doppler redshift physics,is galatic plane physics only

[north]

it seems to me that BB( big-bang) is fundamentally based on the physics of the galatic equatorial planer discs. and the resultant redshifts.

however as of yet it has not proven that this is true by showing that the globulus core center of a galaxy is actualy moving "along" with the discs.

any comments?

[Nereid]

it seems to me that BB( big-bang) is fundamentally based on the physics of the galatic equatorial planer discs. and the resultant redshifts.

however as of yet it has not proven that this is true by showing that the globulus core center of a galaxy is actualy moving "along" with the discs.

any comments?Yes - what is the ATM idea that you are proposing?

Specifically, are you simply asking "what is the underlying physics in today's cosmology, and how is applied (consistently)?"?

[north]

Yes - what is the ATM idea that you are proposing?

Specifically, are you simply asking "what is the underlying physics in today's cosmology, and how is applied (consistently)?"?

that unless the reshifts can be proved to be also applied too any and really all galatic gluobular centers, then really doppler redshifts are about the physics of equatorial disc planes of the galaxy.

nothing more.

[Tensor]

that unless the reshifts can be proved to be also applied too any and really all galatic gluobular centers, then really doppler redshifts are about the physics of equatorial disc planes of the galaxy.

nothing more.


What about face on spirals? I'd suggest some research on how galactic redshift is measured. You'll also have to explain why distance can be independently verified(and matches redshift distance) out to 100 MLY.

[Tim Thompson]

however as of yet it has not proven that this is true by showing that the globulus core center of a galaxy is actualy moving "along" with the discs.

I think it has been proven, and beyond question. Spiral galaxies always have a central bulge. They never have an off-center bulge. But if the bulge moved differently from the disk, then there should be spiral or disk galaxies with bulges all over the place. So observation of bulges only in the center should be enough to disprove the hypothesis that disk & bulge move separately.

Also notice that the redshifts of elliptical & spiral galaxies in a cluster are not systematically different. So you can't single out spiral or disk galaxies. They are not systematically different, at least on the matter of redshifts.

And finally, for galaxies that are close enough, this hypothesis can be (and has been) tested by direct observation. We derive the rotation curves for galaxies by measuring the differential redshift across the disk, for edge on or nearly edge on spirals. The redshift is a simple Doppler shift, and invariably one side of the galaxy is redshifted, and the other side blue shifted, with respect to the central bulge. If the central bulge moved independently, it would not be systematically in the middle of the Doppler shift of the galaxy.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
however as of yet it has not proven that this is true by showing that the globulus core center of a galaxy is actualy moving "along" with the discs.


I think it has been proven, and beyond question. Spiral galaxies always have a central bulge. They never have an off-center bulge. But if the bulge moved differently from the disk, then there should be spiral or disk galaxies with bulges all over the place. So observation of bulges only in the center should be enough to disprove the hypothesis that disk & bulge move separately.

Also notice that the redshifts of elliptical & spiral galaxies in a cluster are not systematically different. So you can't single out spiral or disk galaxies. They are not systematically different, at least on the matter of redshifts.

And finally, for galaxies that are close enough, this hypothesis can be (and has been) tested by direct observation. We derive the rotation curves for galaxies by measuring the differential redshift across the disk, for edge on or nearly edge on spirals. The redshift is a simple Doppler shift, and invariably one side of the galaxy is redshifted, and the other side blue shifted, with respect to the central bulge. If the central bulge moved independently, it would not be systematically in the middle of the Doppler shift of the galaxy.

here in ALL of you points you have ASSUMED that there is movement of such and such a galaxy. and that this movement is based on what the "DISCS" are doing. and that therefore the "central bulge" is doing the same.

I make NO such assumption.

and a I've said before until the "central bulge" is shown and proved in and of its self to be moving as the discs are projected to be, to be actually moving in and of its self, there is NO expansion at all.

[Celestial Mechanic]

So why are there "no (galactic) cores left behind"? ;)

[north]

So why are there "no (galactic) cores left behind"? ;)

you have ASSUMED there is "expansion" I do not.

[Lurker]

So why are there "no (galactic) cores left behind"? ;)
because they turn into dark matter... I would say more, but its not safe here... :shifty:

maybe 'cause the greys clean them up... :)

[north]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
So why are there "no (galactic) cores left behind"?



because they turn into dark matter... I would say more, but its not safe here... :shifty:

maybe 'cause the greys clean them up... :)

why is it not safe here?

[R.A.F.]

Yes - what is the ATM idea that you are proposing?

Specifically, are you simply asking "what is the underlying physics in today's cosmology, and how is applied (consistently)?"?

Seems like he is saying that modern cosmology makes assumptions while he (personally) does not...and therefore he is right...???

Although he hasn't made any effort to explain (with evidence) just why he believes that...or just why he has totally disregarded Tim Thompson's post.

[Nereid]

Yes - what is the ATM idea that you are proposing?

Specifically, are you simply asking "what is the underlying physics in today's cosmology, and how is applied (consistently)?"?that unless the reshifts can be proved to be also applied too any and really all galatic gluobular centers, then really doppler redshifts are about the physics of equatorial disc planes of the galaxy.

nothing more.
here in ALL of you points you have ASSUMED that there is movement of such and such a galaxy. and that this movement is based on what the "DISCS" are doing. and that therefore the "central bulge" is doing the same.

I make NO such assumption.

and a I've said before until the "central bulge" is shown and proved in and of its self to be moving as the discs are projected to be, to be actually moving in and of its self, there is NO expansion at all.Thanks for the clarification.

How - in principle - could your ATM claim be shown to be inconsistent with the way the universe works?

[Tim Thompson]

here in ALL of you points you have ASSUMED that there is movement of such and such a galaxy. and that this movement is based on what the "DISCS" are doing. and that therefore the "central bulge" is doing the same.
Absolutely false. I only point out thet there are no spiral galaxies anywhere which have a bulge anywhere except at the center. That is an observtion, not an assumption. If, as you claim, the bulge & disk can move separately, then this observation cannot be observed. Since the observation is observed, then the contradictory assumption that you suggest is impossible. I have proven that you are wrong.

[Thanatos]

Tim's redshift argument is pretty powerful. Show an example of an edge on galaxy where the redshift of the bulge is not [within error bars] somewhere in between the redshift of the opposing arms and you might be onto something.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
here in ALL of you points you have ASSUMED that there is movement of such and such a galaxy. and that this movement is based on what the "DISCS" are doing. and that therefore the "central bulge" is doing the same.



Absolutely false. I only point out thet there are no spiral galaxies anywhere which have a bulge anywhere except at the center. That is an observtion, not an assumption. If, as you claim, the bulge & disk can move separately, then this observation cannot be observed. Since the observation is observed, then the contradictory assumption that you suggest is impossible. I have proven that you are wrong.

actually, you misunderstand what I'm trying to point out.

what I'm trying to point out is that, we have ASSUMED that what the DISC( equatorial plane) is doing, moving away, implies that so is the central galatic bulge. this has NOT been proven.

inotherwords if one takes a certain galatic central bulge,only and then compared to another galatic central bulge,only( NO equatorial disc physics are considered) are these galaxies still actually moving away from each other??

[Nereid]

actually, you misunderstand what I'm trying to point out.

what I'm trying to point out is that, we have ASSUMED that what the DISC( equatorial plane) is doing, moving away, implies that so is the central galatic bulge. this has NOT been proven.You might like to review the work of SDSS and 2dF, paying particular attention to the galaxy spectra (you may need to understand some technical details of how the spectra are obtained and processed).

In particular, please present a specific example of what you claiming - namely, a galaxy in which the bulge and (average) disc have significantly different observed redshifts.
inotherwords if one takes a certain galatic central bulge,only and then compared to another galatic central bulge,only( NO equatorial disc physics are considered) are these galaxies still actually moving away from each other??Here are two: M31 (http://chandra.as.utexas.edu/~kormendy/bhpix.html) and Centaurus A (NGC 5128) (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2001/pr-04-01.html).

[north]

perhaps I'm still not being clear Nereid.

I'm NOT talking about redshifts WITHIN the galatic bulge.

but what I am talking about is COMPARING one galatic bulge( a galaxy) to ANOTHER galatic bulge( another galaxy). and SEEING if when COMPARED the bulges themselves are redshifted too each other. and not in any way being concerned with the physics of the discs themselves.

[Nereid]

perhaps I'm still not being clear Nereid.

I'm NOT talking about redshifts WITHIN the galatic bulge.

but what I am talking about is COMPARING one galatic bulge( a galaxy) to ANOTHER galatic bulge( another galaxy). and SEEING if when COMPARED the bulges themselves are redshifted too each other. and not in any way being concerned with the physics of the discs themselves.And perhaps my reply to your post was equally unclear ... I gave you specific data - spectra - of two galaxy nuclei. If you care to examine those data, you will see that the two (nuclei) redshifts are different (and that the observed redshifts owe nothing to the discs themselves).

Please take another look at those two sets of data, and, using them as specific, concrete examples, explain what your ATM idea is, concerning the redshifts of galaxy bulges (compared between galaxies, not within the individual bulges).

[north]

Nereid notice I said;

"perhaps I'm still not being clear Nereid.

I'm NOT talking about redshifts WITHIN the galatic bulge.

but what I am talking about is COMPARING one galatic bulge( a galaxy) to ANOTHER galatic bulge( another galaxy)."



and SEEING if when COMPARED the bulges themselves are redshifted too each other.

now in your first example it talked about blackholes and the speed of the stars moving towards the bulge of M31. what has that got to do with my above question(directly above)?

[Nereid]

Nereid notice I said;

"perhaps I'm still not being clear Nereid.

I'm NOT talking about redshifts WITHIN the galatic bulge.

but what I am talking about is COMPARING one galatic bulge( a galaxy) to ANOTHER galatic bulge( another galaxy)."


"and SEEING if when COMPARED the bulges themselves are redshifted too each other."

now in your first example it talked about blackholes and the speed of the stars moving towards the bulge of M31. what has that got to do with my above question(directly above)?Perhaps it's a miscommunication, at a very basic level.

Would you please state, clearly, what you mean when you use the term "galatic bulge"?

And, so that we can all be sure we are not talking past each other, please state the size, in arcseconds, of the "galatic bulge" of M31, and the "galatic bulge" of Centaurus A (according to the way you use this key term).

[north]

the "galatic bulge" or the globular center or the spherical center bulge of the galaxy. these definitions, all of which extends above and below the equatorial disc of the galaxy.

what other "galatic bulge" could I be possibly talking about, really?

[Tim Thompson]

Absolutely false. I only point out thet there are no spiral galaxies anywhere which have a bulge anywhere except at the center. That is an observtion, not an assumption. If, as you claim, the bulge & disk can move separately, then this observation cannot be observed. Since the observation is observed, then the contradictory assumption that you suggest is impossible. I have proven that you are wrong.

... what I'm trying to point out is that, we have ASSUMED that what the DISC( equatorial plane) is doing, moving away, implies that so is the central galatic bulge. this has NOT been proven.

I cannot comprehend how it is possible for anyone to read my quoted statement, and still say something like that with a straight face. Of course it has been proven, absolutely proven, you read the proof yourself, but I fear it has sailed over your head. By no stretch of the imagination can it be claimed that this is an "assumption".


inotherwords if one takes a certain galatic central bulge,only and then compared to another galatic central bulge,only( NO equatorial disc physics are considered) are these galaxies still actually moving away from each other??

Certainly, it is not an uncommon observation. When the disk is resolved the redshift of the disk varies with the line of sight motion of the rotation of the disk, and the redshift of the bulge is invariably in the middle of that variation, right where it should be. The redshift of the bulge is the redshift of the galaxy.

[Nereid]

Thanks for the clarification.

How - in principle - could your ATM claim be shown to be inconsistent with the way the universe works?It's over a week now, and there is no answer to this question.

Please answer the question.

[north]

Originally Posted by Nereid
Thanks for the clarification.

How - in principle - could your ATM claim be shown to be inconsistent with the way the universe works?


It's over a week now, and there is no answer to this question.

Please answer the question.

simply put

until the physics of the discs are NOT considered when suggesting that the Universe is "expanding", but ONLY the motion relationship between galatic bulges is, then the use of the doppler redshifts is nothing more than the physics of galatic equatorial discs.

and this has NOT been done.

inotherwords when the galaxy is stripped away of not only the galatic equatorial disc its self and therefore information the disc provides, we get just the galatic central spherical bulge.

and until JUST using the galatic central spherical bulges ONLY from different galaxies are considered and proved they themselves are infact redshifted as well, that expansion using the doppler redshifts is purely galatic equatorial redshift physics and nothing more.

and should not be used as an argument that the Universe is in fact expanding.

[north]

Certainly, it is not an uncommon observation. When the disk is resolved the redshift of the disk varies with the line of sight motion of the rotation of the disk, and the redshift of the bulge is invariably in the middle of that variation, right where it should be. The redshift of the bulge is the redshift of the galaxy.

the thing is that you are making the equatorial galatic discs' physics more important than the motional physics of the central bulge of the galaxy its self.

I contend that the motion physics, relative to other galatic bulges of other galaxies, of a said central galatic bulge is actually more important.

for what really controls the behaviour of the galaxy its self, is it the central galatic bulge or the galatic equatorial discs' physics?

I say the central galatic bulge.

[captain swoop]

So are you saying that the disks are moving but he 'bulge' isn't? If that was the case wouldn't we see 'bulges' offcentre in the disks of some galaxies or even 'bulges' where the disk had moved away completely?

[Nereid]

Would you please state, clearly, what you mean when you use the term "galatic bulge"?

And, so that we can all be sure we are not talking past each other, please state the size, in arcseconds, of the "galatic bulge" of M31, and the "galatic bulge" of Centaurus A (according to the way you use this key term).
the "galatic bulge" or the globular center or the spherical center bulge of the galaxy. these definitions, all of which extends above and below the equatorial disc of the galaxy.

what other "galatic bulge" could I be possibly talking about, really?Thank you for the clarification.

How does one determine where these "galatic bulges" end?

What is the relationship between "galatic bulge" and nucleus (of a galaxy)?

And, to repeat the question which has not yet been answered: what is the size, in arcseconds, of the "galatic bulge" of M31 (according to the way you use this key term)?

What is the size, in arcseconds, of the "galatic bulge" of Centaurus A (according to the way you use this key term)?

[north]

Thank you for the clarification.

How does one determine where these "galatic bulges" end?

where the galatic equatorial disc meets the galatic bulge or nucleous of the galaxy.



What is the relationship between "galatic bulge" and nucleus (of a galaxy)?

same


And, to repeat the question which has not yet been answered: what is the size, in arcseconds, of the "galatic bulge" of M31 (according to the way you use this key term)?

well about 60secondsx60x180 minus what the disc its self takes up. and in addition, that which is below 180degrees of a circle.

What is the size, in arcseconds, of the "galatic bulge" of Centaurus A (according to the way you use this key term)?[/QUOTE]

in a moment.

[north]

is there no better photo? Nereid

[north]

is there no better photo? Nereid

never mind, found one. Hubble site.

much clearer than yours.

a far as arcseconds goes, 60x60x360 but minus the thickness of the galatic equatorial disc.

[north]

So are you saying that the disks are moving but the 'bulge' isn't?

thats what I see as a possiblility.

what I'm trying to point out is that using the info. from the disc could give the illusion that the entire galaxy( including the galatic nucleous) is doing the same as the disc.

all I'm asking is that to prove that the ENTIRE galaxy is in actual fact in motion therefore showing expansion, is to isolate the galatic globular nucleous relative to another galatic globular nucleous. and see the results.

[north]

If that was the case wouldn't we see 'bulges' offcentre in the disks of some galaxies or even 'bulges' where the disk had moved away completely?

not necessarily, this assumes expansion.

[north]

never mind, found one. Hubble site.

much clearer than yours.

a far as arcseconds goes, 60x60x360 but minus the thickness of the galatic equatorial disc.

actually when I thought about it, it is not necessary to minus the thickness of the galatic equatorial disc, since the globular nucleous>center is not missing(just hidden) is still there. so the arcseconds are 60x60x360 and as well it would be three dimensional.

[Tensor]

From 1 Sept.


What about face on spirals?

Since we can isolate the Bulge without involving the disk. Or ellipticals, for that matter. They are all bulge. What difference should be seen between these kinds galaxies and observations of edge on spirals?


is to isolate the galatic globular nucleous relative to another galatic globular nucleous. and see the results.

This is just bogus. What you would be comparing the the redshift from each of the galaxies, from our frame of referece, not what the galaxies would measure between themselves. How exactly do you propose to show how this matters? For that matter, do you have anything showing that the disks have any effect that causes a difference in what is observed?

[north]

From 1 Sept.

Since we can isolate the Bulge without involving the disk. Or ellipticals, for that matter. They are all bulge. What difference should be seen between these kinds galaxies and observations of edge on spirals?

none



Originally Posted by north
is to isolate the galatic globular nucleous relative to another galatic globular nucleous. and see the results.


This is just bogus. What you would be comparing the redshift from each of the galaxies, from our frame of referece, not what the galaxies would measure between themselves.

and OUR frame of reference is not what we do now???



How exactly do you propose to show how this matters? For that matter, do you have anything showing that the disks have any effect that causes a difference in what is observed?

it matters because if the galatic globular nucleous does not behave as the disc would indicate then there is a problem!!

my point is that all observations are based on the behavior of the disc, not on any galatic central bulge, compared to another. and this proven by the fact that nobody has stated out right that this has been done and given the method by which this was done.

[Tim Thompson]

my point is that all observations are based on the behavior of the disc, not on any galatic central bulge, compared to another. and this proven by the fact that nobody has stated out right that this has been done and given the method by which this was done.
Well, there's a vote of confidence if ever I saw one. We have now established that if it ain't on BAUT, it has never happened in astronomical history. Toss out the text books, and skip astronomy class kids, just hang around BAUT and you will get it all.

Of course, I have already stated, explicitly, that it has been done, and I have also given the method. I was explicit in post #5 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=817103&postcount=5), to which you have responded with a long train of incomprehensible claims that the observations are actually only assumptions. The assumptions that you claim are being made are not being made. It is bad enough that you are incomprehensible, but even worse that you cannot look up for yourself, something as basic & obvious as this. Why should we be forced to spoon feed you, when you don't even have to strength to "google" for "galaxy rotation curves", or something like that, and find out for yourself?

Galaxies rotation curves - A catalogue (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1983A%26AS...53..373B&db_key=AST &data_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465100671), Baiesi-Pillastrini, Palumbo & Vettolani; Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 53: 373-381, September 1983. This 23 year old paper presents a catalog of galaxy rotation curves, for 271 galaxies, the results derived from 332 papers. You can bet there are a lot more out there now. Every galaxy for which a rotation curve has been measured, is an example of the observation that you claim has not been made. There is no assumption, there is never an assumption that the disk is "more important" than the bulge. Even in the case of galaxies that are unresolved, one can derive the rotation curve from the fact that the outer disc must move faster along the line of sight to the galaxy, if the galaxy is rotating at all. This is because at the outer edge, the total velocity will be the rotation plus the translation of the galaxy, whereas the bulge will show only the translational motion. This gives a very distinctive & easily predicatble shape to the Dopplergram for the galaxy, which shape shows at once that the galaxy is in fact rotating (for examples of how this is done see the PDF file http://rocinante.colorado.edu/~pja/astr3830/lecture17.pdf ).

I have not been able to understand you at all in this thread, nothing you say makes even the tiniest bit of sense. Aside from the fact that you keep inventing some non-existent "assumptions" you think people are making, your insistence that the bulge should dominate the "motion" of the galaxy is not at all understandable. One reason is that you don't say what you mean, what "motion" are you talking about? Rotation? Translation? Both? Neither? Another is that simple physics quickly shows that the rotation of the galaxy must be "dominated", in any normal sense of the word, by the physics of the disk. After all, the disk is not "flat" because there is a bulge, it is "flat" because it rotates, regardless of what the bulge does. Furthermore, spiral arms & bars are a result of instabilities in the disk which overpower any stabilizing influence of the central bulge (a known fact revealed in any study of galaxy dynamics, if ever you actually read one).

Quite simply, you are quite wrong, but you seem to be quite unwilling to consider anything that anyone else has to say. So why do you even bother to ask?

[north]

Tim

what I'm trying to get across is this;

disc, galatic rotation is NOT what I'm trying to put forth, this is;

what I'm after is the relationship between one galatic nucleous to another,ONLY.

are both of these galatic nuclei actually moving away from each other?

that is what I'm getting at.

[Tim Thompson]

are both of these galatic nuclei actually moving away from each other?

Of course they are. We can only measure radial velocities, but all you have to do is compare them for two different galaxies. The galaxy with a higher redshift is moving away from us, faster than is a lower redshift galaxy. So, it must be moving away from the lower redshift galaxy too. We can't measure transverse velocities (proper motions) of galaxies, because they are so far away, and have such small transverse motions. But the radial velocities alone should be good enough for that. And since all galaxy redshifts are based on the motion of the core, that should answer your question.

[north]

Of course they are. We can only measure radial velocities, but all you have to do is compare them for two different galaxies. The galaxy with a higher redshift is moving away from us, faster than is a lower redshift galaxy. So, it must be moving away from the lower redshift galaxy too. We can't measure transverse velocities (proper motions) of galaxies, because they are so far away, and have such small transverse motions. But the radial velocities alone should be good enough for that. And since all galaxy redshifts are based on the motion of the core, that should answer your question.

but there must be a way of measuring the transverse velocities of galaxies.there has to be.

until then the radial velocities and the resultant redshifts could mean something else entirely.

I've have a question though, could not it be that simply the further away a galaxy is, that Naturally, generally speaking( there are exceptions I would imagine though) , the more redshifted it would be?

[Thanatos]

You are beating a dead horse, Tim.

North, what in the world are you talking about? You start with a bizarre claim and it just gets weirder with every post. It gives me the impression you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Tim Thompson]

You are beating a dead horse, Tim.
Actually, it's more like picking on some defenseless weakling. A very unchivalrous thing to do, most of the time, but sometimes necessary. You never know, someday even North may become conscious and aware of the true meaning of science.


but there must be a way of measuring the transverse velocities of galaxies. there has to be.
Just because we want something to be a certain way, that does not mean it has to be that way. So far as I know, there is no way to measure the transverse velocity of a galaxy, at least not over practical time scales. Now, if you could build up maybe a 10,000 year long database of VLBI observations, you might be able to pull it off. But until then, we have to do without.


until then the radial velocities and the resultant redshifts could mean something else entirely.
That's right. Yes, they could.


I've have a question though, could not it be that simply the further away a galaxy is, that Naturally, generally speaking (there are exceptions I would imagine though), the more redshifted it would be?
That, of course, is exactly the case, if the universe is expanding. And since that is the simplest way to "naturally" explain the redshift - distance relationship, modern cosmology is built around the fundamental principle of an expanding universe.

[north]

You are beating a dead horse, Tim.

North, what in the world are you talking about? You start with a bizarre claim and it just gets weirder with every post. It gives me the impression you have no idea what you are talking about.

its all about whether the Universe is actually expanding or not. thats my point.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
I've have a question though, could not it be that simply the further away a galaxy is, that Naturally, generally speaking (there are exceptions I would imagine though), the more redshifted it would be?



That, of course, is exactly the case, if the universe is expanding. And since that is the simplest way to "naturally" explain the redshift - distance relationship, modern cosmology is built around the fundamental principle of an expanding universe.

but this does not answer my question above, does it!

would not light be Naturally redshifted just because of distance alone? whether the Universe is expanding or not.

that is my question

[Tim Thompson]

would not light be Naturally redshifted just because of distance alone? whether the Universe is expanding or not. that is my question
No, it would not. At least, there exists neither fact nor theory, so far as I know, which would either allow, explain or predict such a thing. Redshifting by distance alone will require a radical, new theory of physics.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] Would not light be naturally redshifted just because of distance alone whether the Universe is expanding or not? That is my question.
There are numerous theories along this line, generally referred to as "tired light theories". Unfortunately all of them have been found wanting in some regard or other.