Hi charles

Yes the universe expanding. But why distant objects were receding faster than nearby?

This conclusion was drawn from the observation that the farther away a star or galaxy is from the Earth, the more the frequencies of its light are drifted towards the red end of the spectrum. First observed in the visible spectrum. Displacement towards the red end is a well understood fact for light moving away from an observer. For more info, look for the work of Hubble.

Hubble also considered the possibility that light could loose energy coming to us as the photons are forced by gravity to continuously loose energy, as their trajectories are constantly deflected from straight line motion as they come to us. The farther away they were emitted, the more they would loose energy, which would explain just as well the observations. But this conclusion was not retained.

Hi Andre

You are correct, but yet you did not explain wyh?

Hi charles

Since the universe is isotropic there is no preferred position or direction. The distant  observer saw us recding faster than its nearby objects, which seem to us contrary to him. The cause must explain the observations from  both sides!.

Hi Salah

Actually, we do not know that the farther they are, the faster they move away from us. This is just what is concluded from observed data. A similar phenomenon is observed with sound. You certainly are familiar with the sound of a train horn becoming lower in frequency as the train moves past you after having at higher frequency as it was coming towards you.

The faster the train, the lower the frequency will drop as it swishes past you.

By similarity, it was concluded that the farther light frequencies coming from any individual star droped towards the red with respect to the same light being generated here on Earth, then the fastest the star was considered to move away from us.

This is grounded on the fact that all light frequencies emitted by electrons as they settle on any orbital in atoms are very well known, and are universally constant.

For example, a photon of 13.6 eV is emitted as an electron settles on the ground orbital of a ionized hydrogen atom (a proton). We know this is true all across the universe. When such a photon is emitted from a star located at say 20 light years, we observe that this photon now is, say 13.58 eV (arbitrary, just to give an example), and has been conclusively identified as being caused by the same capture event of an electron by a proton, then we can extrapolate that if we receive a similarly identified photon having only 13.4 eV, that the emitting star is farther away and moving faster, or alternately, that the photon lost more energy, coming from farther away, according to the other possibility.

Hi Andre

Your description is in agreement with Doppler effect. The observed redshift is due to the recession velocity and we now the reason. Doppler effect did not state that the distant object must accelerate faster. This can not applied to distant objects. The redshift due to distant objects is the cosmological redshift with no relation to the velocity of the receding object. As far distant away the object  as it is redder shifted as we understand (similarly interpreted as Doppler effect but not the same concept) its receding fastest. 

Hi Salah

I am not clear as to what you mean.

Do you mean that light from farthest ojects is redder shifted than the Doppler effect allows? Can you explain further?

As far as I understand, the Doppler effect is what is used estimate all recessional velocities.

Coupling the Doppler effect with the GR expanding space concept also removes geocentrism from the equation, seems to me.

The Hubble velocity related redshift without GR expanding space is geocentric, and consequently doubtful.

Loss of energy of incoming photons is not geocentric since it does not assume that recession velocities are necessarily involved,and so does not need GR expanding space.

Are you considering some other possibility?

Hi Andre

The redshift from distant object is not due to Doppler effect, but due to the cosmological shift. Doppler effect valid for nearby objects and their pecular velocities where the spacetime is flat  and special relativity works.

Sorry for not really understanding what you mean, because I personally know of no other method but Doppler effect to estimate recession velocities of even the farthest objects in the reference frame of GR expanding space.

Salah: The original idea for the cosmic redshift was that it was due to a Doppler shift.  The Big Bang was viewed as a big explosion with matter expanding into a preexisting void.  In this case, the fastest moving objects would naturally be the furthest objects when viewed at a later time.  However, now the concept is that there is a cosmic expansion of space is taking place.  This concept accommodates the universe extending far beyond our observable horizon. Also this idea does not need the postulate of a preexisting void.  

The Hubble expansion of the universe quoted by astrophysicists usually is given in units of kilometers/second/mega-parsec (km/s/Mpc).  The Hubble parameter ℋ in SI units is about ℋ = 2.2×10-18 m/s/m. To put this in perspective, two points at rest relative to the local CMB rest frame and separated by about 49 light years would have their separation distance increase by about 1 m/s.  This is not a true velocity; space is just increasing the number of meters between us and a distant point.  This also “explains” apparent velocity increasing with distance.

So far, what I have said is mainstream physics.  Now I am going to divert and ask: How is the universe able to increase the number of meters between us and distant galaxies?  There are two possibilities. First, an unknown effect is creating new volume with all the characteristics of space (3 + 1 dimensions, zero point energy, constants of: c, G, ħ, εo, etc.).  Each cubic kilometer would have to be adding new volume roughly equal to a proton’s volume per second.   The other possibility is that spacetime is undergoing a transformation where the distance between points is increasing because our rulers (and all other objects) are shrinking. This might seem impossible because we observe the speed of light to be constant.  However, even the constancy of the speed of light for all observers is proof that spacetime can distort distance and time to achieve the required Lorentz transformations.   This approach produces some interesting perspectives on the universe.  It is analyzed in chapters 13 and 14 of the linked book.  

Research The Universe Is Only Spacetime

 Hi Andre

Dopper shift has nothing to do with GR. In GR the cosmological redshift intrpreted due to the expansion of the spacetime.

Hi John

Since the universevis isotropic, our position is not preferred. If we saw the distant object is receding faster than our nearby objects with respect to us, the distant observer would saw the inverse; that is we are receding with respect to him faster than his nearby objects. Moreover,  even the cosmological redshift reflects the expandion of the spacetime it culd not why distan objects reced fastest., for the converse is also be true by the first paragraph.

Dear John:

   I have read the Introduction to your book, and it sounds interesting. I don´t think I  can download it for free, can I?

Salah: I will try to explain the concept of cosmic expansion causing distant objects to appear to recede faster than near objects.  Suppose that you are in the ocean making distance measurements using a laser radar.  You are ranging to two objects, one near and one far.  The speed of light in water decreases with a decrease in temperature. Therefore, if the temperature of the water is decreasing over the time that a series of distance measurements are being made, the laser radar system would indicate that both the near and far objects were receding, but the far object would appear to be receding faster. The analogy to cosmic expansion should be obvious.  However, when I talk about rulers shrinking, the change in the properties of spacetime are causing Lorentz transformations which affect everything, not just the coordinate speed of light.  

Raul: Thank you for the interest in my book.  It is available for free by clicking on "The Universe Is Only Spacetime" at the end of my last post. Also the book and my recent papers are available on my ResearchGate page.  

Hubble’s law means an object 2 millions light years distant is receding with velocity that twise the velocity of one million light years distant object.Two galaxies within our Local Group, including Andromeda, and a few galaxies in the Virgo Cluster display blueshifts and so are moving toward us, but this results from their local motion (peculiar velocity). Why nearby galaxies exhibit blue-shift? The answer is more convenient if we say: Locally the spacetime is flat through which the curvature is negligible (no cosmological redshift),  where the random peculiar velocity dominates. Andromeda galaxy is blue-shifted because its sufficiently nearby where the spacetime is approximately flat and special relativity works. Its blue-shifted according to the Doppler effect in flat spacetime.Thus, where is the “border line” in space which divides expanding space from non expanding space? How to compare between two unrelated concepts, the Doppler redshift and the cosmological redshift ? 

Thank you, John.

Salah,

Hubble's law simply tells us that the more distant a galaxy is from us, the more red is its redshift (!). Scientifically thinking, this doesn't imply at all that distant galaxies are moving away more rapidly. That is only one of the possible explanations, the most accepted.

Personally, I work on a superfluid quantum space (SQS), and I show how all equations confirm that a photon can be a phonon through SQS (a pulse of space's quanta). The paper is recent (revised today) and still in pre-publication. In this case Hubble's redshift is due to the slow energy loss of photons over time (and over great distances) due to SQS's minimal viscosity (no superfluid has real zero viscosity). This perfectly matches Hubble's law and explain a lot of other things. (It also simplifies this issue... there's in fact no need (nor anything logical) of saying that distant galaxies are accelerating.

Have a look to chapter 1.2 and 1.2.1. of the attached work.

Article A superfluid Theory of Everything? [outdated version]

The flat spacetime constraints the domain of applicability of special relativity. The speed of light is the constant "c" as long as it is measured locally in the inertial frame of the observer. By locally we mean a sufficient small spacetime that could be regarded approximately flat (Euclidean), through which light propagates in Euclidean straight lines. As objects are separated far distant apart, the spacetime no longer remains flat as well as no longer the velocity of light remains the constant speed "c". In fact the spacetime appears hyperbolic in a large structural scale. Hubble’s law predicts superluminal recession at large distances (D > c/H). However, it is well-accepted that general relativity, not special relativity, is necessary to describe cosmological observations. Galaxies that are receding from us superluminally are at rest locally.

Hello Salah,

The problem of Hubble misconception is fully explained on the base of Lobachevskian (hyperbolic) geometry. See please paper . Expansion of the Universe--Mistake of Edwin Hubble...., " by J.G. Von Brzeski, published in Acta Physica 6/39/2008, also more papers on subject on this site.

The effect of "expansion" arises when you interpret Lobachevskian geometry of space in term of Euclidean geometry.

Reason and mechanism of Hubble mistake is explicitly shown.  Learn please hyperbolic geometry and forget about expansion.

Regards, Jerry Georg.

Hi Breakish

I did read and use your paper as a reference in my paper : cosmological redshift manifests the curvature .... Please it in my publication.

Zwicky in fact didn't retain the possibility of energy losses by the interaction of matter with light, because he only considered the Compton effect as a possibility.

However, this effect is not the only possible interaction. It is well known that recoil can occur with electrons and with atom cores. This possibility has not been fully considered due to the difficulties of correctly imitating the situations in the deep sky.

The very consistent work of Arp during several decades, roughly connects a large number of quasars physically to their so-called host galaxies, while however the redshifts of quasars and galaxies are totally different.

Since quasars are made of non-compact hot matter, the energy losses by interaction would well comply with Arp's findings.

The reason of the different redshifs of host galaxies and quasars is fully explained in our work "Expansion of Universe Mistake of Edwin Hubble...." Acta Physica Polonica 2008/39/6 and also on this site.

Redshift in Lobachevskian Universe has always two components. One  due to negative curvature of  a large scale vacuum ( systematic redshift ) and the second random component due to Doppler  resulted from neagative curvature of velocities space.  Mathematics of that is clearly presented in our paper.

Thus while galaxy redshift is due to Lobachevskian coordinate space ( background) , the quasar redshift is galaxy redshift , plus or minus Doppler redshift. This explains in simple way what you see and confirm once more that our Universe is Lobachevskian

If Arp and othe astronomers knew Lobachevskian geometry there would be no "mysteries" as above.

.

Indeed, with maths one can prove many things. But it is neither physical nor causal. Apart from a curve fit, it doesn't solve anything. 

Atomic bomb is an evident counterexample of your ridiculous  disregard to mathematics.

Are you and your General Science Journal  from the cave age ?

Time has come that mathematics serve physics again, as it should be. Not the opposite.

Astronomers have found many Galaxy pairs and Galaxy groups in which the members are evidently close to each other -even interacting- yet have redshifts that are radically at odds. Their redshifts don`t make sense: if two galaxies are roughly in the same place then their measured redshifts should agree with each other, since redshift is supposed to be a measure of their distance. The observational fact that they considered anomalous. The mystery is in the cause. 

Charles, The peculiar local velocities  of galaxies in the group do not affect  the resultant cosmological redshift!. After collecting evidence for many years, Halton Arp maintains that extragalactic redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe.

Cosmological redshift recorded at telescope is a mixture of geometric redshift  due to Lobachevskian Universe and kinematic redshift due to Loabchevskian velocities space called Doppler shift. Thus 2 sources being from us at the same distance but having with respect to us different velocities , will appear at telescope having different redshifts . Saying that velocities do not affect redshift is a nonsense , e.g. M31 Andromeda redshift is almost 100% due to velocity.  See appendix to our work" Illusion of space expansion, Accelerated space expansion and their sources. Virtual reality of inflationary cosmology" on this site. and after reading use your brains. Once again,  take a course of Lobachevskian geometry before making ridiculous claims. Have a nice day.

"Cosmic geometry" is no physics, it is illusion.

Real physics are simplicity.

The Karlsson peaks have shown that there are 6 large groups of equidistant quasars, which reflect the circling of light around our universe, up to six times.

This causes the illusion that the universe is expanding by acceleration, the more "distant" the quasars are situated.

Research The Karlsson Peaks in the Quasar's Redshift Distribution as ...