Jump to content
Science Forums

CarlNGraham

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

CarlNGraham last won the day on May 14 2012

CarlNGraham had the most liked content!

About CarlNGraham

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London Uk
  • Interests
    Micro processors architecture
    Computer game coding
    Writing science fiction
  1. I think the idea is that it is only our view of these objects that is time dilated, not the objects themselves. As space expands the light travel distance to these objects increases, each photon from an object takes longer to reach us than the last. This slows down our view of distance galaxies, not the galaxies its self.
  2. The interesting problem with these types of arguments is all experiments are done using instruments made of atoms. However, the idea is that possibly atoms are shrinking. If the experiment had been done billions of years ago at z = 4, maybe atoms and the instruments made from them were 5 times bigger. Possibly made of atoms emitting/absorbing photons of five times longer wavelength at one-fifth the rate. What would 200 GeV look like to an instrument made of those atoms? The other fun question is: Is there a difference between matter shrinking and the universe expanding? If you think abou
  3. I don't think it is quite a simple as using the "correct assumption" Stars can only move following the path of their "correct assumption" if DM exists, without DM or MOND it is physically impossible. As far as I can see the original paper assumed no DM and was expecting to stars to oscillate vertically through the plane of the disk as they orbit. This motion is improbable if a DM halo exists & would imply the galaxy is growing?
  4. I suspect the Type 1a supernova are caused by the Chandrasekhar limit being exceeded, either by Collison or slow transfer. I am only saying, merging or colliding anything with a cooling white dwarf is highly likely to cause an explosion. The atoms are just too tightly packed for electrons to exist in shells around the atoms, adding more mass will cause total collapse. Another complication when thinking about star mergers, is some stars like Betelgeuse possibly have more than one core. That is it has a possible companion star orbiting inside it. Wikipedia
  5. I think you are interested in the theory, where as I am concentrating on observational evidence (not quite fact :) ). I may not be up to date on this, but so far not one has found the other star (apart from possibly Tycho G) I think there are a good 5 to 7 near enough, to be observed in detail where no other star can be detected to a high degree of certainty. So in the cases observed in detail, either the second star was so close to the explosion that it was destroyed without a trace, ie a collision, or only one star was involved.
  6. I am referring more to observational evidence, rather than the theory. We have thousands of pictures of areas of space before a supernova event, as well as after. So far there is very little evidence for the other star before or after the event. This suggest only one star was involved or both were totally destroyed, possibly in a collision. Many remnants are not symmetrical, possible suggesting two slightly diffent size stars were involved. In theory, a white dwarf gaining mass by any method could cause a supernova. I like the idea of dense interstellar medium trapping shells of matter
  7. I was under the impression that white dwarf collisions were now the main candidate for Type 1a, because observations do not show a large companion star. A shocked red giant remnant coated in heavy elements should be easy to detect. The only suspect companion I know of found so far is a star Tycho G in the vicinity of SN 1572. However, that is a Type G like the sun and thought to be on the wrong trajectory.
  8. Merging two white dwarf stars is one possible cause of Type 1a supernovas. Wikipedia
  9. The survey of 400 red giants would also seem to kill of MOND if no one can't find a problem with the analysis or data. It only found normal matter and normal gravity. The large structure around the Milkyway is even odder, at a million lightyears across, just the expansion of space would have a significant effect on it. There are globular clusters as part of this flat disk of material, are they younder or old than the bigger structure. The whole thing does not fit dark matter theory.
  10. I think I would also go with the quasars all forming at the same time and slowing as they age. Their brightness does show time dilation slowing the rate of photons reaching us.
  11. Dark matter bashing is getting very popular. Milky ways' companions don't fit dark matter models(The Royal Astronomical Society) No dark matter within 13,000 lightyears
  12. This is one of my pet subjects. A while back, I posted this thread on it, in the alternative theories section. Condensing universe There are also a few threads on other sites that have some interesting bits. The main interesting question for me is expanding or shrinking relative to what? The best answer seems to come from conservation of momentum. It can only by correct in one set of expanding or shrinking reference frames. Constant velocity as measured by instrument made of shrinking atoms, or constant velocity as measured in comoving space? Another intersting point from these threads i
  13. I forgot about light travel distance already acounting for time dilation. But it did get me a bit worried for a while.
  14. As far as I understand, time dilation corresponding to redshift has been confirmed for distant supernova. However, galaxies are being detected only 480 million years after the bigbang at redshifts of around 10 or more. Does this mean they took less than 45 million years to form in real time?
  15. Yes. The mile is getting 6% shorter every billion years. Just don't use miles for measuring distances in space.
×
×
  • Create New...