Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Weitter Duckss

Where did the blue spectral shift ...

40 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss

Where did the blue spectral shift inside the universe come from?

 

The universe expands at the approximate speed of radiation (270 000 km/sec. (Controversy, this information, look in "Observing the Universe through colors ") and, according to the Doppler effect, all objects in the universe should have a red spectral shift, but it is not the case. It seems that certain objects (galaxies) do not observe the laws of physics and move to the opposite direction from the forces, caused by the explosion of a mini-bubble (which also fails to observe the same laws).

It would, nevertheless, all fit in just fine, if only these events were equally represented in the volume of the universe, but they are not. These events are related only to our “close” neighbours, and those objects that are further away, all the way to the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years, they have a red spectral shift and are distancing from us. I just can’t believe how they didn’t come up with an idea of placing some black hole in our vicinity, to make it responsible for this “mischief” and tell us horrible stories about it swallowing us all at the end.

mapa 
Kredit: http://fittedplane.blogspot.hr/2009/12/blue-shifted-galaxies-there-are-more.html

It is interesting that there is quite a number of galaxies that have a blue spectral shift; the data say of no less than 100 and as much as 7 000 of them. They seem to be orderly placed and not randomly scattered around, which can be seen on the enclosed map.
When another galaxies move towards our galaxy, there are two outcomes:

  1. the movement takes place on the same direction (on the same part of the curve),
  2. the movement takes place on some other direction.

In the first scenario, the outcome is a collision and in the other one, a bypass of the objects. For the objects on the same direction to have significantly different speeds, there should be some reasons for it, and here they are not. If one of them would be size, then the dwarf galaxies (Andromeda and Milky Way) that exist between the two would collide sooner, but they either move away or have a status quo. The objects moving on the same direction have a mild red spectral shift because of the circular trajectory. The objects moving on the curve show that the objects are moving away sideways one from another, even though they have the same speed, as if they would not have the same movement direction.

Bypass is a realistic option because the movement directions of these galaxies have different speeds. The speed increases when the objects further from the centre of the universe are been observed (the speeds in the centre of the universe range from 200 to 300 km/sec. and less, and the most distant objects have the speed of 270 000 km/sec.). Andromeda has a negative speed (it is moving towards us), ranged from -300 to -2 000 km/sec., depending on the different measurement results that have been presented: M90: -383 km / sec .; M86: -340 km/sec.; M98: -142 km/sec. It means that Andromeda is a bit further from us towards the direction of the universe’s surface.

After a certain distance it is impossible to register a blue shift, although it has been confirmed beyond all doubts that moving towards, bypassing and colliding of galaxies must definitely result with a negative speed, i.e., a blue spectral shift (approaching of some galaxies to other ones).

sraz-galaksija

Therefore, a blue spectral shift is a common law of nature, significantly present in the universe because of the rotation of the whole volume. The objects closer to the centre rotate relatively slowly and the objects in the outer area of the universe rotate at the fastest speed. The speed of rotation increases in the direction from the centre of the universal volume towards outside, or decreases in the opposite direction, i.e., from the universal surface towards its centre. 
2013.y.

 

galaxies, local groups Redshift km/s Blueshift km/s

 

Sextans B (4.44 ± 0.23 Mly)   300 ± 0  
Sextans A 324 ± 2  
NGC 3109 403 ± 1  
Tucana Dwarf 130 ± ?  
Leo I 285 ± 2  
NGC 6822    -57 ± 2
Andromeda Galaxy   -301 ± 1
Leo II (about 690,000 ly)  79 ± 1  
Phoenix Dwarf 60 ± 30  
SagDIG   -79 ± 1
Aquarius Dwarf   -141 ± 2
Wolf–Lundmark–Melotte   -122 ± 2
Pisces Dwarf    -287 ± 0
Antlia Dwarf 362 ± 0   
Leo A 0.000067  
Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal    -354 ± 3 
IC 10    
NGC 185   -202 ± 3
Canes Venatici I ~  31  
Andromeda III   -351 ± 9
Andromeda II   -188 ± 3
Triangulum Galaxy   -179 ± 3
Messier 110   -241 ± 3
NGC 147 (2.53 ± 0.11 Mly)   -193 ± 3
Small Magellanic Cloud 0.000527  
Large Magellanic Cloud - -
M32   -200 ± 6
NGC 205   -241 ± 3
IC 1613   -234 ± 1
Carina Dwarf 230 ± 60  
Sextans Dwarf 224 ± 2  
Ursa Minor Dwarf (200 ± 30 kly)   -247 ± 1
Draco Dwarf   -292 ± 21
Cassiopeia Dwarf   -307 ± 2
Ursa Major II Dwarf   - 116 
Leo IV 130  
Leo V ( 585 kly) 173  
Leo T   -60
Bootes II   -120
Pegasus Dwarf   -183 ± 0
Sculptor Dwarf 110 ± 1  
Etc.    

 

  Galaksy Distance billion ly Redsfift (z) Helio radial velocity km / s

 

GN-z11 ≈13.4 11.09; +0.08; −0.12 295.050 ± 119.917
EGSY8p7 13.2  8.68                /
GRB 090423 13,18 8,2                /
EGS-zs8-1 13,13 7,73                /
z8 GND 5296 13,10 7,51< 291.622 ± 120 
     
CID-42  Quasar    3,9 0,359 89.302
     
NGC 4945 11.7 Mly      / 563 ± 3
M58 62 Mly (68) 0.00506 1.517 ± 1
ESO 510-G13 150 Mly      / 3.455 ± 9
NGC 2903 400 Mly      / 9.401 ± 15
4C 37.11 750 Mly   16.500 ± 300

Collisions of galaxies

                                        
NGC 2207 i IC 2163 81 ± 39 M ly      / 2741 ± 15/2765 ± 20
Arp 299 (NGC 3690 & IC 694) 130 M ly      /                   /
NGC 5090 i NGC 5091 150 Mly      / 3.420 ± 20/3.530 ± 150
Sextet of Seyfert 190 M ly      /                   /
NGC 6872 and IC 4970 212 M ly 0.015194±0.0001 4555±30 
NGC 7318  300 Mly      / 6.630 ± 23/5.774 ± 24
Tadpole Galaxy 400 M ly      / 9.401 ± 15
MS 1054-03 6,757 Billion ly  0,8321 246.759
NGC 2207 i IC 2163 11,4 Billion ly 3,035 265.016
     

“Using the Chandra and Hubble Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions between galaxy clusters, including both ‘major’ and ‘minor’ mergers.”

Dependency of light intensity about the influence of dark matter and distance, is described in the articles: Observing the Universe through colors and The causal relation of space and the absence of light in Universe

2018.y.

PS. GN-z11 has a spectroscopicredshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years(9.8 billion parsecs).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced

header.jpg?t=1447350816

Have you considered Black Mesa?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
4 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Have you considered Black Mesa?

Dark matter. All processes take place in dark matter. Discussion about this is in almost all of my articles or themes. Vacuum-in-space-or-undetected-matter

 A particularly aggressive title: Are we blind or we don't want to see the dark matter!

From the topic that was supposed to be before this:

Conclusion: galaxies are created by the ongoing attraction of stars (objects) and the rotation, which is a creator of all systems in Universe. All processes are in accordance with the laws of physics, without hypothetical assumptions for the emptinesses to exist and to be filled (hypothetical objects of the extreme density) and the use of dark matter (dark matter is a means in which all processes take place, but it does not significantly influence them).10

See also the attached link:: The causal relation of space and the absence of light in Universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

"Something stinks in the state of Denmark." (From Hamlet)

 ULAS J1120+0641

(at a comoving distance of 28.85 billion light-years[note 1]) was the first quasar discovered beyond a redshift of 7.

UDFj-39546284

Subsequently it was reported (December 2012) to possibly be at a record-breaking redshift z = 11.9using Hubble and Spitzer telescope data, including Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF).

UDFy-38135539

The light travel distance of the light that we observe from UDFy-38135539 (HUF.YD3) is more than 4 billion parsecs[13] (13.1 billion light years), and it has a luminosity distance of 86.9 billion parsecs (about 283 billion light years).

EGS-zs8-1

The galaxy has a comoving distance (light travel distance multiplied by the Hubble constant, caused by the metric expansion of space) of about 30 billion light years from Earth.[6]

Z8 GND 5296

Due to the expansion of the universe, this position is now at about 30 billion light-years (9.2 Gpc) (comoving distance) from Earth.

Etc. …

Here, some problems occur. These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time. ..

It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.

Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?“ from Why telescopes lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pl1ngpl0ng

Its possible that we are sliding around on an expanding membrane
like particles on a soap bubble. 

The bubble (our universe) are expanding, so galaxies have a general direction. But "stuff" can maby slide all the way around at any direction and come back or simply sliding at more random.

An expanding bubbles isnt necessarily round either or stable in shape, this can maby affect speed.

Based on the shape of the bubble, its possible that what we see are only a region on that membrane,
so the universe might be larger and maby older than we think. 

And of course.... Why only 1 bubble? Maby there are trillions. 

IMG_20180116_165223.jpg

large-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

All thinking is good, but the reality is one. Here we are talking about objects (which they claim) from the time of the first light emitting. There is no time for the formation of stars and galaxies.

„The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago with a fixed amount of energy and matter that has become less dense as the Universe has expanded. ..
when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. As photons did not interact with these electrically neutral atoms, the former began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation.“

„One interpretation of this effect is the idea that space itself is expanding. Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3×108 m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light“ 

 

The fictional object (379,000 years old after Bang) begins to radiate. How is the light now circulating in a balloon or funnel? Balloons and funnels do not exist then. The light goes directly outside the fictional object. The balloon expands more slowly than the speed of light.

Even in the greatest imagination, there is no room for such thinking.

18, 28, 30 bn ly not 13 bn ly and red spectral shift of 11 z to Hubble Constant is not 13 already 30 bn ly.

This is visible from the other universe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pl1ngpl0ng
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

All thinking is good, but the reality is one. 

 

Even in the greatest imagination, there is no room for such thinking

 

Exactly what Einstein eventually said about quantum mechanics, it was simply to crazy to accept. 

Its not difficult to understand his view. When we go small enough into the quantum world everything is skewed beyond recognition. 

Maby the same things are happening on very large scales where 1 universe are the smallest scale. 

We dont know what the "bang" originated from or what was happening before that moment.

we all are probing around searching for clues... Galaxies crashing into eachother are dwarfed by something else now ... We may be living in a reality with colliding universes, literally. 

Anyway... I dont have a better idea to offer right now about why some galaxies seem to be going towards us, other than the one i gave you. I need to think about it in between all the other stuff i think about=)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
10 hours ago, pl1ngpl0ng said:

Exactly what Einstein eventually said about quantum mechanics, it was simply to crazy to accept. 

Its not difficult to understand his view. When we go small enough into the quantum world everything is skewed beyond recognition. 

Maby the same things are happening on very large scales where 1 universe are the smallest scale. 

We dont know what the "bang" originated from or what was happening before that moment.

we all are probing around searching for clues... Galaxies crashing into eachother are dwarfed by something else now ... We may be living in a reality with colliding universes, literally. 

Anyway... I dont have a better idea to offer right now about why some galaxies seem to be going towards us, other than the one i gave you. I need to think about it in between all the other stuff i think about=)

 

 

Contrary to "Exactly what Einstein finally said about quantum mechanics, it was simply crazy to accept." there is evidence.

If the official science claims, „The universe is spreading“, then there should be a small universe (with a small diameter) 300-400 thousand years after the so-called Big Bang, and a big universe, in which „...the most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies GN-z11 13,39 bn ly ..

The relation is obvious: the greatest speed is related to the oldest and most distant objects. ..

 How can universe be spreading with the increasing speed, if that applies only for the oldest and most distant galaxies?

Evidence exactly say: Does not have Big Bang and that's the end of the debate about the Big Bang. Really is crazy to accept the crazy stories, beside  proofs.

 

The article provides evidence that confirms:

“After a certain distance it is impossible to register a blue shift, although it has been confirmed beyond all doubts that moving towards, bypassing and colliding of galaxies must definitely result with a negative speed, i.e., a blue spectral shift (approaching of some galaxies to other ones).

Therefore, a blue spectral shift is a common law of nature, significantly present in the universe because of the rotation of the whole volume. The objects closer to the centre rotate relatively slowly and the objects in the outer area of the universe rotate at the fastest speed. 

P.S asks: whether the GN-z11 galaxy, or is this another universe? Do you remember the discussions: nebulae or other galaxies?

30 bn ly is a sufficient distance of 13-18 bn ly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

@Weitter Duckss can you please post your hypothesis in short and layman’s terms? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
10 hours ago, Timonthy said:

@Weitter Duckss can you please post your hypothesis in short and layman’s terms? 

I'm not dealing with hypotheses. I only publish relevant scientific evidence. The article (topic) is short, clear and comprehensible. Tables are evidence attached to the article. (for the unfaithful Tom). Shorter, it can not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I'm not dealing with hypotheses. I only publish relevant scientific evidence. The article (topic) is short, clear and comprehensible. Tables are evidence attached to the article. (for the unfaithful Tom). Shorter, it can not be.

There’s a bit too much of your opinion in there for it to be only relevant scientific evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
9 hours ago, Timonthy said:

There’s a bit too much of your opinion in there for it to be only relevant scientific evidence?

The answer would be easier if you open the cards. What is not clear at the rotation of larger objects? What is not clear with a blue shift at all distances?
Which section do you think there is no relevant evidence?
Universe created by gravity and rotation. All the rest are just the wrong hypotheses.
What are your counter evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

The answer would be easier if you open the cards. What is not clear at the rotation of larger objects? What is not clear with a blue shift at all distances?
Which section do you think there is no relevant evidence?
Universe created by gravity and rotation. All the rest are just the wrong hypotheses.
What are your counter evidence?

I don’t have any kind of certified knowledge of the subject, but I think that ‘equally represented in the volume of the universe’ is the key point. Gravity, relative attraction, that’s all it is right?

The universe is not uniform, but it is all relative. 

I feel like I’m missing the point, but what you’ve posted seems obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
5 hours ago, Timonthy said:

I don’t have any kind of certified knowledge of the subject, but I think that ‘equally represented in the volume of the universe’ is the key point. Gravity, relative attraction, that’s all it is right?

The universe is not uniform, but it is all relative. 

I feel like I’m missing the point, but what you’ve posted seems obvious?

Try to observe the universe as a star cluster (the difference is in scale and density). There is no classical center. Inner stars have slower orbits than the outer stars. In the cluster of stars is small in diameter but have equally represented blue and red shift (passing, reducing the distance before passing ...). The universe is large in size and the waves lose intensity. and give false (for spectral shift measurements) values (as at Sunset and Sun Out, the red phase).

Do not forget that we have recently received information about rocket rotation clusters and have orbits (moving in the same direction).

This little detail is enough for the average reader to start distinguishing between evidence and fiction or fairy tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pl1ngpl0ng

I think the blueshift question is interesting but..

I am lost... Is this your theory?: 

On 2018-1-17 at 8:02 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

Evidence exactly say: Does not have Big Bang and that's the end of the debate about the Big Bang. Really is crazy to accept the crazy stories, beside  proofs.

Edit: let me formulate my question again: you think that the blueshift are proof of that the big bang theory are wrong?

Its possible that i totaly missunderstood you..

Edited by pl1ngpl0ng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
3 hours ago, pl1ngpl0ng said:

I think the blueshift question is interesting but..

I am lost... Is this your theory?: 

Edit: let me formulate my question again: you think that the blueshift are proof of that the big bang theory are wrong?

Its possible that i totaly missunderstood you..

Evidence is not a theory. I only give a series of evidence in one place and read what it says.

Blueshift is not a question, this is a proof. Discussion of relevance to the evidence requires courage, lots of arguments. and resistance to spitting.

Who wants to throw the first stone?

For Big Bang read the topic here or: https://www.academia.edu/33292773/Where_is_the_truth_about_Big_Bang_theory.doc

Their evidence (high church science) in one place yields the result: forget the Big Bang.

You ask a question even though you read the evidence (official)? Review the tables again. Inflation and expansion with a blue shift? Is not it funny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pl1ngpl0ng
2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Evidence is not a theory. I only give a series of evidence in one place and read what it says.

Blueshift is not a question, this is a proof. Discussion of relevance to the evidence requires courage, lots of arguments. and resistance to spitting.

Who wants to throw the first stone?

For Big Bang read the topic here or: https://www.academia.edu/33292773/Where_is_the_truth_about_Big_Bang_theory.doc

Their evidence (high church science) in one place yields the result: forget the Big Bang.

You ask a question even though you read the evidence (official)? Review the tables again. Inflation and expansion with a blue shift? Is not it funny?

Hi weitter duckss

You called this thread :
"Where did the blue spectral shift ...
... inside the universe come from?"

So i thougt that was a question, and that you wanted some kind of feedback and discussion, maby tossing a few ideas around, stuff like that.

I didnt quite realize that you wanted to present a finished reality. I should have spent more time reading your posts.

I dont think you have have to worry about spitting and stone throwing =)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
12 hours ago, pl1ngpl0ng said:

Hi weitter duckss

You called this thread :
"Where did the blue spectral shift ...
... inside the universe come from?"

So i thougt that was a question, and that you wanted some kind of feedback and discussion, maby tossing a few ideas around, stuff like that.

I didnt quite realize that you wanted to present a finished reality. I should have spent more time reading your posts.

I dont think you have have to worry about spitting and stone throwing =)

 

I have to agree because it is true. However, that does not mean it correctly. All who work make mistakes. I'm not an exception.
For me it's always, discussions about misconceptions official science and its myths, religious attitudes and journalistic ducks.
P.S opened the discussion area: correct measurements? correct interpretation of measurements? What does this mean at all? Anyone can write and post an article on this topic. For me (for now) is enough that I opened the subject.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Galaxies

Redsfift (z)

Distance billion ly

Km/s  to Earth

M33 -0,000607 2,38-3,07 (Mly) -179± 3
M64 0,001361 24± 7 (Mly) 408±4
CID-42  Quasar 0,359 3,9 89.302
MS 1054-03

 

0,8321

 

 6,757

 

246.759

 

Q2343-BX442

 

2,1765

 

10,7

 

 
EQ J100054+023435

 

4.547

 

12,2

 

280.919

 

TN J0924-2201 5,19 12,523  
Q0906 + 6930 5,47 12,3 299,792 
SSA22−HCM1

 

5,74

 

12,7

 

 

 

HCM-6A 6,56 12,8  
IOK-1 6,96

 

12,88

 

 

 

ULAS J1120+0641 7,085 12,85  
GN-108036 7,2 12,3  
Z8 GND 5296 7,5078±0,0004 13,1 291.622 ± 120 
EGS-zs8-1

 

7,7 13,04  
UDFy-38135539

 

8,55 13,1  
Abell 1835 IR1916 10,0 13,2  
MACS0647-JD 10,7 13,3  
GN-z11 11,09 13,4 295.050 ± 119.917
UDFj-39546284 11,9 13,2  

A classic example of non-compliance with accepted principles. The table shows inconsistent and incorrect application of Hubble constant ( H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s-1Mpc-1). It is maliciously adjustment results in a failed hypothesis church, about Big Bang. 

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Ignorance at its best.

Weitter, are you THAT stupid to not understand what is expansion of the universe, and what is local movement of the galaxies. You are posting tables without slightest clue of what they mean. Go visit nearest zoo, and first macaque you'll encounter will have more knowledge in cosmology/astrophysices than you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
10 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Ignorance at its best.

Weitter, are you THAT stupid to not understand what is expansion of the universe, and what is local movement of the galaxies. You are posting tables without slightest clue of what they mean. Go visit nearest zoo, and first macaque you'll encounter will have more knowledge in cosmology/astrophysices than you.

It is easy to determine. We put the evidence to the table and draw conclusions. My arguments are there.

The first sentence is the answer, in the text:

"Using the Chandra and Hubble Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions between galaxy clusters, including both 'major' and 'minor' mergers." and

Collisions of galaxies

                 

    

                 

NGC 2207 i IC 2163

81 ± 39 M ly

     /

2741 ± 15/2765 ± 20

Arp 299 (NGC 3690 & IC 694)

130 M ly

     /

                  /

NGC 5090 i NGC 5091

150 Mly

     /

3.420 ± 20/3.530 ± 150

Sextet of Seyfert

190 M ly

     /

                  /

NGC 6872 and IC 4970

212 M ly

0.015194±0.0001

4555±30 

NGC 7318 

300 Mly

     /

6.630 ± 23/5.774 ± 24

Tadpole Galaxy

400 M ly

     /

9.401 ± 15

MS 1054-03

6,757 Billion ly

 0,8321

246.759

NGC 2207 i IC 2163

11,4 Billion ly

3,035

265.016

 

 

 

Responses to others: I'm not in ZOO, I have no experience in it like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 1/28/2018 at 9:31 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

It is easy to determine. We put the evidence to the table and draw conclusions. My arguments are there.

The first sentence is the answer, in the text:

"Using the Chandra and Hubble Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions between galaxy clusters, including both 'major' and 'minor' mergers." and

[...].

As always you are clueless on the subject. Have you heard about peculiar motion of stars/galaxies/galaxy groups/galaxy clusters? No? No surprise.

Next thing, of all galaxy clusters in NASA/IPAC extragalactic database, only 10 have blueshift, while 151593 have redshift. How THAT fits your BS "theory", huh? You do know what galaxy cluster means? No? Here yea go:

Quote

A galaxy cluster, or cluster of galaxies, is a structure that consists of anywhere from hundreds to thousands of galaxies [...]

 

On 1/28/2018 at 9:31 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Responses to others: I'm not in ZOO, I have no experience in it like you

Your loss. Koko managed to learn sign language in some two decades, you can't learn English in approx. the same timespan... Guess who is higher on the evolutionary ladder, you or Koko? Right answer is... Koko!

 

And yeah, again: there are no signs of rotating universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

As always you are clueless on the subject. Have you heard about peculiar motion of stars/galaxies/galaxy groups/galaxy clusters? No? No surprise.

Next thing, of all galaxy clusters in NASA/IPAC extragalactic database, only 10 have blueshift, while 151593 have redshift. How THAT fits your BS "theory", huh? You do know what galaxy cluster means? No? Here yea go:

 

Your loss. Koko managed to learn sign language in some two decades, you can't learn English in approx. the same timespan... Guess who is higher on the evolutionary ladder, you or Koko? Right answer is... Koko!

 

And yeah, again: there are no signs of rotating universe.

I appreciate your effort (though in vain). The cluster definition is that its rotation is different of zero. You will probably find the data that the clusters are stationary even though all its components rotate.

Collisions galaxy clusters = collisions of galaxy clusters (no more or less).

For the number  151.593. read my article Observing the Universe k. through colors. In the introductory article I point to the collision of objects that have a red shift. Two bodies in a crash with a red shift have a blue shift between them. It is understood and Koko.

Collisions objects occur throughout the volume of the Universe. That is why I enclosed the evidence to be read. Ah yes, these are official evidence, you have to accept it from the principle. I am making the examination of evidence. I set everything in one place, not listening to nebulose, fairy tales and denial. My 2013 article was created without this amount of evidence. Yet evidence only confirms the article. And yes, http://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/Where-did-the-blue-spectral-shift-inside-the-universe-come-from.pdf  

Let's repeat: Cluster = rotation is different from zero.

Red spectrum, not only measures the speed of departure, but measures the distance, which passed radiation (light).

Collisions of the body unambiguously point to the blue shift, regardless of the red spectrum measurement.

This will deliver to Koko and measure my adoption time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I appreciate your effort (though in vain). The cluster definition is that its rotation is different of zero. You will probably find the data that the clusters are stationary even though all its components rotate.

Collisions galaxy clusters = collisions of galaxy clusters (no more or less).

For the number  151.593. read my article Observing the Universe k. through colors. In the introductory article I point to the collision of objects that have a red shift. Two bodies in a crash with a red shift have a blue shift between them. It is understood and Koko.

Collisions objects occur throughout the volume of the Universe. That is why I enclosed the evidence to be read. Ah yes, these are official evidence, you have to accept it from the principle. I am making the examination of evidence. I set everything in one place, not listening to nebulose, fairy tales and denial. My 2013 article was created without this amount of evidence. Yet evidence only confirms the article. And yes, http://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/Where-did-the-blue-spectral-shift-inside-the-universe-come-from.pdf  

Let's repeat: Cluster = rotation is different from zero.

Red spectrum, not only measures the speed of departure, but measures the distance, which passed radiation (light).

Collisions of the body unambiguously point to the blue shift, regardless of the red spectrum measurement.

This will deliver to Koko and measure my adoption time.

Well, Koko is waaaaaaay smarter than you.

Anyway, show us more galaxies having blueshift than redshift. And show us where.

Quote

Collisions of the body unambiguously point to the blue shift, regardless of the red spectrum measurement.

That is so retarded, no words can express that. Show us how collision ends up with blueshift.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
15 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Well, Koko is waaaaaaay smarter than you.

Anyway, show us more galaxies having blueshift than redshift. And show us where.

That is so retarded, no words can express that. Show us how collision ends up with blueshift.

 

I need everything to draw or to get thumbs from Koko.

Two galaxies go crashing (like Androneda and Milky Way).

Which shift is measured on these two galaxies? For us on Earth, galaxies and cluster galaxies have a red shift, but between themselves (these objects) have a blue shift.

Everything is in the table, it just needs to be read. Instead sciences Koko, take evidence from the universe.

  Galaksy

Distance billion ly

Redsfift (z)

Helio radial velocity km / s

Collisions of galaxies

                 

    

                 

NGC 2207 i IC 2163

81 ± 39 M ly

     /

2741 ± 15/2765 ± 20

Arp 299 (NGC 3690 & IC 694)

130 M ly

     /

                  /

NGC 5090 i NGC 5091

150 Mly

     /

3.420 ± 20/3.530 ± 150

Sextet of Seyfert

190 M ly

     /

                  /

NGC 6872 and IC 4970

212 M ly

0.015194±0.0001

4555±30 

NGC 7318 

300 Mly

     /

6.630 ± 23/5.774 ± 24

Tadpole Galaxy

400 M ly

     /

9.401 ± 15

MS 1054-03

6,757 Billion ly

 0,8321

246.759

NGC 2207 i IC 2163

11,4 Billion ly

3,035

265.016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.