for his hypothesis, shouldn't half the galaxies closer than us to the tipperary thingy be blue shifted and the other half be red shifted. and in that case, shouldn't it be relatively easy to find this point by following the line of unshifted galaxies.

seeing as we don't see this anywhere we look, i think we can conclude it is a false hypothesis.

__________________
Situation normal. FUBAR!

SHOW ME THE MATH!

To Speedfreek The local group is made up of twenty five galaxies-(apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960108.html) NASA/IPAC EXTRAGALACTIC DATABASE (NED) supposedly lists blue shifted galaxies at over 600. Going through that list is not for the faint at heart, but the exact number is supposed to be coming to me. I will post it as soon as it becomes available. As for the red shift of galaxies not being linear, I thought I made that clear in my original post with the parable of the two cars. The further the cars go on the offramp, the faster they will seem to be going. (sorry, no dark matter or dark energy)

Well I mentioned the local group and that was an error on my part, I should have said the local supercluster - my bad! But the basic premise is that we don't find blueshifted galaxies outside of our own supercluster, i.e we are seeing blueshift due to an objects inertial movement relative to our own, but the apparent recession of other superclusters is due to cosmological expansion and they will only show redshifts. The inertial movement of a galaxy within that other cluster might mean it is moving towards us, but that other cluster would be receding faster.

Our "local group" of galaxies is part of the local supercluster, which contains our local group and a whole lot of other galaxies, all gravitationally bound. The local supercluster is at least 200 million light years in diameter and contains over 100 different groups of galaxies. So your blueshifted galaxies will have to be a lot further away than that before we can consider them outside of our gravitationally bound cluster of galaxies.

But again, rather than answer the question as to how your "theory" can explain our observations, you instead question the mainstream theory that can best explain our observations.

As for cars and offramps, if each car maintains a constant speed and they take divergent paths, they may indeed seem to accelerate away from the other, but that is still a linear relationship. But if one car remains at constant speed and the other car accelerates away down the offramp, they appear to be receding even faster still and repeated measurements of continued acceleration will show a non-linear distance relationship.

If the expansion rate were constant, we would still see further objects moving away faster. With constant expansion, the further away an object is, the faster it seems to recede. But if the expansion rate was faster in the past and slowing down towards more recent times, the furthest objects would have receded even more than a constant rate would predict and this is what we observe in the redshift-distance relationship.

But again, I shouldn't have to explain what our current theories predict and how our observation correspond to those predictions, it is up to you to show that yours is a better theory, that it makes better predictions than the current one or predicts the same observations using a simpler model. You have shown neither so far.

How does your theory explain the CMBR having a redshift of z=1089? How does it explain the angular size redshift relationship we have observed? Objects with a redshift over z=1.6 or thereabouts seem to have increasingly larger apparent angular diameters - we interpret this as the most distant objects originally having been very close to us when they emitted the light we are now seeing. The most distant galaxies we see now look to have been only 2 or 3 billion light years away, over 13 billion years ago. How do you interpret it?

Speedfreek, I apologize for not responding sooner. I had to be away from a computer.

Your comment "But if the expansion rate was faster in the past and slowing down towards more recent times," I don't comprehend. It seems that we are accelerating according to the articles I have read. As to the cmbr having a redshift, wouldn't that mean that there isn't any cvosmic background around us at all, it having receded into space? That is not he case. As for predicitions; I repeat when the new telescopes come on line and see more galaxies and more objects out there beyond 13.7 billion light years, it won't be me trying to come up with more "fuzzy math" to explain how it fits in my theory.

It seems like I will have to explain our whole current cosmological model to you. I assumed you knew the basics of the theories you are opposing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You don't even know what we have observed!

The current mainstream theory that seems to correlate with our observations the best, is that the universe was expanding very quickly to begin with and was slowing down for most of history. This is the view that the redshift-distance relationship gives us, but we can only use it over a certain distance away, as when we look at closer distances (and thus even more recent times) the cosmological redshift has such a small effect that it starts to be dominated by the redshifts (and blueshifts) caused by relativistic doppler effect.

In a nutshell this means we can use redshifts to determine the rate of expansion from the object most distant in time (the CMBR, which was emitted only 380,000 years after the big-bang and represents the time when the universe first became transparent - known as the "surface of last scattering") back through history towards the present but only over a certain distance away. We had no observational evidence of that the expansion had been doing for the past few billion years and had assumed that the expansion had continued to slow down towards the present until observations of supernovae in the late 1990's showed us that the expansion had started to accelerate again during the last few billion years.

So the expansion was very fast to begin with and slowing down for billions of years (from redshift-distance and angular-diameter distance observations) and more recently the expansion has started accelerating (from observations of Type 1a Supernovae).

As for your question about the CMBR, it fills the entire universe, but those photons were emitted when our observable universe was only around 40 million light years in radius. Our observable universe has since increased in size by a factor of 1090, giving it a current comoving radius of around 46 billion light years. That radiation has cooled a lot and when we detect it we find that it has been redshifted by a factor of 1090, which shows us how much the universe has expanded since it was emitted.

There is no "fuzzy math" involved here, but it seems to me that you have a very "fuzzy" idea of what the current theories are, and yet you think you know better? I would respectfully suggest that you learn a bit more about the big-bang, specifically the Lambda-CDM concordance model (which is the current mainstream view) and how these theories actually fit with our observations before you seek to propose your own ideas, especially as you don't seem to know what observations we have made.

Speedy, Give me a break here. It speeds up, it slows down, it speeds up again. What's causing all this speeding and slowing and speeding? Traffic lights? When the new telescopes come on line that will be the proof in the pudding. Do you agree? If there is more out there past 14 billion light years my theory is the best. If not yours is.

That's an absolutely ridiculous proposition. It is setting up a classic false dilemma (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...e-dilemma.html ). If you were unaware, that is a logical fallacy, which means it is an error in reasoning. The Big Bang Theory doesn't have to be at a set date -- 14 billion years ago -- to still be right. The date itself has been changed many times when new evidence is discovered, but the idea still fits the observed data the best.

It is no secret that the current model isn't perfect. The scientists who are studying this would very much like to know why the expansion sped up and slowed down. It may be an antigravity force, it may be dark matter/energy, it may be something as yet completely unknown. Nevertheless, the observations do fit overall expansion, not spinning.

Answer some of the direct questions that have been asked of you, please. Such as, if the universe were spinning, shouldn't the number of blue-shifted and red-shifted objects be pretty much the same? After all, half of the universe would be spinning towards us and the other half spinning away. And yet, the number of blue-shifted objects is very much in the minority. How do you explain this?

As I posted on my other site this proposition would seem to disprove the big bang. Say you were on the north pole, with a telescope and looked straight up and seen a galaxy "A" 12 billion light years away, and another person on the south pole looked straight up and seen a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" looking past earth would see galaxy "B" at 24 billion light years. This disproves wmap's study of the cbr; giving the universes age at 13.7 billion light years, and as the cbr is a foundation of the big bang, it disproves the big bang.

The people on either galaxy will never see each other. Even though each can commonly see the person on earth.
And they are all moving which means any "distance away" statement is useless without taking time into the equation.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I do not agree at all, and it is not my theory, it is a theory built up over the last century by 100's of scientists making observations, coming up with theories to explain those observations and then testing those theories on thousands of other observations.

The comoving distance of the CMBR is around 46 billion light years already... do you know what that means? How does your idea explain the incredibly high redshift of the CMBR?

The angular-diameter of the dimmest galaxies, whose light has taken over 13 billion years to reach us, shows us that they were only 2 or 3 billion light years away when they emitted that light. The light took over 13 billion years to cross a space that was originally only 2 or 3 billion light years in distance. Explain how the dimmest, most redshifted galaxies can look so large in the sky with your idea.

SN1a supernovae have longer durations at further distances, due to their light being stretched by the cosmological expansion. Their light is "time-dilated" by the expansion, so we receive it over a longer duration that it was emitted. Explain how supernovae of this type, known as "standard candles" can have longer durations at further distances using your idea.

We measure no blueshifts for any distant objects - explain this using your idea.

We measure increasing redshift at increasing distance in all directions, and the redshifts increase by the same amount in all directions. Explain this using your idea.

We get a lot of people coming here and saying the current theory is wrong and that they have a better idea and those people often don't even know how the current theory works or how it fits with what we see out there. Are you one of them? Do you have any valid reasons for doubting the current model? Do you understand enough of what we see out there to formulate your own theory to explain it all?

Speedfreek,
You ask if I have any valid reasons for doubting the current model. Yes. if you look at my post two above this one, I believe it disproves the big bang.

I repeat myself here. Please answer this direct question.

Look, an acceptable answer is "I don't know" or "I need time to think about this" but it is against the rules in this section of the forum to not answer questions directly asked of you. So, please follow the rules and address this question. Thank you.

Ahh so you must then believe that everything we can see is all there is. Is this the case? It seems to be what you are saying - someone on the edge of our observable universe would be able to see past our galaxy, and see the objects on the opposite side of our observable universe.

That would mean we are at the dead centre of the whole universe, would it not? Is that what you are saying here? That the whole universe revolves around us?

For if someone on the edge of our observable universe, 12 billion ly away, can see past us to the other side of our observable universe, 12 billion ly away from us in the opposite direction, and can thus see galaxies 24 billion ly away from them as you say, why can't we see galaxies 24 billion ly away? Are we really at the physical centre of your universe?

And as Bignose said, you should be answering specifically each question posed to you about your idea.

I would never say we are the center of the universe. I'm saying we can see galaxies 12 billion ly in one direction and 12 billion ly in the other direction. And I'm saying that galaxy "A" and "B" probably can do the same. It fits comfortably into my theory, but for the bb not so good. We can't see galaxies 24 billion ly away because the technology for the scopes is not there. But soon.

Why isn't that good for BB theory?

Even in BB theory, a Galaxy 12 ly away from us isn't going to see an "edge" to the Universe.

i.e. it's not [A---12ly---Us---12ly---B], where "[" and "]" represent some kind of edge.

Everywhere is the centre of the Universe.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Hmmm... So how old is the universe in your model? You are using the light-travel time as the measurement of distance in your posts, so am I to assume that you think the universe is more than 24 billion years old then? After all, you said galaxy A can see past us all the way to galaxy B.

The mainstream view is that don't see galaxies 24 billion light years away simply because the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old. If the universe were more than 24 billion years old then we might see galaxies 24 billion light years away. Right now we can only see back to around 13.7 billion years ago (13.7 billion light years), when the CMBR was emitted and the universe first became transparent. There may be galaxies outside of our observable universe at any distance, by the way. There is no reason to believe that what we can see is all there is. But the distance we can see (our observable universe) is defined by the amount of time that light has had to travel since photons first decoupled and evolved independently, when the CMBR was emitted. This is theorised to be around 380,000 years after the beginning, which was around 13.7 billion years ago.

This is what you say about the CMBR -

Please explain exactly why it wouldn't be surprising, bearing in mind that the CMBR is almost uniform in all directions and is very, very cold indeed. Remember to include how this is possible within the time frame of your model.

[QUOTE=speedfreek;1153265]It seems like I will have to explain our whole current cosmological model to you. I assumed you knew the basics of the theories you are opposing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You don't even know what we have observed!

The current mainstream theory that seems to correlate with our observations the best, is that the universe was expanding very quickly to begin with and was slowing down for most of history. This is the view that the redshift-distance relationship gives us, but we can only use it over a certain distance away, as when we look at closer distances (and thus even more recent times) the cosmological redshift has such a small effect that it starts to be dominated by the redshifts (and blueshifts) caused by relativistic doppler effect.

In a nutshell this means we can use redshifts to determine the rate of expansion from the object most distant in time (the CMBR, which was emitted only 380,000 years after the big-bang and represents the time when the universe first became transparent - known as the "surface of last scattering") back through history towards the present but only over a certain distance away. We had no observational evidence of that the expansion had been doing for the past few billion years and had assumed that the expansion had continued to slow down towards the present until observations of supernovae in the late 1990's showed us that the expansion had started to accelerate again during the last few billion years.

So the expansion was very fast to begin with and slowing down for billions of years (from redshift-distance and angular-diameter distance observations) and more recently the expansion has started accelerating (from observations of Type 1a Supernovae).

perhaps BUT since CMBR's are radiated out from ALL galaxies only a few have been eliminated from any calculations on CMBR's. ( if I remember right 5 at the most )

inotherwords the WHOLE Universe of CMBR's have not been accounted for only a very few " local " galaxies have been.

I know because I asked NASA this direct question. " how many galaxies have been accounted for in the CMBR calculations " .

therefore the CMBR " pictures " are very local. to say the least

How does the cmbr fit into my theory? It doesn't. This is the way I look at the cmbr.
Little Eddie seen all the animals running over a hill one day. Someone said "it must be a fire." Little Miss Logic said "It couldn't be a fire. It's a beach over the hill, there is nothing to burn." A year later little Arnie and Bobbie go over the hill to look and they see a haze over the beach. They don't know if it's fog or smog or whatever. But they go back down the hill and say "it's true there was a fire, we seen the smoke." Little Miss Logic scratches her head. Another year goes by and they send up a balloon to take thickness measurements of the haze and see how cold it is. They pronounce that they know when the fire started and what happened the first trillionth second. Little Miss Logic walks away still scratching her head.

The cmbr is a microwave haze not proving anything.

This is exactly why I hate arguments from analogy. The CMBR is radiation--energy put out by some energy source. Would Little Miss Logic be so confused if Eddie and Bobbie and Arnie were all reporting IR radiation consistent with a fire?

Doesn't the CMBR has the same incredibly high redshift value wherever we look (something around z=1089)? Surely if it was being radiated from all the different galaxies, galaxies over a whole range of redshift values, that radiation would be redshifted in the same way, i.e. over a range of values. The local galaxies all have redshifts of less than z=0.1 so how would the CMBR be redshifted to z=1089 if it was being radiated by local galaxies?

You will have to start answering the specific questions.

1) Explain the redshift of z=1089 for the CMBR, What caused it to be so high compared to the highest redshifts for galaxies we have measured (z<15)?

2) Explain why we only see a few blueshifted galaxies at relatively close distances and all the others are redshifted.

3) Explain why some of the dimmest, most redshifted galaxies have such large apparent angular-diameters.

4) Explain the apparent durations of Type1a supernovae over a range of distances.

5) What is the minimum age for the universe?

Speedfreek

The answers to your questions

1. As per my previous replies I do not think the cmbr means anything. All the measurements on the radiation (the main guru being wmap) are ghost chasing. You cannot have have objects that are over 24b ly distance apart in a universe supposedly only 13.7 b ly old. I offered this dilema to the people at wmap(usually my questions are answered promptly, not this time- no answer.) That sound you here in the background is the big bang falling apart.

2. Don't know

3. Don't know

4. Don't know

5. Don't know

Thank you for your answers. Your idea has no explanation for the redshift of the CMBR, the redshift-distance relationship, the angular-diameter distance relationship or the time dilation of SN1a. The current mainstream theory can explain all these observations we have made, and many more besides.

It seems your idea isn't based on any observational evidence that you can cite. You make suppositions based on logical fallacies and misconceptions and your supposed proof that the big-bang did not happen falls into this category. You cannot even describe your idea consistently.

By the way, you can have objects more than 24 billion ly apart in a universe that is only 13.7 billion years old. You have to first define which coordinate system you are using, of course (there is more than one way of measuring things!). If you use light travel time, then we can see galaxies for over 13 billion ly in all directions, which means the most distant galaxies on opposite sides of us are over 24 billion ly away from each other (they cannot see each other yet but we can see both). If you use comoving coordinates, the observable universe is over 46 billion ly in radius due to the cosmological expansion. All this fits with what we have actually seen.

Unless you can come up with an alternative explanation of how redshifts and blueshifts work and an explanation for the time-dilation of distant supernovae, we cannot fit your idea to our observations at all.

Speedfreek Your "current mainstream theory," ie. the bb theory does not hold up. You need to explain to the telescope makers and wmap your comoving coordinate systems so they stop putting out press releases saying the new scopes will see the first galaxies, etc.

Look, we already have scopes that might have resolved the earliest galaxies, but we need better scopes to be sure. We think we have seen almost as far back as is possible and it is you who is misunderstanding what these people are saying. Why do you think we have a hard time seeing these galaxies? Let me tell you, as you may be surprised - it is because they are so dim and highly redshifted. It is not because they are too small to see properly with current instruments. Does that surprise you?

Let me explain something to you about the angular-diameter distance relationship, to see if it helps you understand.

We see different types of galaxy (spiral, elliptical etc) with different apparent magnitudes (brightness) and different redshifts (over a certain relatively short distance away we see only redshift). When we compare their brightness to their redshift, we see a consistent relationship between the two factors. If we assume that two galaxies of the same type and same absolute size would have the same brightness, which seems to be a reasonable assumption seeing as that is what we observe at a given distance, then we can use their apparent brightness when compared to its absolute value as an indicator of how much time has passed since the light we are seeing was emitted.

Now, as I keep mentioning and you keep avoiding, there is something about the dimmest galaxies that is a very big clue as to the history of the universe - their angular-diameter. As you should know, if a distant object is moving away from you, by the time the light reaches you from that object it will be further away from you than it was when the light was emitted. But what do you see? You see the object at the distance it was when the light was emitted, not at the distance it would be when you receive that light. Does that make sense to you?

Then consider the dimmest, most redshifted galaxies we have seen. They have a large angular-diameter. A very dim and distant galaxy "A", 13 billion light years away, covers an area in the sky that is almost double the size of a much brighter, less redshifted galaxy "B" that is only 9 billion light years away. What are the possible explanations that can explain our observations of both galaxies?

1) Perhaps in a static universe, we are looking at a dim galaxy "A" that is close to us, but looks very dim and ghostly and has a high redshift for some reason. What could that reason be? A much brighter but less redshifted galaxy "B" looks to be twice as far away as the very dim and highly redshifted galaxy. How can we explain this?

Or perhaps if redshift were simply a factor of light-travel time and not expansion, why are the earliest galaxies so huge compared to galaxies only a few billion years later when these galaxies seem to have a similar structure and composition? Either we have very large galaxies at long distances, or very dim galaxies at short distance, but when we look at the size and brightness of a galaxy compared to its redshift over the whole range of values we see that neither the "close but dim" or "distant but big" option fits the overall picture. Did all galaxies suddenly shrink to half their size over a period of a few billion years? Are there "ghostly" dim and highly redshifted galaxies that are actually really close to us?

2) In an expanding universe, we are looking at one of the dimmest earliest galaxies (galaxy "A"), that was close to us (3 billion light years) when it emitted its light. At this point in time, the point in space where galaxy "B" formed is around 70% the distance away. Four billion years later when the universe had expanded to a larger size, galaxy "B" is now twice the distance away from us (6 billion light years away) as "A" was to begin with, and its light starts its journey towards us, just as the light from "A" is passing it. How can the light from "A" be just passing "B"? Well the expansion was so fast earlier on, that the light had only managed to cross the distance in space to where "B" formed by this point.

We eventually receive "A" and "B"s light at the same time. "A" (3 billion ly away when the light was emitted) looks a lot bigger than "B" (6 billion ly away when the light was emitted), but a lot dimmer due to the extra light-travel time, and a lot more redshifted due to amount of expansion its light was subject to before it passed the distance where "B" emitted its light.

Take a look at this link as it will help you understand the angular-diameter distance relationship and you will see that our observations fit with an expanding universe far better than with a rotating or static one.

Whatever the figure for the age of the universe is, it cannot change the picture of what the galaxies are doing, only what time frame they did it within.

Either that or we need new explanations for redshifts, angular diameter, time-dilation of SN1a and a whole plethora of other observations that seem to fit so well within our current model.

Just saying the big-bang model is wrong won't change any of that.

At some point here, jeff, the only way you won't be able to understand these simple discussions is if you are being intentionally obtuse.

Here is, yet again, another example.

Let's consider two snails. Snails move slowly, so we can deal with small distances. Let's further say that a snail can move 13.7 m per hour, and let's call 13.7m a "snail-hour" because that is the distance that a snail moves in one hour.

Now, start two snails at the same starting point, but start them in straight opposite directions. Since for a long time now, races start with a pistol going off, let's call the beginning of the race "The Loud Bang". Both snails move at their top speed the entire hour, and on the same straight line they started on. So, after one hour, both snails are 13.7m from the starting line -- one snail-hour's distance. They are 27.4 m apart from each other however. They are 2 snail-hours apart from one another even though is has only been one hour since "The Loud Bang".

Now, if you really are still going to be intentionally obtuse about understanding this, replace "snail" with "galaxy", replace "hour" with "year", replace "snail-hour" with "light-year", replace "Loud Bang" with "Big Bang", and my little story there shows how two galaxies that are 13.7 billion years old can be as much as 27.4 billion light years apart by now -- not to mention a mere 24 billion light years.

Does this clear that up? Do I need to explain it better? Do you need more examples? If this is unclear, please explain how.

My hope is that this completely 100% fixes that issue, so you can get back to actually defending your idea instead of trying to locate holes where there aren't any.

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

Also, rather than attacking a theory that you admittedly don't know much about -- telling us that "it doesn't hold up" -- start telling us how your theory fits the observed data better. Show us how the data that is out there would be much better fitted to a spin rather than an expansion. Show any data at all that supports your idea. If you can't, then you don't have a theory. You have a story, no different than "Finding Nemo" or "Superman" or "Harry Potter". People may believe in Superman or Harry Potter, but without evidence showing that they are true, they are just stories. And the same can be said for your idea; without evidence to show that it is true, it is just a story.

I totally agree with the snail analogy, if galaxies can go the speed of light. Another point to ponder; is that said snails are what we see 12 billion years ago. They have had another 12 billion years since then to keep on trucking.
Why do you think the telescope people and wmap keep saying we are going to see the first galaxies when the new scopes come on line when they are going to see less than 14 billion ly, when you obviously agree with me the universe is larger?

The problem you are having is that you are mixing up two different distance measurements (did you look at that link I posted?).

From that link:

The Light Travel Time Distance represents the time taken for the light from distant galaxies to reach us. This is what is meant when it is said that the visible universe has a radius of 14 billion light years - it is simply a statement that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the light from more distant sources has not had time to reach us.

Light Travel Time Distance is as much a measure of time as a measure of distance. It is useful mainly because it tells us how old the view of the galaxy is that we are seeing.

So our observable universe is (around) 14 billion light years in radius, when using light-travel time. We can see up to 13.7 billion light years in every direction (light-travel time). This means our observable universe is around 27-28 billion light years in diameter, with us at the centre. We see back in time in each direction, seeing galaxies as they were in previous times, all the way back towards when the galaxies first formed.

You are mixing up the light-travel time and the comoving distance, which is the distance these galaxies would be now according to the amount the universe has expanded since their light was emitted.

From that link:

The Comoving Distance is the distance scale that expands with the universe. It tells us where the galaxies are now even though our view of the distant universe is when it was much younger and smaller. On this scale the very edge of the visible universe is now about 47 billion light years from us although the most distant galaxies visible in the Hubble Space Telescope will now be about 32 billion light years from us.

Comoving Distance is the opposite of the Angular Diameter Distance - it tells us where galaxies are now rather than where they were when they emitted the light that we now see.

What is happening here is you are confusing the different ways we have to measure distance with. We have to consider many factors. If a galaxy was 3 billion light years away (angular-diameter distance), 13 billion years ago (light-travel time), it will now be something around 30 billion light years away (comoving distance).

The observable universe was around 40 million ly in radius (angular diameter distance), 13.7 billion years ago (light-travel time), when the CMBR was emitted and filled the universe, 380,000 years after the beginning. That volume of space is now something around 46.5 billion light years in radius (comoving distance) as indicated by the huge amount of redshift of the CMBR which still fills that space but has been "stretched" by a factor of 1090.

At the moment we haven't seen any galaxies or quasars with a redshift of over z=15, but we might see higher redshifts in future. If you look at the graph at that link and see the curve for light travel time, you see that it goes flat at 13.9 billion years (Note, that link is a little old and the figures have been revised down closer to 13.7 since then, but the shape of the graph remains the same, it was only the calibration that changed).

Any observations of even dimmer more redshifted galaxies than we have already seen will only add new data to the graph (assuming they are around the line!) Get your head around all this and you might appreciate exactly what the "telescope people" and the WMAP team were talking about.

By the way, galaxies can apparently recede from us at many multiples of the speed of light, due to the expansion of the universe. The edge of the observable universe is apparently receding from us at something like 50 times the speed of light. Any galaxy over something around 9.5 billion light years away (light-travel time) is apparently receding from us faster than light. But remember they aren't actually moving at that speed, it is the definition of the distances in between them and us that is growing due to the metric expansion, as described by General Relativity. This should be easy to understand when you consider that our galaxy would look like it is receding faster than the speed of light to an observer in that distant galaxy too.

Well, the "little spot" theory is not really a part of the theory. That part is acknowledged to be unknown, at least as of today , but as far as the first trillionth of a second, I believe that is well within experimental range, and prompted Alan Guth to say,

"...cosmologists are claiming that they can extrapolate backward in time to learn the conditions in the universe just one second after the beginning! If cosmologists are so smart, you might ask, why can't they predict the weather? The answer, I would argue, is not that cosmologists are so smart, but that the early universe is much simpler than the weather!"

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Redshift of CMBR is not a model independent observation. CMBR has z of 1089 only if it originated from Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago (or actually little after it). If we assume that CMBR originated at certain temperature from a place that was in thermal equilibrium, which means that we know it should have a blackbody spectrum, and when we know that currently measured spectrum has shape of a blackbody and has low temperature, then we can calculate the redshift from the difference of assumed initial temperature and current measured temperature. In other models or ideas, the redshift of CMBR is likely to be something else. For example, some model might take CMBR as local radiation. In that case, the redshift of CMBR would be zero. Your question is too specific to have a meaning in other models or ideas than in Big Bang universe.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]