Watch what happens if we simply change reference frames:

time
^
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
+------------------------ position

time
^
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
+------------------------ position

time
^
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
+------------------------ position

time
^
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
| * * * *
+------------------------ position

Every galaxy sees the other galaxies moving away from it at a rate
proportional to their distances.

True. In fact, Hubble's law is nothing more than Distance = Rate *
Time: You can verify this by checking the units.

Hubble's Constant * Distance = Velocity

50 km/second per MegaParsec is equal to somewhere around 1/13 billion
years.

The diagrams you have drawn show a Galilean Transformation, showing a
fairly small change in speed, less than ten percent of the speed of
light. This would cover the area within a billion light years of
Earth; within 10% of the radius of the universe.

When we get outside that range, if Hubble's Law still holds true, we
need to use a Lorentz Transformation, as the Galilean transformation is
only an approximation.

But the d=r*t law remains true not only in the Galilean transformations
you have shown, but is also true with Lorentz Transformations. Observe
the following animation, showing a Lorentz Transformation, similar to
the Galilean Transformation you have shown.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/wh...pacetime_wheel

Notice, when the lines are nearly vertical, they are fairly similar to
those you've drawn with ASCII above. The lines at the edges, on the
other hand, are squeesed in extremely tightly.

Though the lines get squeezed in together, they do not change their
linear quality. They are straight lines, indicating a linear
relationship, preserving Distance=Rate*Time.

John Sefton wrote:
wrote:
Space stretches and this is the cause of the light stretch.

What is your explanation?

Uniform stretch everywhere doesn't work.
This is why shells grow in spirals.

Take 3 towns,; A, B, and C.
B is 10 km north of A. C is 10 km
north of c.

Now double all the distances
in one unit time.

B is now 20 km north of A.
C is now 20 km north of B.

So what?

Well, B moved 10 klicks.
How far did C move? (Hint: B is now
where C used to be.)

Well, B moved 10 klicks. How far
did C move in equal time? What about
D, E, F.....all originally at 10 klick
intervals? Get the picture?

John

So it would seem, B moved 10, C moved 30, D moved 50, E 70, F 90, to
infinity, so of course it looks like somewhere along the way something
must be moving at faster than the speed of light.

However, if you know your Special Relativity, you know that F is both
time dilated and length contracted. G is more so, H is more still, I,
more still, etc. Until you get out to Y which is moving 99.999% of the
speed of light, has experienced, for all intents and purposes, no time
at all, and is still adjacent to Z.

Yes, one second has passed for you, but one second has not passed for
"the universe"

The universe looks like this:
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/fi...l-big-bang.gif

Not like this
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/fi...lileanreal.gif

tj Frazir wrote:
Evry photon comes from a point that does not move in space or time
sooner or later evry photon will pass us at 0 wavelenth and at c.

Dude, you know a photon with zero wavelength has infinite energy,
right?

Spoonfed wrote:

tj Frazir wrote:
Evry photon comes from a point that does not move in space or time
sooner or later evry photon will pass us at 0 wavelenth and at c.

Dude, you know a photon with zero wavelength has infinite energy,
right?

Not hardly.

He wouldn't know if his soup was hot or cold if the nurses in his
psych ward didn't tell him.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Black wrote:

That's why the velocity of galaxies away from us is proportional to
their distance (until relativistic effects kick in, and their relative
velocity compared to us becomes ambiguous).

Relative velocity does not become ambiguous when relativistic effects
kick in. There might be a bit of extra work involved in establishing
precisely when and where the relative velocity happened or how long it
lasted, it is all very definable and not ambiguous at all.

Events can be described in space and time very precisely according to
an agreed upon reference frame, just as we on earth all describe time
on earth according to GMT.

Cosmology of space expansion in closed universe
only works if the space stretch inbetween the galaxies
is equivalent to them moving away *through* space.

Space stretch stretches light just like velocity does.

Mitch -- Light Falls --

Nick wrote:
Cosmology of space expansion in closed universe
only works if the space stretch inbetween the galaxies
is equivalent to them moving away *through* space.

Space stretch stretches light just like velocity does.

Mitch -- Light Falls --

I believe you may be confused.

Spoonfed wrote:
Jim Black wrote:

That's why the velocity of galaxies away from us is proportional to
their distance (until relativistic effects kick in, and their relative
velocity compared to us becomes ambiguous).

Relative velocity does not become ambiguous when relativistic effects
kick in. There might be a bit of extra work involved in establishing
precisely when and where the relative velocity happened or how long it
lasted, it is all very definable and not ambiguous at all.

Events can be described in space and time very precisely according to
an agreed upon reference frame, just as we on earth all describe time
on earth according to GMT.

If we want to make a meaningful statement about the relative velocity
between us and very distant galaxies, we must specify the path one
taken in going from one object to the other, and how much time is spent
on each part of the path. Otherwise, the statement is ambiguous, not
because of special relativity, but because of general relativity. The
idea that one gets different answers for different ways of getting from
one object to the other is at the very core of general relativity.

Consider the situation in which we want to compare the velocity of the
center of the earth (A) at a certain time t1 with the velocity of an
object (B) falling towards the earth at some later time t2. Suppose
that if we compare the velocity of A and B at time t1, that we find
that they are at rest with respect to each other. If we then wait at
object B until time t2, we will detect no velocity change, since the
object is freely falling. We would conclude that the relative velocity
between A at time t1 and B at time t2 was zero. If on the other hand,
we begin by waiting at point A until time t2, and then make the
comparison with object B, we will detect a velocity difference.

Spoonfed wrote:
Jim Black wrote:

That's why the velocity of galaxies away from us is proportional to
their distance (until relativistic effects kick in, and their relative
velocity compared to us becomes ambiguous).

Relative velocity does not become ambiguous when relativistic effects
kick in.

I think the crux of the disagreement is that he's talking about general
relativistic effects, while you're talking about special relativistic effects.

He is correct. You would be correct if the universe were accurately
described by special relativity at cosmological scales, but it's not.

-- Ben

Spoonfed wrote:
The diagrams you have drawn show a Galilean Transformation, showing a
fairly small change in speed, less than ten percent of the speed of
light. This would cover the area within a billion light years of
Earth; within 10% of the radius of the universe.

First, that's the radius of the *visible* universe; nobody knows how big the
whole universe is. Second, in terms of comoving distance the radius of the
visible universe is about 47 billion light years, so one billion light years
is a lot less than 10%.

When we get outside that range, if Hubble's Law still holds true, we
need to use a Lorentz Transformation, as the Galilean transformation is
only an approximation.

As I've said before, the Galilean transformation is a better approximation
than the Lorentz transformation in this situation. More precisely, fix an
object O which is roughly stationary with respect to the CMBR, and choose
coordinates such that time is cosmological time and distance from the origin
is comoving distance from O. The coordinate systems so obtained, for
different objects O, are related by a coordinate transformation which is
similar to the Galilean transformation.

I know we've talked about this before, and I recall you said that you were
aware that your ideas were different from mainstream cosmology. If so, I
think you should tag your posts with "this is just my personal theory,
but...". And you should be aware that your model, if I understand it
correctly, is a special case of the standard big bang model with Omega ~ 0,
but Omega has been known to be about 1 for a long time. For as long as I can
remember, the only debate has been over whether it is slightly larger or
slightly smaller than one. Zero is way outside the error bars.

-- Ben