The Big Bang: Redshift and Hubble's Law

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. The first 4 minutes are wrong. Or upside down. You are saying "the universe is expanding, thus the light is shifted red". You just cannot. You need to go like this: "the light is shifted red, thus ... "
   And the "thus" can be expansion of the universe or something else...
2. so the universe expands faster than light speed? I see numbers much higher than 300km/s on the chart.
3. is every galaxy in our local cluster, few 10's of million light years in size, blue shifted?
   
   is every galaxy in our super cluster, several 100's of million light years in size, blue shifted?
   
   why did hubble intentionally observe the galaxies that are not in our super cluster to call it a red shift? it would make much more sense to see the blue shifting galaxies first and talk about it, at least with those old telescopes that they had.
4. that longer wavelength must come with a few shortcuts built in so that the photon travels a longer distance in the same amount of time, without violating the light speed barrier. it's either that or one of our many assumptions is mistaked
5. Vibrating sinusoidal Spherical Wavefronts of Only Spiral Motion always transverse One Unit of Space Now -1 per One Unit of Time Dilation.  . ..Or Entangling Energy Input +1=0 now -1 unfolding 2pi Spiral Radians 360 degrees from A to B.. .  .Therefore is no spooky action in between You and Me.. .  .At the positive surface of a negative expanding light sphere compressing the wave amplitude higher frequency photons +1=0 now -1 have shorter expanding spiral wavelengths 360 degrees.. .  .And therefore, the time period will slow down relative to the perspective of an outside observer billions of light years away, who sees longer spiral wavelengths 360 degrees first.. .  .Simply because the greater the Energy Compression, or mass the shorter the expanding spiral wavelengths, and the time period relative to the perspective of an outside observer.. .  .Time is inverse multiplying energy compression +1=0 now -1 dividing expansion like frequency and wavelength.. .  .As the frequency gets higher the Planck's constant will be multiplied by a larger rate and the time period will slow down relative to the perspective of an outside observer.. .  . Relative to their Own Energy Compression=Mass now. de-compressing expansion C2 as time unfolds into the future.. .  .And therefore we can all look back in time at the beauty of the Star's.  . ..Absorbing that information +1=0 now we can see them, as they were in the past from when those light waves were emitted.. .  .independent of the motion of their source's.. .  .Everything is formed by a surrounding 4pi Spherical inward absorption +1=0 now -1 outward emission of electromagnetic waves.. .  .All motion is 2pi Spiral.. .  .And all 3D directions are 4pi Spherically curved thus : individual input +1=0 now -1 output Wave Centres of photon energy E=hf are everywhere relative to an infinite future of potential possibilities, shaped rather like onions relative only to their frequency f continuously coming into +1=0 now -1 out of existence, forming the total oscillating amplitude of Sine Wavefronts at each and every point of space compressing energy +1=0 now -1 de-compressing Two Opposing Spiral Vortices, or contracting +1=0 now - 1 expanding Virtual Pair's Spiralling out of existence.. .  . Therefore visible light is just an added pressure condition to a wave medium that is already there continuously coming into +1=0 now -1 out of existence.. .  .Rather like the zeros and ones of a computer screen, with the Planck's constant h continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual.
6. Really cool Video but I have a question. Is the wavelength of the light increased because it is stretched with the universe as it expands or does it fall into the relativity bug that everything in the universe seems to have and the wavelength is only increased relative to us because of the difference in motion ?
7. if the big bang started all this that means there is no constant force acting on everything so how can the galaxies go faster and faster if no force is acting on them to cause that?
8. Is there some test to differentiate between:
   1. redshift due to expansion of the Universe, from
   2. redshift due to photon's loss of energy due to its gravitational interactions with masses along the light's path?
9. Galaxies of the distant past should be closer together than those of the present. But they measure about the same. Why?
10. Gulik Army! Best ever, thanks for teaching. I call FaZe Gulikkk
11. Is the the song Gulik uses as intro song in his MineCraft videos? #GulikArmy
12. like als je dit kijkt door gulik
13. Towards the very end of the video, you say that the expansion of the universe doesn't affect the distance between the Earth and the Sun because they're so close.
    
    That is not correct. The distance between Earth and the Sun doesn't change with the expansion of space because of the gravitational lock between them. Just like atoms don't (currently) get ripped apart from the expansion of space because of other forces that have them bound together.
14. What if it is intrinsic property of light to increase its wavelength as it travels just like what was shown in the graph? I mean, what if the increase of wavelength is caused by light travelling and not caused by the object moving at a faster rate? How sure are we that light's wavelength doesn't change as it travels great distances?
15. Even as he is specifically talking about COSMOLOGICAL redshift, he relates redshift to velocity as :  cZ = V. This is an approximation of the Relativistic DOPPLER Redshift for Z <<< 1. It is NOT cosmological redshift!  It's an expression for the relative velocity of an object within the spacetime of Special Relativity. It has nothing to do with the expansion of space itself governed by General Relativity. Modern cosmology doesn't even deal with velocity in Hubble plots. In modern cosmology, distance is plotted against the OBSERVABLE......"Z".......which is cosmological redshift.  
16. So the galaxy far away from uswould be traveling away from us at that speed in the early ages ofnthe universe, because the photons take so long to get here. Does this mean an alternative to the universe expanding could be that everything is slowing down after initialy moving away from eachother?
    
17. The redshift evidecence is not as strong as this video tries to imply.
    Neither is that how dopplers efect works.
18. Halton Arp, period !
19. Hubble's quantum law states that a photon's frequency decreases with each new wave oscillation by a quantum amount equal to the Hubble constant, which is being observed as a redshift. To determine by how much the frequency of the photon has decreased, the Hubble constant must be multiplied by the number of the committed oscillations that is completely consistent with the results obtained by the modern method of the "standard candles".
    A report in MSU: http://alemanow.narod.ru/hubbles.htm
20. This theory doesn't make the assumption that we are the center of the universe. It only assumes that on very large scales the universe is uniform (check the big bang assumptions video) which, from observation, it really seems to be. A consequence of this is that from ANY point in the universe you would see all of the galaxies moving away from you in this same characteristic way. It does not mean you are at the center of the universe or even that the universe HAS a center.