Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff Mitchell
For those of you who question why there are so few recognized blue shift galaxies (not all in the local group as stated) I don't know. As to your theory of them being gravitationaly bound, why aren't all galaxies gravitationaly bound, and how come we're not contracting. As for the differences in red shift the further away the galaxies are, I have no problem with that.
|
The only blueshifted galaxies we have detected are relatively close to us. Which blueshifted galaxies
outside of the local cluster are you specifically referring to?
It is not
my theory, it is the theory that best describes our observations so far - the mainstream view in cosmology. You are proposing a different model using "spin", so it is up to
you to show us how it can explain our observations and how it can be used to make predictions that we can test.
It doesn't matter whether you have a problem with the observed redshift-distance relationships or not, it matters whether your "spin" concept can explain those observations. How can some of the dimmest, most redshifted galaxies have such apparently large angular-sizes? The mainstream explanation is that their angular-size (how large they look in the sky) shows how close to us (2 - 3 billion light years) they were when they emitted the light we are now seeing, but that light is very dim and redshifted as it has been travelling through space as the universe expanded and that light took over 13 billion years to actually reach us.
How does your model account for the apparently large angular size of some of the dimmest most redshifted galaxies? How does your model account for the lack of any distant blueshifted galaxies?