Looking for other proof of expanding universe.

[Chronos]

Zonde, I think we are on the same page.

 

[marty1]

Hmm, I believe there can't be sustained acceleration for very long time. It requires some change in situation.

But if you want to know if redshift has some additional property that would allow us to distinguish one redshift from another redshift then we know of none such property and there is no reason to believe that there could be such a property.

So could it be equally "correct" to conclude that the light we are receiving from a distant source is climbing from greater to lesser gravitation? That would cause a red shift as well. Since it did come from the distant past, when the universe was more dense, this would make sense and gravitational fields do not fall of linearly with linear expansion (a mechanism). Why conclude that the expansion is accelerating at all based on red shift?

 

[zonde]

So could it be equally "correct" to conclude that the light we are receiving from a distant source is climbing from greater to lesser gravitation? That would cause a red shift as well. Since it did come from the distant past, when the universe was more dense, this would make sense and gravitational fields do not fall of linearly with linear expansion (a mechanism). Why conclude that the expansion is accelerating at all based on red shift?

Well, you can't really conclude just from redshift that expansion should be accelerating. You need luminosity too. Because luminosity (of standard candle) tells you about distance (after you factor out relative velocity) so that you can find relative velocity/distance relationship.

 

[zonde]

Can I just point out that the distance to redshift relationship is inferred, it isn't an actual observation.

Can I point out that there is no such thing as actual observation.
There are layers of interpretation and we are not even conscious about the very first layers of interpretation.

There is also an Angular size to redshift relationship, which fits non expanding euclidean space!
http://www.wissenschaft-in-not.de/kosm003e.htm

Yes, angular size is another thing that we can observe. As I understand in the link you gave it is argued that explosion type expanding gives different predictions for angular size/redshift relationship, right?

 

[codex34]

Yes, angular size is another thing that we can observe. As I understand in the link you gave it is argued that explosion type expanding gives different predictions for angular size/redshift relationship, right?

You'll have to make your own mind up about that, angular size is angular size, it has absolutely no bearing on distance unless you make certain assumptions about the objects you observe, within the model you choose to use. You could probably model a shrinking universe and get angular size to fit the model.
There are more studies than just this one, some are presented as a collection of data for you to interpret, some attempt to interpret it for you.
We need more model independent studies like these.

From the redshift/distance curves I've seen fit to the accelerating expansion (not up to date on this though), it looks like the z~1.25 is approximately the point of inflection in the log curve used for the magnitude/redshift, which is too weird.

I think the objects shape is a big problem in ALL the models, for example on edge on galaxies, what angular size are we referring to? the longest distance, the shortest distance, an average? emitted light?, reflected light?, both?

It is possible that a proportion of redshift, if not it's entirety, is a phantom presented by our lack of understanding of our instrumentation and the naive assumptions we have made.

 

[George Jones]

This thread has been closed for moderation.