Dear Prof. Wright,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to a question from a person that
posts on sci.physics.relativity regarding z numbers. The argument ended in a
heated exchange and I ended up telling him you were wrong which was a poor
choice of words for which I apologize. I had told him that observations of
IaSne had proven conclusively that galaxies were moving apart at many times
light speed when the observational evidence only proves conclusive out to the
limit that we can see IaSne. I see no reason to conclude that the z numbers
would not hold true for greater distances. If you believe otherwise you are
free to do so and I will not say you're wrong, but I would ask for
observational evidence.
Respectfully, Dwain W. Higginbotham

Dwhig265 wrote:
: Dear Prof. Wright,
: Thank you for taking the time to respond to a question from a person that
: posts on sci.physics.relativity regarding z numbers. The argument ended in a
: heated exchange and I ended up telling him you were wrong which was a poor
: choice of words for which I apologize. I had told him that observations of
: IaSne had proven conclusively that galaxies were moving apart at many times
: light speed when the observational evidence only proves conclusive out to the
: limit that we can see IaSne. I see no reason to conclude that the z numbers
: would not hold true for greater distances. If you believe otherwise you are
: free to do so and I will not say you're wrong, but I would ask for
: observational evidence.
: Respectfully, Dwain W. Higginbotham

Somebody was trying to say a couple of years ago
that z = 1 meant the speed of light, and that is not
true, z is a log function, and z numbers up to about
I think 5 have been observed, which is still not the
speed of light.

Something like this is easy to check, just
search google.

Joe Fischer
--
3

Dear Joe Fischer:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
Dwhig265 wrote:
: Dear Prof. Wright,
: Thank you for taking the time to respond to a question from a person
that
: posts on sci.physics.relativity regarding z numbers. The argument ended
in a
: heated exchange and I ended up telling him you were wrong which was a
poor
: choice of words for which I apologize. I had told him that observations
of
: IaSne had proven conclusively that galaxies were moving apart at many
times
: light speed when the observational evidence only proves conclusive out
to the
: limit that we can see IaSne. I see no reason to conclude that the z
numbers
: would not hold true for greater distances. If you believe otherwise you
are
: free to do so and I will not say you're wrong, but I would ask for
: observational evidence.
: Respectfully, Dwain W. Higginbotham

Somebody was trying to say a couple of years ago
that z = 1 meant the speed of light, and that is not
true, z is a log function, and z numbers up to about
I think 5 have been observed, which is still not the
speed of light.

(1+z) is pretty close to gamma, for "local" objects. Gamma can be near
infinite, but doesn't require superlumenality.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote:
: Dear Joe Fischer:
: (1+z) is pretty close to gamma, for "local" objects. Gamma can be near
: infinite, but doesn't require superlumenality.
: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

And z = 5.8 is 0.957662 c.

Joe Fischer

--
3