Thus spake Oh No in posting Mesg1

>	Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the redshifts of these galaxies http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091209/world/britain_us_space_astronomy_hubble_1

I did find this

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html

There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies

Regards

-- Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

Oh No a écrit in posting Mesg2:

>	Thus spake Oh No in posting Mesg1

>>	Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the redshifts of these galaxies http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091209/world/britain_us_space_astronomy_hubble_1

>

I did find this http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies Regards

Anyway, how can a GALAXY form in a mere 500 million years? The milky way doesn't have the time to make 2 revolutions in that time.

And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift 10, even much farther away.

The photograph is vertiginous for its scope... Each small fudge is a galaxy with billions of stars in it.

There are several grand design galaxies in the photograph. There are two spiral galaxies merging (in the middle, near the top margin). To the left of that merge there are 4 spirals.

Obviously they aren't ALL at z=8 but they should be quite far away anyway.

Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number, similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe counting generations since Adam in the Bible...

In article Mesg3, jacob navia writes:

>	And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift 10, even much farther away.

The quantity of interest here is the time between various redshifts, not some measure of distance.

>	Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,

Rather than saying "a galaxy can't form in 500 million years" (which, to carry on you analogy, sounds like "humans couldn't evolve from monkey-like ancestors"---just a statement with no proof), do you have any reference to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO WAY that a galaxy could form in the time available, rather than that it is just "difficult" within a scenario which is not completely understood anyway?

Thus spake jacob navia in posting Mesg3

>	Oh No a écrit in posting Mesg2 :

>>	Thus spake Oh No in posting Mesg1

>>>	Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the redshifts of these galaxies http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091209/world/britain_us_space_astronomy_hubble_1

>>

I did find this http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies

>	Anyway, how can a GALAXY form in a mere 500 million years? The milky way doesn't have the time to make 2 revolutions in that time. And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift 10, even much farther away.

Given the importance of this, I am inclined to wait until they are seen. But I am expecting redshifts up to ~20-30.

>	Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number, similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe counting generations since Adam in the Bible...

In fact there are a number of very good reasons for thinking that ~14Gyrs is about right (most particularly the mix of light elements predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis). But I think this is powerful evidence that the age of galaxies at given redshift is incorrect. According to rqg, galaxies at z=8 are ~2.3 Gyrs old.

Regards

-- Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

On Dec 12, 5:21 am, jacob navia wrote in posting Mesg3:

>>	Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,

>	similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe counting generations since Adam in the Bible...- Hide quoted text -

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

Another possibility is that the "little bang" did happen 13.7 billion years ago, but that galaxies and especially QSOs and AGNs predated the "little bang".

For me it is easier to believe the above hypothesis, than to believe that something as incredbly complex as a galaxy could form ab initio in a cosmological "instant". The latter hypothesis is logically possible, but it increasingly strains credibility as the size of the "instant" decreases.

Just a random thought,
RLO
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

http://www.rqgravity.net

"Oh No" schreef in bericht Mesg2

>	Thus spake Oh No in posting Mesg1

>>	Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the redshifts of these galaxies http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091209/world/britain_us_space_astronomy_hubble_1

>

I did find this http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of 1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies

I agree with you that there are problems. The whole problem IMO boils down to the question: What does a red shift of 6 physical mean. A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted in the past. Does that value mean we can say anything about the present of that Galaxy (its present position and speed) IMO the answer is No. (or very little) Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed of this Galaxy in the past ? Also very little. The most we can say is that this Galaxy is (was) far away because the redshift is large, mostly caused by space expansion A smaller part of the redshift is caused by the peculiar motion of the Galaxy at the time of transmission (Dawn of the Galaxies)

For more information See the discussion: "Neophyte question about Hubble's Law"

Nicolaas Vroom
https://www.nicvroom.be/

In article Mesg8, "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>	What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was emitted. That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/

>

A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted in the past. Does that value mean we can say anything about the present of that Galaxy (its present position and speed) IMO the answer is No. (or very little) Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed of this Galaxy in the past ? Also very little.

If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we want.

>	The most we can say is that this Galaxy is (was) far away because the redshift is large, mostly caused by space expansion A smaller part of the redshift is caused by the peculiar motion of the Galaxy at the time of transmission

Yes, but at a redshift of 6 this is negligible.

"Phillip Helbig schreef in bericht Mesg9

>	In article Mesg8, "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>>	What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

>	It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was emitted.

Are you sure you mean universe ? Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html proves your point of view ? What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what the present situation is. In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.

For more comments look here: https://www.nicvroom.be/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon

>	That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/

Implying that this last could change your answer ?

>>

A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted in the past. Does that value mean we can say anything about the present of that Galaxy (its present position and speed) IMO the answer is No. (or very little) Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed of this Galaxy in the past ? Also very little.

>	If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we want.

How do you know that ? Is this not too optimistic ? What are the other observations ? Gravitational lenses ?

Nicolaas Vroom
https://www.nicvroom.be/

In article Mesg10, "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>	"Phillip schreef in bericht Mesg9

> >	In article Mesg8, "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

> >>	What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

> >	It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was emitted.

>	Are you sure you mean universe ? Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html proves your point of view ? What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what the present situation is. In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.

That is what it means assuming that the universe is described by the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, i.e. that it a) is described by general relativity and b) it is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (for which there is observational evidence, so this is not really an assumption). It also assumes that the image above was caused by photons travelling from the galaxies to the CCD in the camera, and not put there by angels or whatever. Yes, one can question all assumptions, and I think it is only after several pages in their big book that Russell and Whitehead prove that 1+1=2, but explicitly stating all assumptions---especially those which we have good reason to believe are true---hampers communication.

>	For more comments look here: https://www.nicvroom.be/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon

> >	That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/

>	Implying that this last could change your answer ?

Sure. If I know the parameters Omega, lambda and H, I can calculate the light-travel time and so on.

> >	If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we want.

>	How do you know that ?

See the assumptions above.

>	Is this not too optimistic ?

Why do you think so?

>	What are the other observations ? Gravitational lenses ?

Yes, and many others, such as the m-z relation for supernovae, the CMB etc.

"Phillip Helbig schreef in bericht Mesg11

>	In article Mesg10 , "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>> >>

What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

>> >	It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was emitted.

>>	Are you sure you mean universe ? Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html proves your point of view ? What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what the present situation is. In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.

>	That is what it means assuming that the universe is described by the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, i.e. that it a) is described by general relativity and b) it is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (for which there is observational evidence, so this is not really an assumption).

The evidence exists of for example what "this picture" shows and that is an image of the past. And if I interpret that picture correct than it shows an evolution in galaxy structures. To claim anything about the present situation is inferred and based on assumptions. That does not mean that the present universe is not homogeneous.

But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance (i.e. the present distance).
The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the distance at emission (i.e. in the past) This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H (based on observations of both z and d). The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be the same. This problem is explained here: https://www.nicvroom.be/bigbangh.htm which explains that the two laws are in conflict with each other. The problem is identical if H is constant in time or variable

Nicolaas Vroom.

In article Mesg12 , "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>

But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance (i.e. the present distance). The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the distance at emission (i.e. in the past) This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H (based on observations of both z and d). The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be the same.

This problem of yours has been addressed here in the newsgroup many times. Why do you keep asking it?

Please state, clearly and exactly, what you think the problem is.

"Phillip Helbig schreef in bericht Mesg13

>	In article Mesg12 , "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>>

But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance (i.e. the present distance). The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the distance at emission (i.e. in the past) This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H (based on observations of both z and d). The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be the same.

>	This problem of yours has been addressed here in the newsgroup many times. Why do you keep asking it? Please state, clearly and exactly, what you think the problem is.

The problem is threefold. First you have the law : v = H * d With v and d (and H) being the present values. (proper values) The question is how do you calculate those based on observations ? The problem is neither one of those values can directly be observed.

For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position in the past 8 minutes ago. To calculate the present position you need a "model".

Second you have the law: z = (H/c) * d. d is the distance in the past and z is the present value. This is the equation used to calculate the Hubble Constant H.

Third again you have the law: v = H * d but now with v, d and H values in the past.

IMO the real problem is that each of those three values for H is different. Q: is this "assumption" correct ?

For more information read: https://www.nicvroom.be/bigbangh.htm

Nicolaas Vroom

Thus spake in article Mesg14 Nicolaas Vroom nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be

>	"Phillip Helbig schreef in bericht Mesg13

>>	In article Mesg12 , "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:>>

>>>

But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance (i.e. the present distance). The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the distance at emission (i.e. in the past) This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H (based on observations of both z and d). The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be the same.

>>	This problem of yours has been addressed here in the newsgroup many times. Why do you keep asking it? Please state, clearly and exactly, what you think the problem is.

>

The problem is threefold. First you have the law : v = H * d With v and d (and H) being the present values. (proper values) The question is how do you calculate those based on observations ? The problem is neither one of those values can directly be observed. For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position in the past 8 minutes ago. To calculate the present position you need a "model". Second you have the law: z = (H/c) * d. d is the distance in the past and z is the present value. This is the equation used to calculate the Hubble Constant H. Third again you have the law: v = H * d but now with v, d and H values in the past. IMO the real problem is that each of those three values for H is different. Q: is this "assumption" correct ?

No, it is not correct. The three laws you cite are approximations which hold for near galaxies, and all three are equivalent within the range in which these approximations hold. For greater distances the issue (emission of light in the past) you describe does affect things, but then you have to use the mechanisms and laws of general relativity, not these simple approximations.

Regards

-- Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

In article Mesg14 , "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:

>	"Phillip Helbig schreef in bericht Mesg13

> >	In article Mesg12 , "Nicolaas Vroom" nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be writes:> >

> >>

But even if the Universe is homogeneous there is a problem with the law v = H * d with v and d being the proper distance (i.e. the present distance). The problem is the relation z = (H/c) * d with d being the distance at emission (i.e. in the past) This relation is used to calculate the Hubble constant H (based on observations of both z and d). The problem is that the two Hubble constants can not be the same.

> >	This problem of yours has been addressed here in the newsgroup many times. Why do you keep asking it? Please state, clearly and exactly, what you think the problem is.

>	The problem is threefold. First you have the law : v = H * d With v and d (and H) being the present values. (proper values)

OK.

>	The question is how do you calculate those based on observations ? The problem is neither one of those values can directly be observed.

Right.

>	For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position in the past 8 minutes ago. To calculate the present position you need a "model".

Right.

>	Second you have the law: z = (H/c) * d. d is the distance in the past and z is the present value. This is the equation used to calculate the Hubble Constant H.

Right. It is valid at low redshift; it is a limit.

>	Third again you have the law: v = H * d but now with v, d and H values in the past.

Right.

>	IMO the real problem is that each of those three values for H is different. Q: is this "assumption" correct ?

The first two are the same. The third is, in general, different. But this is not a problem. We can determine the cosmological parameters from observations (this was worked out in the 1930s) and then calculate H at any time.

>	For more information read: https://www.nicvroom.be/bigbangh.htm

I had a look. After clicking away 4 pop-ups informing me that I was the one-millionth visitor or whatever, I had a read through it. My advice is to read Edward Harrison's textbook COSMOLOGY: THE SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSE cover to cover. That should clear up any confusion.

In article article Mesg14, "Nicolaas Vroom" writes:

>	For the sun a similar problem exits. What is observed is a position in the past 8 minutes ago.

Actually, because of aberration of light, what is observed is very nearly the position of the Sun "now."

>	To calculate the present position you need a "model".

You need a model to interpret any observation you make. (In some cases, the model may be fairly simple.)

-- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA