Unanswered questions about Dynamic Universe Model

[snp.gupta]

Sir (Tusenfem),

Question: what you mean with both red-and-blue shifted galaxies?

Answer:
Here I want to answer all the Unanswered questions about Dynamic Universe Model in the previous thread.

Please refer to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift, my definition is same.

�
In physics and astronomy, redshift occurs when electromagnetic radiation�usually visible light�emitted or reflected by an object is shifted towards the (less energetic) red end of the electromagnetic spectrum due to the Doppler effect. More generally, redshift is defined as an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in wavelength corresponds to a drop in the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift.
�

I am requesting you all to please feel free to ask any further questions...

[tusenfem]

Well, obviously you have not read the thread that you started here.

We all know what a red shift is and what a blue shift is. What we do not know is why you claim that there are galaxies that have both red shift and blue shift and are apparently categorized as red shifted. So I see this discussion is going to be exactly the same as in the previous thread.

So, once more: your claim here

There are many Galaxies where some blue and red shift are seen, but they were taken as red shifted, some how.

you still have not explained. WHAT DO YOU MEAN HERE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

And no link to wiki about red shift will do, explain yourself, if not this thread will be closed.

[speedfreek]

I think the problem here is that snp.gupta doesn't really understand the nature of cosmological redshift.

There are many Galaxies where some blue and red shift are seen, but they were taken as red shifted, some how.

‘
In physics and astronomy, redshift occurs when electromagnetic radiation—usually visible light—emitted or reflected by an object is shifted towards the (less energetic) red end of the electromagnetic spectrum due to the Doppler effect. More generally, redshift is defined as an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in wavelength corresponds to a drop in the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift.
‘

If a galaxy is rotating, then the side of the galaxy that is rotating towards us will emit light that is Doppler blueshifted when compared to the wavelength emitted by the source. The other side of the galaxy is rotating away from us, so the light from that side will be Doppler redshifted when compared to the wavelength emitted by the source.

Now, if that galaxy is also receding from us, all the light emitted from it will be cosmologically redshifted due to that recession. If the galaxy is receding from us faster than one side of it is rotating towards us, we see the light from that side as cosmologically redshifted too, but not redshifted as much as the light from the side that is rotating away from us. The light from the side that is rotating towards us is still Doppler blueshifted in relation to the light from the side that is rotating away, but we see it cosmologically redshifted due to the overall recession speed.

If the centre of a receding galaxy is the "average" measurement, it shows a redshift. The side of that galaxy that is rotating towards us is redshifted a little less than the average, and the side that is rotating away is redshifted a little more. The side that is rotating towards us is therefore blueshifted in relation the other side.

I think that snp.gupta is under the impression that we actually see a net blueshift in the light from galaxies that are receding due to cosmological expansion, whereas we actually see redshifts of differing amounts.

[slang]

I think that snp.gupta is under the impression that we actually see a net blueshift in the light from galaxies that are receding due to cosmological expansion, whereas we actually see redshifts of differing amounts.

Yes, that certainly seems the case, and it has been explained to him many times in previous threads. But maybe your explanation will be the one that works, I've noticed they often are. If not, perhaps snp.gupta will finally posts some specific examples of what he's talking about.

[snp.gupta]

Yes, that certainly seems the case, and it has been explained to him many times in previous threads. But maybe your explanation will be the one that works, I've noticed they often are. If not, perhaps snp.gupta will finally posts some specific examples of what he's talking about.

One Example of 22 quasars is available at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904054

Here the authors discuss about the Red and Blue Shifted Broad Lines in Luminous Quasars. Here the authors D. H. McIntosh (Steward Obs.), H.-W. Rix (MPIA), M. J. Rieke (Steward Obs.), C. B. Foltz (MMTO).

[snp.gupta]

This is a new result from the Dynamic Universe model. It is stabilizing structurally to Newtonian Static Model on large scales; while other masses nearby like solar system, HIP71681, HIP71683, etc, continue to move dynamically. Heavy masses like Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies are neither moving much with respect to time nor rotating about each other. These are the results, by continuing for further iterations in the earlier Pioneer Anomaly paper masses. Here again the total masses are 133, and no galaxies further to Andromeda are used in that SITA simulation. Same math frame work and same algorithms are used, for the last 17 years or so. Only initial conditions of astronomical masses like positions and velocities and selection of astro-bodies were changed so far for all these years.

Your comments please...

[Celestial Mechanic]

One Example of 22 quasars is available at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904054

Here the authors discuss about the Red and Blue Shifted Broad Lines in Luminous Quasars. Here the authors D. H. McIntosh (Steward Obs.), H.-W. Rix (MPIA), M. J. Rieke (Steward Obs.), C. B. Foltz (MMTO).

From the abstract of the paper:

[Snip!]From data in the literature, we confirm that the high-ionization rest-frame ultraviolet broad lines are blueshifted ~550-1050 km/s from systemic, and that these velocity shifts systematically increase with ionization potential. [Snip!]

{Bolding mine}

Do you see the word "systemic"? The blue-shifting is measured relative to the overall red-shift. 550-1050 km/s corresponds to a contribution to the shift of 0.002 to 0.003, compared to the overall redshift of z equal to 2.0 to 2.5 in the sample of quasars in the paper. ALL of the quasar lines are red-shifted; some are less red-shifted than others.

[tusenfem]

This is a new result from the Dynamic Universe model. It is stabilizing structurally to Newtonian Static Model on large scales; while other masses nearby like solar system, HIP71681, HIP71683, etc, continue to move dynamically. Heavy masses like Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies are neither moving much with respect to time nor rotating about each other. These are the results, by continuing for further iterations in the earlier Pioneer Anomaly paper masses. Here again the total masses are 133, and no galaxies further to Andromeda are used in that SITA simulation. Same math frame work and same algorithms are used, for the last 17 years or so. Only initial conditions of astronomical masses like positions and velocities and selection of astro-bodies were changed so far for all these years.

Your comments please...

Comment:

And now in understandable language please?
Is this an abstract of an abstract and then condensed for better comprehension?

[nutant gene 71]

Yes, that certainly seems the case, and it has been explained to him many times in previous threads. But maybe your explanation will be the one that works, I've noticed they often are. If not, perhaps snp.gupta will finally posts some specific examples of what he's talking about.

If a galaxy is rotating, then the side of the galaxy that is rotating towards us will emit light that is Doppler blueshifted when compared to the wavelength emitted by the source. The other side of the galaxy is rotating away from us, so the light from that side will be Doppler redshifted when compared to the wavelength emitted by the source.

I think evidence of this 'blue-red' shifted light is visible in this image of Arp 261 galaxy. See the little blue-red galaxies visible in the background, where incoming is blue, outgoing is red in terms of galactic spin:

Telescope Captures Grouping of Oddball Galaxy and Supernova (enlarged image).

Original article on Space.com is here, FYI.

[speedfreek]

I think evidence of this 'blue-red' shifted light is visible in this image of Arp 261 galaxy. See the little blue-red galaxies visible in the background, where incoming is blue, outgoing is red in terms of galactic spin:

Telescope Captures Grouping of Oddball Galaxy and Supernova (enlarged image).

Original article on Space.com is here, FYI.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in that picture. The two artefacts showing in the left and top of the picture are asteroids within our solar system (as it says in the article), and there seems to be no mention of red-blue galaxies. Which galaxies did you mean?

ARP 261 is only around 70 million light years away, so it would show almost no cosmological redshift anyway (z=0.005) as it is too close to have much of a recession speed.

[snp.gupta]

Comment:

And now in understandable language please?
Is this an abstract of an abstract and then condensed for better comprehension?

In Dynamic Universe Model (in SITA simulations) we can change time step for every iteration, and specify number of iterations it has to compute. Here in this case, same old Pioneer anomaly model was used, with 1 sec time step and 2000 iterations. Here my laptop took about 5 hours continuous running to compute.

Here what happened was distant masses were not moving. They experienced very little accelerations. They almost stayed stand still. It is some thing very much like Newtonian static model. But nearby masses like solar system etc continued to move. The distant are dynamically stable. (I may be contradicting my earlier statements about rotation of bodies.)

I changed the initial sets of masses to different sets, still the results are similar.

[snp.gupta]

From the abstract of the paper:
{Bolding mine}

Do you see the word "systemic"? The blue-shifting is measured relative to the overall red-shift. 550-1050 km/s corresponds to a contribution to the shift of 0.002 to 0.003, compared to the overall redshift of z equal to 2.0 to 2.5 in the sample of quasars in the paper. ALL of the quasar lines are red-shifted; some are less red-shifted than others.

You are correct, But what I man to say quasars show, variation in redshifts.

[slang]

You are correct, But what I man to say quasars show, variation in redshifts.

Do you mean to say that all quasars should have the same redshift?

[nutant gene 71]

I'm not sure what you are referring to in that picture. The two artefacts showing in the left and top of the picture are asteroids within our solar system (as it says in the article), and there seems to be no mention of red-blue galaxies. Which galaxies did you mean?

ARP 261 is only around 70 million light years away, so it would show almost no cosmological redshift anyway (z=0.005) as it is too close to have much of a recession speed.

I reread the article, and indeed they were asteroids, so they are spinning. Nothing to do with galaxy spins. Thanks for pointing it out.

[snp.gupta]

Do you mean to say that all quasars should have the same redshift?

No, sir, I feel many quasars show such variations in redshifts....

[slang]

I reread the article, and indeed they were asteroids, so they are spinning. Nothing to do with galaxy spins. Thanks for pointing it out.

(bold mine) Maybe I misunderstand you, but the color effect you see in the two asteroids is not a result from the asteroids spinning. AFAIK it is caused by the telescope switching filters to create a color image.

Do you mean to say that all quasars should have the same redshift?

No, sir, I feel many quasars show such variations in redshifts....

I find it difficult to understand what you mean. Do you mean that many single quasars shows variation in their own redshift, or do you mean that there are many quasars, each with a different redshift? Or something else?

[snp.gupta]

Comment:

And now in understandable language please?
Is this an abstract of an abstract and then condensed for better comprehension?

Continuing Explanation:

In this Dynamic Universe Model ( in SITA simulations), time step is amount of time between iterations.

1. When a less time step of the order of 1sec, the masses don�t show any movement and stabilizes something like Static model.

2. When a time step like 1million or 10 million years used, the same masses act as though they are in an expanding universe. All masses diversify from each other, say just like in BIGBANG universe The internal distances between masses vary some times go high and some times go less�
Again back to 1 second appears as Newton Static Model

[snp.gupta]

....

I find it difficult to understand what you mean. Do you mean that many single quasars shows variation in their own redshift, or do you mean that there are many quasars, each with a different redshift? Or something else?

I mean that many single quasars shows variation in their own redshift...???

[slang]

I mean that many single quasars shows variation in their own redshift...???

Thank you. Can you show an example of a quasar that does that?

[snp.gupta]

Thank you. Can you show an example of a quasar that does that?

I don�t mean that way sir,

I did not mean that quasar itself manipulates its redshifts.

But I mean that, ( like in the example we discussed 22 quasars), there may be many quasar like that , which have variations in its red shift.

i don�t know still, why such phenomena occurs...????

[slang]

Thank you. Can you show an example of a quasar that does that?

I don�t mean that way sir,

I did not mean that quasar itself manipulates its redshifts.

But I mean that, ( like in the example we discussed 22 quasars), there may be many quasar like that , which have variations in its red shift.

i don�t know still, why such phenomena occurs...????

Let me rephrase. Can you show a specific example of a quasar that appears to have variation in its redshift? But maybe the confusion is in something else: do you mean that the entire spectrum of one quasar shows (equal) variation in redshift, or is your question about how certain lines in the spectrum of a single quasar can (seem to?) have different redshifts?

[tusenfem]

spp.gupta can you please try to give answers?

1. First of all, the question about the red-and-blue shift (caused by rotation of the galaxies) did you understand that that is on top of the receeding redshift?
2. Why did you introduce a new topic in that message above: This is a new result from the Dynamic Universe model. It is stabilizing structurally to Newtonian Static Model on large scales; while other masses nearby like solar system, HIP71681, HIP71683, etc, continue to move dynamically.? This adds nothing to the discussion.
3. Why do you answer direct questions with questions? Apparently, you don't believe yourself: I mean that many single quasars shows variation in their own redshift...???

And then the last "coninuing explanation", why are you introducing this here, when there are loads of questions to be answered from the previous thread?

In this Dynamic Universe Model ( in SITA simulations), time step is amount of time between iterations.

1. When a less time step of the order of 1sec, the masses don�t show any movement and stabilizes something like Static model.

2. When a time step like 1million or 10 million years used, the same masses act as though they are in an expanding universe. All masses diversify from each other, say just like in BIGBANG universe The internal distances between masses vary some times go high and some times go less�
Again back to 1 second appears as Newton Static Model

That a time step is the amount of time between iterations is not much of a surprise, I guess everyone would understand that, but ....

1. why would I expect masses to show movement over 1 second? Even the Earth around the Sun would not show any real change in location after 1 second in a simulation. This just does not make sense. You have to use realistic time intervals to see whether something is changing or not. That does not mean you have to increas your time step, but you have to increase the amount of time (number of iterations) to come to a reasonable result. 1 second is NOT a reasonable time.

2. Do you really think that a time step of 1 million years is reasonable?

I am just totally puzzled.

[snp.gupta]

Let me rephrase. Can you show a specific example of a quasar that appears to have variation in its redshift? But maybe the confusion is in something else: do you mean that the entire spectrum of one quasar shows (equal) variation in redshift, or is your question about how certain lines in the spectrum of a single quasar can (seem to?) have different redshifts?

Sir,

I am not an expert on this subject of quasars. I never see thro any astronomical telescope. I am giving the details from the paper I mentioned at Post #5.
========
Red and Blue Shifted Broad Lines in Luminous Quasars 1

D. H. McIntosh2, H.-W. Rix3, M. J. Rieke2, C. B. Foltz4


Table 1. Observed Redshift Parameters
QSO zsys Br+oad H_
_ ctr zem _v
(�A) (km s−1)
BAL0043+008 2.146 4866 �} 2 2.149 310 �} 120
Q0049+014 2.307 4862 �} 4 2.308 60 �} 310
Q0109+022 2.351 4868 �} 6 2.356 430 �} 370
Q0123+257 2.370 4868 �} 3 2.375 430 �} 190
Q0153+744 2.341 4871 �} 2 2.348 620 �} 190
Q0226-038 2.073 4858 �} 5 2.071 −190 �} 310
Q0421+019 2.056 4873 �} 3 2.064 740 �} 190
Q0424-131 2.168 4866 �} 3 2.171 310 �} 190
Q0552+398 2.363 4867 �} 3 2.367 370 �} 190
HE1104-181 2.318 4870 �} 3 2.324 560 �} 190
Q1148-001 1.980a ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
Q1222+228 2.058 4858 �} 3 2.056 −190 �} 190
Q1228+077 2.389 4860 �} 3 2.388 −60 �} 190
PG1247+267 2.042 4873 �} 1 2.050 740 �} 60
Q1331+170 2.097 4861 �} 4 2.097 0 �} 250
Q1416+091 2.017 4851 �} 8 2.011 −620 �} 490
Q1435+638 2.066 4875 �} 4 2.075 860 �} 250
Q1448-232 2.220 4876 �} 2 2.230 930 �} 120
Q1704+710 2.010 4879 �} 5 2.021 1110 �} 310
BAL2212-179 2.228 4864 �} 5 2.230 190 �} 310
Q2251+244 2.359 4852 �} 4 2.353 −560 �} 250
Q2310+385 2.181 4869 �} 4 2.186 490 �} 250
aRedshift of this QSO is such that H_ line center is
blueward of H-band window.

Their Results and Discussion
From the above analysis, we find:
1. that the H_ broad component emission has a weighted mean redshift of 520 � 80 km s−1
relative to zsys, with a sample variance of 360 km s−1.
2. that on average the Mg II_2798 based redshift is within ∼ 50 km s−1 of systemic, confirming
that LILs should provide reliable zsys estimates (Carswell et al. 1991). The rest wavelength
and strength of Mg II emission make it the line of choice for determining zsys of distant
(1.0 < z < 2.2) QSOs without NIR spectroscopy, or even more remote (z ∼ > 3.1) objects
using NIR spectroscopy.
3. confirmation of the following effects: (i) The average blueshift (∼ 600 − 1100 km s−1) of the
HILs relative to the LIL Mg II. (ii) The correlation between average blueward velocity shift
and ionization potential for each resonance broad line species.
4. no correlation between QSO radio type (i.e. radio-loud versus radio-quiet) and any of the
line species velocity shifts.

=====

Please see the paper at the above (Post #5) link. Preview is showing the table ok.
I thought this problem may exist in many other quasars�

[snp.gupta]

spp.gupta can you please try to give answers?

I will answer. I will try my level best...

[snp.gupta]

spp.gupta

1. First of all, the question about the red-and-blue shift (caused by rotation of the galaxies) did you understand that that is on top of the receeding redshift?

Yes , It is ok for me. Probably that explains such red shift variations...

[snp.gupta]

I mean that many single quasars shows variation in their own redshift...???[/I]

Please see my post #20. I did not mean that way it was sounded..

[snp.gupta]

Why did you introduce a new topic in that message above: This is a new result from the Dynamic Universe model. It is stabilizing structurally to Newtonian Static Model on large scales; while other masses nearby like solar system, HIP71681, HIP71683, etc, continue to move dynamically.? This adds nothing to the discussion.
.

I feel it adds to this discussion. You need to understand some of the qualities of this model. This about it in general. I could have opened one more thread� Then I felt it is more appropriate here.

[snp.gupta]

And then the last "coninuing explanation", why are you introducing this here, when there are loads of questions to be answered from the previous thread?

You are trying to probe into this Dynamic Universe model so deeply; I thought that will add to the understanding. I will answer all your questions one by one, from the old thread also.

I am requesting you to please indicate me some importent questions I omitted�
which one I should go next?

[snp.gupta]

That a time step is the amount of time between iterations is not much of a surprise, I guess everyone would understand that, but ....

1. why would I expect masses to show movement over 1 second? Even the Earth around the Sun would not show any real change in location after 1 second in a simulation. This just does not make sense. You have to use realistic time intervals to see whether something is changing or not. ....

Yes sir you are correct!

[snp.gupta]

.......That does not mean you have to increas your time step, but you have to increase the amount of time (number of iterations) to come to a reasonable result. 1 second is NOT a reasonable time.....

In Dynamic universe model it is slightly different. That linerity law between time step and number of iterations will not work here...