Recent content by Neuroglider

That Price & Romano paper ("What doesn't expand") uses an awfully simple model of an atom, specifically, of the electron's orbit. We know that an electron doesn't have a planetary-type orbit around the nucleus (in fact, it passes through the nucleus). I assume that this still fits the Price &...

Spoken like a PLoS afficionado. It's hard to believe there's not a PLoS Physics! As a biologist, I am somewhat frustrated by the inability to provide independent confirmation of the data I review in a submitted manuscript. I always assumed that the peer-review process was more satisfying...

Yeah, I "get" that. The whole balloon (or raisin-laden leavened dough) thing. So maybe the time vortex is just another analogy for the expansion. Except... I think I now appreciate the fact that while the "down" direction (Z-axis) of the vortex might escape our perception, the X-Y would still...

OK, good to know... good to know. (Another cool person in the armor of the peer review process, huh?) Thanks.

First things first: The very first response to my original posting assumed that I was describing collapse. I tried to correct that in my reply. It is NOT collapse that I am imagining. Yeah, I know it's nascent (perhaps even infantile :biggrin:). If I was ready to propose a replacement...

But that's all theory that derives from circular reasoning, no? Isn't it, in some sense, speculation contrived to explain the CMB? And even if there was a hot Big Bang, can we really deduce a priori what the temps would be? Isn't that derived from backwards extrapolation? Feel free to...

Yeah, I know about local clusters and local gravitational effects. That's not what I'm talking about. And I think Kashlinsky would quibble with you about the "average redshift" being uniform. For those of you who keep harping on uniformity, I would be sincerely interested in your take on...

Perhaps this post crossed in the ether with the one where I explained that I was talking about RELATIVE blue shifts rather than ABSOLUTE blue shifts. Check that, then hit me back, please.

But that's only because the peculiar motion of those very distant galaxies gets proportionally dwarfed by the Hubble effect. That doesn't make the red shift uniform-- it just makes anomalies more difficult to detect/appreciate. Right?

Well, if you mean "blue-shifted" in an absolute sense, yes. But one can also consider "blue-shifted relative to the expected red shift." In other words, wavelengths that are longer than they'd be in a static universe but still shorter than those from galaxies at an equal distance. And I...

Well, yeah-- touche'. But its undeniably helpful to think outside the box now and again.

Distance AND direction of travel, you mean. Because there are most certainly galaxies that are blue-shifted with respect to the Milky Way and other galaxies. So to say that the red-shift is uniform suggests "uniform after correction for peculiar motion." But it would seem that such correction...

That's not strictly true, is it? The red shift is not uniform. And there are whole superclusters of galaxies that appear to be aggregating rather than moving apart. How do we know that this is due to a local effect such as gravity rather than aberrations in the fabric of the expansion? And...

Yes, but I wasn't asking about a collapsing universe. Hence, the word "stretching." Please read the post again. Perhaps it would be best to scale things down to the vicinity of a black hole as an analogy. Imagine your spaceship has been captured by the gravitational field of a black hole...

Cosmological expansion vs. "stretching" From a relativistic point of view, how can we tell the difference between a universe that’s expanding (outward) from a singularity versus one that is being sucked INTO a singularity? In the case of the latter, it seems that those objects closer (than us)...