Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell
The red shift is caused because our galaxy in its’ orbit travels faster than some, thus the red shift, and slower than others, again the red shift.
But there are also blue shift galaxies, ones that are coming toward us. With everything being blown apart by the Big Bang, how do they explain that?
|
If I remember correctly, blueshifted galaxies are very much in the minority and are located within the Local Group. I don't see how this invalidates the Big Bang.
Quote:
|
Well, they don’t. What is happening is we are gaining on some detected galaxies that are in an outer orbit, thus the blue shift, and some on an inside orbit are gaining on us, again the blue shift.
|
If that were true, then we would see considerably more blueshifted galaxies in a pattern consistant with an orbital system - IE, the more tightly orbiting galaxies would display blue shifts as they caught up relative to our position. As far as I can know, this is not happening.
Also, your hypothesis would be instantly invalidated if it turns out that blueshifted galaxies are spread across the sky in a pattern inconsistent with an orbital dynamic. Perhaps there are, and someone more knowledgeable than me can point them out.
Quote:
If you believe in the Big Bang theory you have to believe in large sums of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter because the light from distant galaxies is shifting; and something has to be making it shift. Dark energy because as the galaxies go away from each other they are accelerating, and, well there must be some energy causing them to accelerate. Nobody seems to know what dark matter and dark energy is.
There is no dark matter. What is causing the light to shift is that the galaxies are turning in their orbit around a central unknown I call Tipperary because it’s a long, long way to go. And as for the galaxies accelerating to infinity and … They are not.
|
If the light shift is consistent with your orbital model, surely some cosmologist would have spotted it by now?
Also, the galaxies are not "accelerating" anywhere. Space is expanding at an accelerating rate. Even I know this, and I'm not a cosmologist.
Quote:
|
This is what’s happening. Say you are in a car going ten miles an hour, and another car next to you is going ten miles an hour. There is no acceleration going on. But say the car next to you takes an off ramp. Then suddenly it appears to one another that the other car is going faster and faster, even though you are still both going ten miles an hour. Every galaxy is on its own off ramp appearing to be accelerating, but it’s still going its same orbital speed following the orbital laws of Kepler.
|
Again, such orbital behaviour is quite obvious and would have been spotted by now.
So why hasn't it?
Quote:
|
How far away is this central unknown, Tipperary? No telling. If we were to compare it to our place in our galaxy: the distance to the nearest star; Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years. The distance to the center of our galaxy 182,400 light years, which gives a multiplication factor of 43,428. The distance to the nearest galaxy; Andromeda is 2.2 million light years. Multiplying 2.2 million by 43,428 gives a distance to the center of galaxy spin as 95.5 billion light years. It could be a lot closer or a lot further. As of now we can only see less than fourteen billion light years; we are going to need better glasses before we see Tipperary.
|
I find the assumption that the universe in general would follow such a pattern completely unwarranted. On basis do you assume that Tipperary is 2.2million x 43,428 Ly distant? The existance of "Tipperary" is on shaky ground as it is, and I suspect it constitutes an extraneous entity subject to Occam's Razor. At least Dark Matter has some indirect evidence going for it.
Of course, I feel that the fatal flaw with this whole hypothesis is that it is pure armchair ratiocination, with no direct observational evidence to back it up.