That's a better question that you give yourself credit for.

First off, that star as we are viewing it now, we see light that was created 12.7 billion years ago, and the object was 12.7 billion light years away. Funny enough, I have no idea just how far it is away at this exact moment.

And so the quasar doesn't have to be 12.7 billion light years closer. There is no requirement that the quasar travel one light year per year. It might only be traveling away from us at one tenth the speed of light.

[harry]

Hello All

If you are looking at a body 12.7 Gyrs it would most probably be a cluster of galaxies.

Its speed away or to us would only be in a few hundred kms per sec and not 1/10 that of light speed.

See these links on deep field

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/catego ... round.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2004/07/

[John Carswell]

Thanks for your reply but I am still confused. 12.7 billion years ago, when the light we see from the quasar was emitted, the universe was about 3 billion years old. Having expanded at something less than the speed of light, nothing was more than 3 billion light years distant from anything else. Why does the light not appear to have come from the place from which it was emitted?; somplace within 3 billiion light years?

Maybe my question should be; How did the quasar come to be 12.7 billion light years away when the universe was only 3 billion years old?

[NoelC]

According to the big bang theory, the early universe did expand at a rate much greater than the speed of light. I think it all becomes possible if you consider time not a constant.

And last I heard, Harry, the thinking is that quasars are energy beams that just happen to be pointed at us, focused out the ends of black holes, possibly at the centers of galaxies.

The quasar really is 12.7 billion light-years from us, in our frame of reference. According to the theory of relativity, in every way that matters it "is" as we see it now. There is no sense to a "where is it now, really" concept, nor a viewpoint "outside" the universe from which that concept might make sense, yet our imaginations can take us beyond the laws and bounds of the cosmos so effortlessly... Anyway, it's probably futile to try to get one's mind around the whole history of the universe, all the way back to the origin. Maybe it's better just to marvel at what we see...

Oh, and last but not least, 12.7 billion years is a guesstimate, based on an imperfect understanding of (and incomplete theories about) the universe. In my mind the number seems to become rather meaningless for several reasons: 1. It's larger than any human can possibly imagine, and 2. there was no Earth rotating around the sun for more than half that time, so what is a "year" really, and 3. if we assume time has not been flowing constantly (recall my comment on expansion above) then what is a "year" really?

I suspect I'll stir up some debate with this one.

-Noel

[goredsox]

Hi Noel,

I would like to debate your statement that "There is no sense to a 'where is it now, really' concept". Because, apply what you said about the quasar to the Mars Rover, which is so far away we have to wait hours to communication with it at light speed. I have a definite sense that even though it is very far away and we can't communicate with it this instant, we reliably find out "where it is now" a little later. To me, that is a sense that "where it is now" is a valid concept to explore.

So back to the quasar. We can only speculate blindly about it's fate, but we can probably safely say a few things. Since it's position 12.7 billion years ago it has moved a long distance away from us (assuming a red shift of 1/1000 the speed of light, if it still existed it would be 12.7 million light years further away). Also I think we can safely say that it no longer exists now, really, as after 5-10 billion years a black hole-driven quasar should consume all of the matter in the vicinity and die out, in terms of not emitting energy.

Hi John,

I have to say I share your skepticism about objects being 12.7 billion light years apart after originating at a single point only 3 billion years earlier. Of course, I understand the theory that space "inflated" rapidly after the big bang at much faster than the speed of light, and the theory that that was possible because the objects were not moving, it was just the space between them that got bigger. I have read estimates that it all happened in a fraction of a second, and that the ultimate diameter of the universe is 46, 78, even 156 billion light years across after the inflationary epoch. And I understand that time was not constant during this epoch because of the incredibly different gravitational forces at the time. Yet..... yet...... let me just say that I am a "Big Bang Agnostic". I know there is evidence, but it takes me a long way to go from evidence to belief.

[GOD]

Quasars are not what scientists guess -- monstrous black holes. They are the results of what happens afterwards -- Big Bangs. There was (and will be) more than one Big Bang. The Big Bang we theorize was merely only a local affair in our part of the universe.

[geckzilla]

Hmm, I would have believed you more if you were John Titor rather than GOD.

[craterchains]

There is one in every forum OOO000OOO000OO00OO0O0O0

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Createrchains

Whats up mate?

==================================


As for the Big Bang.

Its funny how they assume it to be a fact and than add ad hoc ideas to make it fit the model.

Eg. Lets make everything move faster than the speed of light to make it work and if we need more speed just ask the captain. "Just have not got the power captain".

[Nereid]

Quasars are not what scientists guess -- monstrous black holes. They are the results of what happens afterwards -- Big Bangs. There was (and will be) more than one Big Bang. The Big Bang we theorize was merely only a local affair in our part of the universe.

Welcome to The Asterisk*, GOD!

Do you have any scientific material that you'd care to share with us, concerning this idea of yours?

[Nereid]

Hello All

Hello Createrchains

Whats up mate?

==================================


As for the Big Bang.

Its funny how they assume it to be a fact and than add ad hoc ideas to make it fit the model.

Eg. Lets make everything move faster than the speed of light to make it work and if we need more speed just ask the captain. "Just have not got the power captain".

You know harry, this kind of post from you is getting very tiresome.

For example, if you do not take the trouble to learn General Relativity (GR) (and so understand just how silly what you posted is), what is the point of this kind of post?

On the other hand, if you feel that Lineweaver and Davis have misunderstood GR, why not write a paper pointing out their misunderstanding?

[l3p3r]

two years of scratched record posting from harry haha

at least he isn't trying to sell us the electric universe theory...

[harry]

Hello All

Hello 13p3r

You said

two years of scratched record posting from harry haha

at least he isn't trying to sell us the electric universe theory...

A closed mind does not learn.

Have you researched the electric universe or the plasma cosmology.

------------------------------------------------------------------

What other model explains the EM/G fields and the workings of Jets?

As for scratched record,,,,,,,,are you for real,,,,,,,with haha


Hello Neried

Its not I who does not understand.

Its you that has limited info.

What I said above is quite correct.

People add ad hoc ideas to make their models work.

Within two years you will understand more until than wait for the evidence.

Re: I have read this link before. You have got to be joking.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/pape ... sSciAm.pdf

we have ever discovered about our origins. You would not be
reading this article if the universe had not expanded. Human
beings would not exist. Cold molecular things such as lifeforms
and terrestrial planets could not have come into existence
unless the universe, starting from a hot big bang,
had expanded and cooled. The formation of all the structures
in the universe, from galaxies and stars to planets and
Scientific American articles, has depended on the expansion.
sense.
The expansion of the universe may be the most important fact

This can easily be explained by the simple process of the processes and phases of stars.

Forty years ago this July, scientists announced the discovery
of definitive evidence for the expansion of the universe
from a hotter, denser, primordial state. They had found the
cool afterglow of the big bang: the cosmic microwave background
radiation. Since this discovery, the expansion and
cooling of the universe has been the unifying theme of cosmology,
much as Darwinian evolution is the unifying theme
of biology. Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides
the context within which simple structures form and
develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution
and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little

Look I studied evolution and planet earth for several years. I have no problem with Dawinian evolution and can support it with genetics.

Expansion of the universe is completely another issue.

Within the processes of stars and galaxies we do have expansion and we do have contraction as part of a cyclic process. These processes can explain the evolution of stars and galaxies.

■ The expansion of the universe is one of the most
fundamental concepts of modern science yet one of the
most widely misunderstood.
■ The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take
the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a
bomb that went off in the center of the universe and
hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it
was an explosion of space itself that happened
everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the
surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface.
■ This difference between the expansion of space and the
expansion in space may seem subtle but has important
consequences for the size of the universe, the rate at
which galaxies move apart, the type of observations
astronomers can make, and the nature of the accelerating
expansion that the universe now seems to be undergoing.
■ Strictly speaking, the big bang model has very little
to say about the big bang itself. It describes what
happened afterward.
Overview/Cosmic Confusion

Are we to think that the origin of the universe occured everywhere at the same time and expanding at the same time.

Look at the observations

We see galaxies in clusters in super clusters of clusters and we see galaxies colliding and clusters of galaxies colliding.

So !!!!!!!!!!!!
What is expanding?

and
What is accelerating?

38
The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation
of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing.
Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are “receding”
or “moving away” from us, but the galaxies are not traveling
through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big
bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is
expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within
clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest.

These distances were based on old redshift without taking into inherent redshifts produced by the star bodies.
=========================================

One more thing

If I think along ideas that I think are correct. I'm not going to change just because people feel its a pain.

I'd rather swim upstream than along the main stream.

==========================================

I'm writing directly to the above Authors. They are from down under.

[Doum]

Still harry's babbling.

[harry]

Hello Doum

What type of a child would say things like that?

A babbling child.

You need help

[geckzilla]

Yeah, real men obfuscate.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Hello 13p3r

You said

two years of scratched record posting from harry haha

at least he isn't trying to sell us the electric universe theory...

A closed mind does not learn.

Have you researched the electric universe or the plasma cosmology.

------------------------------------------------------------------

What other model explains the EM/G fields and the workings of Jets?

As for scratched record,,,,,,,,are you for real,,,,,,,with haha


Hello Neried

Its not I who does not understand.

Its you that has limited info.

What I said above is quite correct.

People add ad hoc ideas to make their models work.

Within two years you will understand more until than wait for the evidence.

Re: I have read this link before. You have got to be joking.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/pape ... sSciAm.pdf

we have ever discovered about our origins. You would not be
reading this article if the universe had not expanded. Human
beings would not exist. Cold molecular things such as lifeforms
and terrestrial planets could not have come into existence
unless the universe, starting from a hot big bang,
had expanded and cooled. The formation of all the structures
in the universe, from galaxies and stars to planets and
Scientific American articles, has depended on the expansion.
sense.
The expansion of the universe may be the most important fact

This can easily be explained by the simple process of the processes and phases of stars.

Forty years ago this July, scientists announced the discovery
of definitive evidence for the expansion of the universe
from a hotter, denser, primordial state. They had found the
cool afterglow of the big bang: the cosmic microwave background
radiation. Since this discovery, the expansion and
cooling of the universe has been the unifying theme of cosmology,
much as Darwinian evolution is the unifying theme
of biology. Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides
the context within which simple structures form and
develop over time into complex structures. Without evolution
and expansion, modern biology and cosmology make little

Look I studied evolution and planet earth for several years. I have no problem with Dawinian evolution and can support it with genetics.

Expansion of the universe is completely another issue.

Within the processes of stars and galaxies we do have expansion and we do have contraction as part of a cyclic process. These processes can explain the evolution of stars and galaxies.

■ The expansion of the universe is one of the most
fundamental concepts of modern science yet one of the
most widely misunderstood.
■ The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take
the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a
bomb that went off in the center of the universe and
hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it
was an explosion of space itself that happened
everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the
surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface.
■ This difference between the expansion of space and the
expansion in space may seem subtle but has important
consequences for the size of the universe, the rate at
which galaxies move apart, the type of observations
astronomers can make, and the nature of the accelerating
expansion that the universe now seems to be undergoing.
■ Strictly speaking, the big bang model has very little
to say about the big bang itself. It describes what
happened afterward.
Overview/Cosmic Confusion

Are we to think that the origin of the universe occured everywhere at the same time and expanding at the same time.

Look at the observations

We see galaxies in clusters in super clusters of clusters and we see galaxies colliding and clusters of galaxies colliding.

So !!!!!!!!!!!!
What is expanding?

and
What is accelerating?

38
The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation
of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing.
Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are “receding”
or “moving away” from us, but the galaxies are not traveling
through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big
bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is
expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within
clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest.

These distances were based on old redshift without taking into inherent redshifts produced by the star bodies.
=========================================

One more thing

If I think along ideas that I think are correct. I'm not going to change just because people feel its a pain.

I'd rather swim upstream than along the main stream.

==========================================

I'm writing directly to the above Authors. They are from down under.

Let's back up a bit, shall we harry?

In an earlier post, you wrote "Eg. Lets make everything move faster than the speed of light to make it work and if we need more speed just ask the captain. "Just have not got the power captain"."

From this, it seemed to me that you did not understand how an object could be receeding from us at a speed > c. The Lineweaver and Davis article explains how (box on page 40; the section 'Receeding Faster Than Light'), using General Relativity (GR).

Perhaps you did not understand the explantion? Perhaps you find GR hard to understand?

In any case, it is quite OK to say so, and to ask for help in trying to understand. After all, GR is well understood, and has been rather thoroughly tested ... oh, and has passed every test performed to date, with flying colours*.

What is not OK is to continue with bald assertions that are neither consistent with mainstream physics (GR, in this case) nor backed up.

I'll address some other aspects of your post later; suffice it to say that there are several misunderstandings there too.

*If you'd like to know more about these tests, and how well GR did in them, just ask!

[Nereid]

Hello All

Hello 13p3r

You said

two years of scratched record posting from harry haha

at least he isn't trying to sell us the electric universe theory...

A closed mind does not learn.

Have you researched the electric universe or the plasma cosmology.

------------------------------------------------------------------

What other model explains the EM/G fields and the workings of Jets?

As for scratched record,,,,,,,,are you for real,,,,,,,with haha

[snip]

harry, we've been over this before too, and over, and over, and over it.

When you can provide support - in the form of references to papers published in relevant peer reviewed (astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology) journals showing that "the electric universe or the plasma cosmology" can account, quantitatively, for Olbers' paradox*, the SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB, the angular power spectrum of the CMB, the primordial abundance of light nuclides, the large-scale structure of the universe, and the Hubble relationship, we will start to take these ideas seriously, here in The Asterisk. In fact, even just one such paper will do, presenting a quantitative account of just one of the above (provided, of course, that it also at least references at least one paper where this "electric universe or the plasma cosmology" was published).

Wrt "the EM/G fields and the workings of Jets", would you be so kind as to provide a reference, to one or more relevant papers, of what you are referring to?

*generalised, to all wavebands

[Nereid]

[snip]

Hello Neried

Its not I who does not understand.

Its you that has limited info.

What I said above is quite correct.

People add ad hoc ideas to make their models work.

[snip]

(my bold)

While what you wrote is grossly over-simplified, and somewhat mis-stated, it is, in fact, how (modern) science works.

Newton added the 'ad hoc' idea that the heavens (e.g. the Moon) behave according to the same laws as things here on the Earth (e.g. apples), and came up with the universal law of gravitation. Using that, models* of the solar system (and, later, stars, galaxies, etc) could be built; these models 'worked' very well.

However, the observed positions Mercury didn't quite match the models.

Einstein came up with an 'ad hoc' idea (General Relativity), which he added to models of the solar system, and thus made them 'work'. This same 'ad hoc' idea was later used to make models of binary pulsars work, giving Hulse and Taylor their Nobel Prize (among other things).

So, harry, if you don't like 'add[ing] ad hoc ideas to make [...] models work', are you saying that you reject science^?

*The term 'models' didn't come into common usage until much later however.
^Not to mention "the electric universe [and] the plasma cosmology"; I assume you are familiar with the astonishing number of 'ad hoc ideas' that have been added to these, in order 'to make their models work'!

[Nereid]

[snip]

38
The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation
of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing.
Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are “receding”
or “moving away” from us, but the galaxies are not traveling
through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big
bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is
expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within
clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest.

These distances were based on old redshift without taking into inherent redshifts produced by the star bodies.

[snip]

The only "inherent redshifts produced by the star bodies" that I am aware of is gravitational redshift, which is well understood, within the framework of General Relativity, and has been observed in many stars (an example). However, it has no relevance to the Hubble relationship; even for high-z supernovae, the gravitational redshift is too small to even measure (and for galaxies it's even smaller).

What are you referring to? Can you please cite a paper or two?

[Nereid]

[snip]

One more thing

If I think along ideas that I think are correct. I'm not going to change just because people feel its a pain.

I'd rather swim upstream than along the main stream.

[snip]

You are entitled to think whatever you want to think, as is everyone who reads this post.

And being obsessed may be a good thing.

However, the scope of this internet discussion forum is clear and (I hope) simple: mainstream astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, as modern sciences.

If you are obsessed with your ideas, then surely the best way to have them presented, and discussed, here, is to study the relevant parts of (modern) astronomy (etc), from the same scientific perspective as working astronomers, develop your ideas to the point where you can write a paper, and get it published (or at least up on astro-ph, as a preprint)?

On the other hand, if you have an obsession about the nature of modern science, why not go hang out in an internet discussion forum (such as this one) whose scope better matches your obsession?

I mean, there has to be a minimal, common agreement for there to be fruitful dialogue; if you reject the foundational principles of modern, mainstream astronomy (etc), as sciences, what is the point of continuing to hang out here?

[makc]

to annoy you? I annoyed people on the forum you linked to. they eventually banned me, but I do not even remember the story (maybe it was my fault).

[geckzilla]

To annoy you and play moral high ground at the same time. It's an internet thing.