Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
For clarification, are you talking about aberration?
I don't think space is expanding.
- Thread starter Mike Helland
- Start date
- Status
For clarification, are you talking about aberration?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,867
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
At 325 Mly, my model says the galaxy would have z=0.022, v=0.977c.
That's pretty cool.
Hopefully the shape of that asteroid and more precise distances are produced, cause that thing seems pretty useful.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Right. That was the easiest solution.
Now the easy solution is mostly dark energy and an expansion rate that can't be measured.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
...which you happily incorporate into your own model (although you don't interpret it as an "expansion rate") without explaining why it should even be there. What do you think the Hubble flow *is*, and why do you expect to see it in a universe that isn't expanding?
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Hubble flow refers to the expanding universe, yes.
It's not a literal flow in my model.
Edwin Hubble called "v" in his law "apparent recessional velocity."
Apparent, not actual.
Hubble flow just refers to the appearance of motion.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
"Now the red-shifts observed in nebular spectra behave as velocity-shifts behave - the fractional shift dw / w is constant throughout a given spectrum - and they are readily expressed as velocities of recession. The scale is so convenient that it is widely used, even by those cautious observers who prefer to speak of `apparent velocities' rather than actual motion."
Edwin Hubble, 1937
Edwin Hubble, 1937
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Okay, but why is it a thing we should expect to see, if the universe isn't expanding? Cosmologists already have a model that generates this "appearance of motion" (actual spacetime expansion), explaining where it comes from. Yours doesn't. It's like putting epicycles back in so you can bring geocentrism back.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Excerpts from Hubble's The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937.
Hubble's Dilemma: Notes on _The Observational Approach to Cosmology_
It is well known today that our sun is a star in the Milky Way galaxy and there are billions of galaxies in the universe. But in 1920, that wasn't known at all. By anyone.
We hadn't looked out past our galaxy yet, so we didn't need the idea of a galaxy. The universe was space filled with stars.
In the 1920's that changed. The man credited with the discovery of galaxies is Edwin Hubble, who wrote in 1937:
"As late as fifteen years ago the observable region was restricted to our own system of stars, the system of the Milky Way. Since that time great reflectors have identified the nebulae as independent stellar systems, the true inhabitants of space. Explorations, using the nebulae as gigantic landmarks, have swept out beyond the Milky Way to the very limits of existing telescopes. The observable region, our sample of the universe, has been suddenly magnified a million million fold."
This quote comes from the preface of _The Observational Approach to Cosmology_, a book containing several lectures about the discovery of galaxies and their features.
Here is the book: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf
Throughout the book he refers to a particular dilemma, a choice between a small and young universe, or an indefinitely large and old universe plus a new principle of nature. Here are some excerpts, emphasis mine:
Page 1
The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible, and, while they introduce only minor differences in the picture of the observable region, they lead to totally different conceptions of the universe itself. One conception, at the moment, seems less plausible than the other, but this dubious world, the expanding universe of relativistic cosmology, is derived from the more likely of the two interpretations of red-shifts. Thus the discussion ends in a dilemma, and the resolution must await improved observations or improved theory or both.
Page 6
The conclusions are tentative but they are none the less impressive, for once again, as in the days of Copernicus, we seem to face a choice between a finite, small-scale universe and a universe indefinitely large plus **a new principle of nature**.
Page 18
The third feature, which will be discussed at length in the next lecture, is the law of red-shifts - **the observed fact that light from a distant nebula loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels** from the nebula to the observer.
Page 19
To anticipate, the investigations lead to alternative pictures, depending upon the alternative possible interpretations of red-shifts. If red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, systematic variations do exist in the observable region, and they suggest an expanding universe that is finite, small, and young. On the other hand, if red-shifts are evidence of some unknown principle of nature, which does not involve actual motion, then variations are not appreciable in our sample, and the observable region is an insignificant fraction of the universe as a whole. Thus, in a certain sense, we again face a choice between a small finite universe and a universe indefinitely large plus **a new principle of nature**.
Page 22
When first observed the red-shifts were immediately attributed to radial motion away from the observer, to recession of the nebulae. This interpretation still remains the only permissible explanation that is known. It is true that other ways are known by which red-shifts might be produced, but in each case they would be accompanied by other phenomena which would be conspicuous and, actually, are not found. We may state with some confidence that red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, or else **they represent some unrecognized principle of nature**. We cannot assume that our knowledge of physical principles is yet complete; nevertheless, we should not replace a known, familiar principle by an ad hoc explanation unless we are forced to that step by actual observations.
Most of the theoretical investigators adopt this point of view, and accept without question the interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts. They are fully justified in their position until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. But these lectures will present a remarkable situation. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts seems to imply a strange and dubious universe, very young and very small. On the other hand, the plausible and, in a sense, familiar conception of a universe extending indefinitely in space and time, a universe vastly greater than the observable region, seems to imply that red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts. In view of this possible conflict, whether of facts or theories or speculations, the observer is inclined to keep an open mind and to adopt parallel working hypotheses for the interpretation of his explorations. He may assume, first, that red-shifts are velocity-shifts, or, secondly, that **red-shifts result from some unknown principle that does not involve actual motion**, and always, of course, he will search for some empirical, critical test for distinguishing between the two assumptions, between motion and no motion.
...
Page 24
Because of this relation an increase in wave-length implies a decrease in E, or, we may-say, a reduction of E implies an increase in wave-length. In either case we observe only the increased wave-length, and we have no direct way of determining which of the two effects is fundamental. If the primary change is in the wave-length, then red-shifts are probably velocity-shifts. **But the primary change might possibly be a loss of energy, which we would observe as a red-shift**. In the latter case the law of red-shifts would be fully described by the simple statement that **light loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels through space**.
...
Page 25
Now the red-shifts observed in nebular spectra behave as velocity-shifts behave - the fractional shift dw / w is constant throughout a given spectrum - and they are readily expressed as velocities of recession. The scale is so convenient that it is widely used, even by those **cautious observers who prefer to speak of `apparent velocities' rather than actual motion**. For instance, the law of red-shifts is frequently called the 'velocity-distance relation'.
Red-Shifts as Loss of Energy in Transit
Well, perhaps the nebulae are all receding in this peculiar manner. But the notion is rather startling. The cautious observer naturally examines other possibilities before accepting the proposition even as a working hypothesis. He recalls the alternative formulation of the law of red-shifts - **light loses energy 'in proportion to the distance it travels through space**. The law, in this form, sounds quite plausible. Internebular space, we believe, cannot. be entirely empty. There must be a gravitational field through which the light-quanta travel for many millions of years before they reach the observer, and there may be some interaction between the quanta and the surrounding medium. The problem invites speculation, and, indeed, has been carefully examined. But no satisfactory, detailed solution has been found. The known reactions have been examined, one after the other - and they have failed to account for the observations. **Light may lose energy during its journey through space, but if so, we do not yet know how the loss can be explained**.
The observer seems to face a dilemma. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts leads to rather startling conclusions. These conclusions can be avoided by an assumption which sounds plausible but which finds no place in our present body of knowledge. The situation can be described as follows. Red-shifts are produced either in the nebulae, where the light originates, or in the intervening space through which the light travels. If the source is in the nebulae, then red-shifts are probably velocity-shifts and the nebulae are receding. If the source lies in the intervening space, the explanation of red-shifts is unknown but the nebulae are sensibly stationary.
Page 30
The implications of this result are important. If red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, **light loses energy strictly in proportion to the distance it travels through space**. As light streams in from the remote nebulae in all directions, each million years of the light-paths subtracts the same fraction of energy from the quanta. We may not know how the reduction is accomplished, but we do know that the action is everywhere uniform. Within the small uncertainties of the measures the sample of the universe that can be explored with spectrographs is thoroughly homogeneous.
Page 47
The familiar interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, avoids both difficulties, and presents **the observable region as an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time**.
Page 48
The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that red shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is merely the recession factor in another form. These elements identify a unique model among the array of possible expanding worlds, and, in this model, the restriction in the time-scale, the limitation of the spatial dimensions, the amount of unobserved material, is each equivalent to the recession factor.
On the other hand, **if the recession factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time-scale**, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large
Page 52
Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and **a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature**.
Hubble's Dilemma: Notes on _The Observational Approach to Cosmology_
It is well known today that our sun is a star in the Milky Way galaxy and there are billions of galaxies in the universe. But in 1920, that wasn't known at all. By anyone.
We hadn't looked out past our galaxy yet, so we didn't need the idea of a galaxy. The universe was space filled with stars.
In the 1920's that changed. The man credited with the discovery of galaxies is Edwin Hubble, who wrote in 1937:
"As late as fifteen years ago the observable region was restricted to our own system of stars, the system of the Milky Way. Since that time great reflectors have identified the nebulae as independent stellar systems, the true inhabitants of space. Explorations, using the nebulae as gigantic landmarks, have swept out beyond the Milky Way to the very limits of existing telescopes. The observable region, our sample of the universe, has been suddenly magnified a million million fold."
This quote comes from the preface of _The Observational Approach to Cosmology_, a book containing several lectures about the discovery of galaxies and their features.
Here is the book: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf
Throughout the book he refers to a particular dilemma, a choice between a small and young universe, or an indefinitely large and old universe plus a new principle of nature. Here are some excerpts, emphasis mine:
Page 1
The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible, and, while they introduce only minor differences in the picture of the observable region, they lead to totally different conceptions of the universe itself. One conception, at the moment, seems less plausible than the other, but this dubious world, the expanding universe of relativistic cosmology, is derived from the more likely of the two interpretations of red-shifts. Thus the discussion ends in a dilemma, and the resolution must await improved observations or improved theory or both.
Page 6
The conclusions are tentative but they are none the less impressive, for once again, as in the days of Copernicus, we seem to face a choice between a finite, small-scale universe and a universe indefinitely large plus **a new principle of nature**.
Page 18
The third feature, which will be discussed at length in the next lecture, is the law of red-shifts - **the observed fact that light from a distant nebula loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels** from the nebula to the observer.
Page 19
To anticipate, the investigations lead to alternative pictures, depending upon the alternative possible interpretations of red-shifts. If red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, systematic variations do exist in the observable region, and they suggest an expanding universe that is finite, small, and young. On the other hand, if red-shifts are evidence of some unknown principle of nature, which does not involve actual motion, then variations are not appreciable in our sample, and the observable region is an insignificant fraction of the universe as a whole. Thus, in a certain sense, we again face a choice between a small finite universe and a universe indefinitely large plus **a new principle of nature**.
Page 22
When first observed the red-shifts were immediately attributed to radial motion away from the observer, to recession of the nebulae. This interpretation still remains the only permissible explanation that is known. It is true that other ways are known by which red-shifts might be produced, but in each case they would be accompanied by other phenomena which would be conspicuous and, actually, are not found. We may state with some confidence that red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, or else **they represent some unrecognized principle of nature**. We cannot assume that our knowledge of physical principles is yet complete; nevertheless, we should not replace a known, familiar principle by an ad hoc explanation unless we are forced to that step by actual observations.
Most of the theoretical investigators adopt this point of view, and accept without question the interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts. They are fully justified in their position until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. But these lectures will present a remarkable situation. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts seems to imply a strange and dubious universe, very young and very small. On the other hand, the plausible and, in a sense, familiar conception of a universe extending indefinitely in space and time, a universe vastly greater than the observable region, seems to imply that red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts. In view of this possible conflict, whether of facts or theories or speculations, the observer is inclined to keep an open mind and to adopt parallel working hypotheses for the interpretation of his explorations. He may assume, first, that red-shifts are velocity-shifts, or, secondly, that **red-shifts result from some unknown principle that does not involve actual motion**, and always, of course, he will search for some empirical, critical test for distinguishing between the two assumptions, between motion and no motion.
...
Page 24
Because of this relation an increase in wave-length implies a decrease in E, or, we may-say, a reduction of E implies an increase in wave-length. In either case we observe only the increased wave-length, and we have no direct way of determining which of the two effects is fundamental. If the primary change is in the wave-length, then red-shifts are probably velocity-shifts. **But the primary change might possibly be a loss of energy, which we would observe as a red-shift**. In the latter case the law of red-shifts would be fully described by the simple statement that **light loses energy in proportion to the distance it travels through space**.
...
Page 25
Now the red-shifts observed in nebular spectra behave as velocity-shifts behave - the fractional shift dw / w is constant throughout a given spectrum - and they are readily expressed as velocities of recession. The scale is so convenient that it is widely used, even by those **cautious observers who prefer to speak of `apparent velocities' rather than actual motion**. For instance, the law of red-shifts is frequently called the 'velocity-distance relation'.
Red-Shifts as Loss of Energy in Transit
Well, perhaps the nebulae are all receding in this peculiar manner. But the notion is rather startling. The cautious observer naturally examines other possibilities before accepting the proposition even as a working hypothesis. He recalls the alternative formulation of the law of red-shifts - **light loses energy 'in proportion to the distance it travels through space**. The law, in this form, sounds quite plausible. Internebular space, we believe, cannot. be entirely empty. There must be a gravitational field through which the light-quanta travel for many millions of years before they reach the observer, and there may be some interaction between the quanta and the surrounding medium. The problem invites speculation, and, indeed, has been carefully examined. But no satisfactory, detailed solution has been found. The known reactions have been examined, one after the other - and they have failed to account for the observations. **Light may lose energy during its journey through space, but if so, we do not yet know how the loss can be explained**.
The observer seems to face a dilemma. The familiar interpretation of red-shifts leads to rather startling conclusions. These conclusions can be avoided by an assumption which sounds plausible but which finds no place in our present body of knowledge. The situation can be described as follows. Red-shifts are produced either in the nebulae, where the light originates, or in the intervening space through which the light travels. If the source is in the nebulae, then red-shifts are probably velocity-shifts and the nebulae are receding. If the source lies in the intervening space, the explanation of red-shifts is unknown but the nebulae are sensibly stationary.
Page 30
The implications of this result are important. If red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, **light loses energy strictly in proportion to the distance it travels through space**. As light streams in from the remote nebulae in all directions, each million years of the light-paths subtracts the same fraction of energy from the quanta. We may not know how the reduction is accomplished, but we do know that the action is everywhere uniform. Within the small uncertainties of the measures the sample of the universe that can be explored with spectrographs is thoroughly homogeneous.
Page 47
The familiar interpretation of red-shifts as velocity-shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, avoids both difficulties, and presents **the observable region as an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time**.
Page 48
The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that red shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is merely the recession factor in another form. These elements identify a unique model among the array of possible expanding worlds, and, in this model, the restriction in the time-scale, the limitation of the spatial dimensions, the amount of unobserved material, is each equivalent to the recession factor.
On the other hand, **if the recession factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time-scale**, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large
Page 52
Two pictures of the universe are sharply drawn. Observations, at the moment, seem to favour one picture, but they do not rule out the other. We seem to face, as once before in the days of Copernicus, a choice between a small, finite universe, and **a universe indefinitely large plus a new principle of nature**.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
In my view, the expansion of the universe, time dependent Hubble parameter, inflation, acceleration and dark energy seem more like epicyles than a simple description of photon velocity.
Your view puts the entire universe in motion away from us.
My view slows a photon.
"Your observation as it stands disproves my hypothesis, but I demand a more precise observation. If you can't tell me the name of the lead investigator's dog I can ignore the findings."
"Your methodology has known shortcomings and problems at the extreme limits of human knowledge, discovered over the course of its decades of intensive application. My vague conjecture doesn't have those, so it's better."
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Cute.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Dogs are cool an all, but I think the point would be to do this with a high z galaxy then.
If the asteroid is measured to be bigger or moving slower when occluding a higher z galaxy, I'd interpret that as red-shifted light being slower.
If the asteroid is measured to be the same size and speed against a galaxy of z=4, for example, my hypothesis would clearly be falsified.
Unnecessary. At z=.022 (for the absurdly close minimum distance of 125Mpc) the radio waves from the radio galaxy, were they traveling at your predicted .977c, would have arrived over 30 seconds late. No occultation would have been observed. Your hypothesis is already falsified.
More generally, the aberration Ziggurat brought up would, if your conjecture were correct, make the Hubble deep field images impossible. The orbital aberration of the telescope during the long multi-orbit exposures would be more than enough to blur all the <1-arcsecond objects in the deep field except those at some specific redshift/distance being corrected for. That's not what the images show.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
If the light is traveling at c, and something 25 light minutes away blocks it, it will take 25 minutes for us to notice that.
If the object blocks the light for ten seconds, then moves on, we will see the light be blocked in 25 minutes, and then return ten seconds later.
If light is traveling at 0.977c, it will take us 25 minutes and 30 seconds to notice it.
If the object blocks the light for 10 second and moves on, we will see the light blocked in 25 minutes 30 second, and then return ten seconds later.
Right?
I'm still unsure why expanding space allows for clear images but expanding time doesn't.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Your model is explicitly shackled to the Hubble parameter, so I'm not sure what advantage you think you have here.
The Hubble parameter was always just that: a parameter whose value could change, even as far back as Friedmann's equations. Calling the current value of it a "constant" is just a misnomer that got frozen into usage. Whether and how it varies over time is an issue of fact.
Also, cosmology doesn't need H to be time-dependent to explain the existence of cosmological redshift; any value that predicts an expanding universe does this. One *may* need a correct value for H to correctly predict redshift-distance relationship accurately, but in that case so does your model. Mainstream cosmology only needs the value to change if it really does change, in which case your model does, too.
Acceleration of cosmological expansion is a conclusion based on observation.
Since acceleration affects the redshift-distance relationship, which your model uses, that means that your model also needs acceleration in any scenario that mainstream cosmology does in order to fit observation.
That leaves dark energy as the only contentious construct your model could potentially dispense with. Compare that to the fact that your model round-files all sorts of physics, such as conservation of momentum and energy, I don't see how your model is winning in the parsimony department.
And you still haven't explained why there should even be a Hubble parameter in your model.
ETA: since the Friedmann term that corresponds to the Hubble parameter is a'/a, where a is the scaling factor, I suppose one could say that not only has H always been a parameter, it has always been a time-dependent parameter. If Mike wants a quantity that isn't allowed to be time-dependent, or even vary over time, he probably shouldn't call it H.
Last edited:
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Precisely my point.
In the following graph, the standard model is represented by the white dots, using H_0 = 74, and my hypothesis is in green.
You see that my hypothesis diverges from standard model at about z=8, and starts predicting lower redshifts.
More redshift nearby on, less far away That's acceleration.
Because we observe the redshift distance relation:
"If red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, light loses energy strictly in proportion to the distance it travels through space. As light streams in from the remote nebulae in all directions, each million years of the light-paths subtracts the same fraction of energy from the quanta. We may not know how the reduction is accomplished, but we do know that the action is everywhere uniform."
-- Edwin Hubble
Last edited:
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
Wait. I'm having a bit of trouble believing what I just read.
Are you seriously proposing that galaxies are not made up of stars? Are you seriously proposing that the light from an assemblage of stars is qualitatively different from that of the individual stars, and undergoes your "pseudo-Hubble" transformation, but the light from the individual stars which form the galaxy do not?
Could you explain your statement in more detail, keeping in mind that Hubble redshift was, in fact, established by analyzing the light from individual stars within galaxies? Specifically, cepheid variables.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Sure.
Stars in the milky way have red shift and blue shift.
Stars in galaxies outside the Milky Way have systemic red-shifts past a certain distance (a few hundred million light years).
I'm saying the systemic red-shifts aren't velocity shifts.
"If red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, light loses energy strictly in proportion to the distance it travels through space. As light streams in from the remote nebulae in all directions, each million years of the light-paths subtracts the same fraction of energy from the quanta. We may not know how the reduction is accomplished, but we do know that the action is everywhere uniform."
-- Edwin Hubble
You didn't read the paper about how the occultation was predicted and observed.
The extra 30 seconds before "we" see the perturbation would have meant the observing radio array would have been been in the wrong place on the Earth's surface to observe it.
Light speed varying with cosmic distance doesn't allow for clear images that simultaneously contain objects at greatly different cosmic distances taken from a camera that's in rapid oscillatory (e.g. orbital) motion. Like for instance the Hubbard deep field.
The reason is that the relative motion of the incident light and the camera affect the angle that the incident light is observed at. Changing the speed of the light changes that angle. An image (such as a photograph), by the way, is merely a mapping of a range of those incident angles onto a (usually planar) surface. If the incident angle of the light from an object changes during the exposure of the image, the result is the image of that object is blurred.
Light traveling at c is pretty fast relative to the speed of the camera, so the effect of the direction of the camera's motion on the incident angle of the light is displacement by a rather small angle. But the angular resolution of Hubble deep field images is even smaller. Given the high distances and redshifts of most of the objects imaged in the deep field, the blurring effect would be unmistakable, if your conjecture of varying light speed with cosmic distance were correct.
Last edited:
- Status