Classical Truth and Beyond

[Edgarcito]

Well, my brain has been meandering about truth.  Making no claims, just spitting it out there while it's in my brain, it seems like there are situational truths based on matter.... the size and relationships involved.... but that leaves me thinking that there almost has to be some truth in the void where there is no arrangement of matter.... I mean it's seemingly easier to apply some logic to the portions we are able to measure, but either there is no truth in a "void" or there is.  And this leads me to think that within the relationships involved, is there a constant that holds despite matter types.... i.e., is there an equation that holds true from the largest to the smallest and points beyond our boundaries....  Makes me think the truth lies not in what we can classically comprehend, but what we cannot yet see....

 

"Right Ed, that's why they are looking for the pieces to make it all fit."  "Please catch up on you physics while you drink your beer".

 

I understand... just was thinking there might be something in the classical that certainly is constant throughout the non-classical that perhaps would "point to".

 

Sidenote, it appears John and Walter are mia.  Miss our arguments and name-calling John if you still stop by.

 

Edit:  Seems like it very similar to a board game....Chess maybe.  There are the rules, the game board itself (the void), and the pieces.  Again, it seems ultimately that the answer to the game is not in the board or pieces, but in the rules, the part that is without matter.  

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Just saying essentially, how can there not be "rules" for the void?

[Edgarcito]

Which begs the question imo, why do we apply a distance to a void?...or a volume. 

[walterpthefirst]

No, I'm still here, Ed.

 

 

What your brain might be hinting at is this.

 

Situational truth probably corresponds to empirical evidence - that which we can observe, detect and measure.  What we observe depends upon the situation the observer finds themselves in.  Einstein's Relativity has this concept at its core.  In that paradigm nothing that anyone can observe or measure is absolute or fixed or eternal.  There is no absolute frame of reference by which everything can be measured.  Nothing is absolute and everything is relative to everything else.

 

Whereas a classical truth depends on the concept of an immutable and fixed absolute against which all other things are measured.  Such a thing existed as a concept for centuries but as of today no such thing has ever been observed in nature.  On the very largest scales Relativity seems to hold good, but, as mentioned above it isn't absolute and doesn't provide certainty.  It can only tell us that X is relative to Y.  It cannot tell us how X or Y relate to any kind of absolute.

 

On the very smallest scales Quantum Mechanics can't give us certainty either.  In the quantum realm there are only probabilities, not certainties.  So QM doesn't give us anything absolute.  Nothing in science tells us that there is anything absolute in nature.  Or at least, nothing that we currently know of.

 

Of course that hasn't stopped people over the ages speculating that some kind of absolute truth must exist.

 

That help?

 

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Just saying essentially, how can there not be "rules" for the void?

 

There are.

 

But what do you mean by the void?

 

Einstein discovered the rules by which space and time curve and interact, if you mean the void of space

 

There are also quantum mechanical rules which seem to govern the quantum realm.

 

If you, by the void, you mean the sub-microscopic realm in which particles interact with each other.

 

Could you specify please? 

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Which begs the question imo, why do we apply a distance to a void?...or a volume. 

 

The answer will critically depend on just what you mean by the 'void'.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Miss our arguments and name-calling John if you still stop by.

I suspect the only void either of us need to be concerned about is the one between your ears.    

 

On a more serious note, the only absolute rule that applies is that all of the rules apply... until they don't.  We see this in Relativity, Gravity, QM, even Biology and Evolution.  And certainly we see it in social and political settings.  I know you're looking for absolute Truth, and you're thinking maybe finding absolute rules would point you in the direction of absolute Truth.  It's not an unreasonable strategy; there's just one fundamental problem with it.  Absolute Truth does not exist, as far as anyone can know.

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps a good question to ask yourself Ed is why is absolute Truth so important to you that you persist in asking about it and seeking it?

 

Answering that one might tell you something important about yourself.

 

Perhaps another good question to ask is why do you think we accept what the evidence tells us, that there is no absolute anything in reality?

 

Answering that one might tell you something important about us.

 

And finally, a third good question to ask yourself might be why is there nothing in physical reality that points towards an absolute truth?

 

Answering that one might tell you something important about reality.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I suspect the only void either of us need to be concerned about is the one between your ears.    

 

On a more serious note, the only absolute rule that applies is that all of the rules apply... until they don't.  We see this in Relativity, Gravity, QM, even Biology and Evolution.  And certainly we see it in social and political settings.  I know you're looking for absolute Truth, and you're thinking maybe finding absolute rules would point you in the direction of absolute Truth.  It's not an unreasonable strategy; there's just one fundamental problem with it.  Absolute Truth does not exist, as far as anyone can know.

Hey bud!  Glad to see u amigo!  I’ll get back tomorrow.  Seriously, glad you’re here.

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, my brain has been meandering about truth.  Making no claims, just spitting it out there while it's in my brain, it seems like there are situational truths based on matter.... the size and relationships involved.... but that leaves me thinking that there almost has to be some truth in the void where there is no arrangement of matter.... I mean it's seemingly easier to apply some logic to the portions we are able to measure, but either there is no truth in a "void" or there is.  And this leads me to think that within the relationships involved, is there a constant that holds despite matter types.... i.e., is there an equation that holds true from the largest to the smallest and points beyond our boundaries....  Makes me think the truth lies not in what we can classically comprehend, but what we cannot yet see....

 

"Right Ed, that's why they are looking for the pieces to make it all fit."  "Please catch up on you physics while you drink your beer".

 

I understand... just was thinking there might be something in the classical that certainly is constant throughout the non-classical that perhaps would "point to".

 

Sidenote, it appears John and Walter are mia.  Miss our arguments and name-calling John if you still stop by.

 

Edit:  Seems like it very similar to a board game....Chess maybe.  There are the rules, the game board itself (the void), and the pieces.  Again, it seems ultimately that the answer to the game is not in the board or pieces, but in the rules, the part that is without matter.  

 

 

 

Hi Ed, It seems like you are asking some interesting questions, the answers if true might explain a lot about reality to both religious folk and some which are not.

 

In these matters, my explanations are not mainstream but instead are in accord with my own theories of matter, of which I have a great many since I am a theoretical physicist.

 

But first let me tell you the mainstream physics position, of which there are slightly different versions, as well as different opinions concerning both matter and the void.

 

The present version of what matter consists of is called the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The standard model of the void or vacuum is called the Zero Point Field. The majority of related theory is that it's simply a field of energy, in fewer versions it is substantive like an aether. Einstein, Paul Dirac and many others including myself have made such proposals.

 

Your question: Is there an equation that holds true from the largest to the smallest and points beyond our boundaries? There presently is no single, or set of equations that meet this criteria. Past attempts have been made such as String Theory, that have not been successful as yet. These types of theories have been called Theories of Everything.  These are theories which attempt to explain via equations or otherwise, the congruence of large scale matter theory, with small scale matter theory. No such congruence has been acknowledged as yet but I believe it's just a matter of time.

 

For you Ed, or anyone interested, here is my own related theory -- also called a Theory of Everything. Although there are a number of unique equations within it, it is a theory of the physical universe only, primarily a theory of logic, where religion and life are unrelated to this kind of theory.

 

Theory of Everything: 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353700439_Theory_of_Everything_14

 

Here is one short introduction to a book. One of the great many explanations, rules, and theories of the "void."

 

https://www.universeofparticles.com/an-aether-of-zero-point-particles/

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

So is there an absolute frame of reference in your Theory of Everything, Pantheory?

 

I ask because that's what Edgarcito seems to be looking for.

 

An absolute rather than the situational frames of reference found in relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

If there is, please tell us about it.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Ed, It seems like you are asking some interesting questions, the answers if true might explain a lot about reality to both religious folk and some which are not.

 

In these matters, my explanations are not mainstream but instead are in accord with my own theories of matter, of which I have a great many since I am a theoretical physicist.

 

But first let me tell you the mainstream physics position, of which there are slightly different versions, as well as different opinions concerning both matter and the void.

 

The present version of what matter consists of is called the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The standard model of the void or vacuum is called the Zero Point Field. The majority of related theory is that it's simply a field of energy, in fewer versions it is substantive like an aether. Einstein, Paul Dirac and many others including myself have made such proposals.

 

Your question: Is there an equation that holds true from the largest to the smallest and points beyond our boundaries? There presently is no single, or set of equations that meet this criteria. Past attempts have been made such as String Theory, that have not been successful as yet. These types of theories have been called Theories of Everything.  These are theories which attempt to explain via equations or otherwise, the congruence of large scale matter theory, with small scale matter theory. No such congruence has been acknowledged as yet but I believe it's just a matter of time.

 

For you Ed, or anyone interested, here is my own related theory -- also called a Theory of Everything. Although there are a number of unique equations within it, it is a theory of the physical universe only, primarily a theory of logic, where religion and life are unrelated to this kind of theory.

 

Theory of Everything: 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353700439_Theory_of_Everything_14

 

Here is one short introduction to a book. One of the great many explanations, rules, and theories of the "void."

 

https://www.universeofparticles.com/an-aether-of-zero-point-particles/

 

 

Thank you for the links and effort.  You as well Walter, John.  

 

Please be patient with my glaring ignorance.  I never had an adequate understanding....and now it's just embarrassing.  With that said, then I ask myself what the question is I'm actually asking.  Obviously there appears to be distance between things.

 

So, my question is what propagates and constrains the speed of light? 

Is the speed dependent on the source or is the speed dependent on the field.

 

I'm gathering, in my imagination mind you, that it's both, that the propagation is limited by associations (the field unknown), and simultaneously defines the distance to be traversed.  Essentially the speed of propagation/creation is limited and is the same as "the void"....hence the constant speed of light. 

 

(Making this shit up in my head.....please don't shoot.)

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thank you for the links and effort.  You as well Walter, John.  

 

Please be patient with my glaring ignorance.  I never had an adequate understanding....and now it's just embarrassing.  With that said, then I ask myself what the question is I'm actually asking.  Obviously there appears to be distance between things.

 

So, my question is what propagates and constrains the speed of light? 

Is the speed dependent on the source or is the speed dependent on the field.

 

I'm gathering, in my imagination mind you, that it's both, that the propagation is limited by associations (the field unknown), and simultaneously defines the distance to be traversed.  Essentially the speed of propagation/creation is limited and is the same as "the void"....hence the constant speed of light. 

 

(Making this shit up in my head.....please don't shoot.)

 

 

 

Your questions are all good ones since they are logic based. As far as we know, and according to Einstein, the speed of light is constant.

 

So, my question is what propagates and constrains the speed of light? 

Is the speed dependent on the source or is the speed dependent on the field?

 

As far as the speed of light is concerned, its speed is solely dependent on the field it is traveling through. For example the speed of light within water is much slower than it is in air or through the void.

 

As Einstein also explained, speed is relative to the observer. It is the distance traveled per unit of time based upon a reference point. Usually the second is used by science for time, and faster speeds kilometers per hour, miles per hour in the U.S. and England, etc.

 

It has also been shown that the speed of light is relative to the observer as sound is. Light is redshifted from our perspective toward the red spectrum when something is moving at high speeds away from us, like other galaxies, and toward the blue spectra when moving toward us. The medium carrying the light is what you call the void, formally known as the Zero Point Energy/Field. It is a field of energy and maybe a field of substance also.

 

Both Einstein and Newton proposed that light consisted of particles, but some others like myself believe light is pure energy. Like an ocean wave, the water within the wave is not moving at its measurable speed. Only the energy of the surface wave is moving at that observed speed. The same thing would apply to the "void" or aether theory waves, It is not particles within the wave itself that are moving at the speed of light, but the energy of the "void" wave itself which we call light or EM radiation. In these theories the speed of light can vary depending upon the density of the surrounding void (aether) field/ medium.

 

As far as we can measure and mainstream theory asserts, the density of this field  is the same everywhere in the universe. Of course other factors are involved so my answer here is the short version.   But please don't stop asking questions Ed, since any and all general questions can be answered "logically and  easily" here, on any academic subject, based upon mainstream or other theory, concerning any subject of your choosing. 

 

Of course if religion is not involved, you can also ask any such questions in the Questions forum -- as you have done in the past.

 

best regards. pantheory

[walterpthefirst]

Hello Ed,

 

 

Pantheory's answers are very good, but are somewhat coloured by his alternative theories.

 

I agree with him in most respects except where he treats the Zero Point energy field and the aether as being THE accepted answers in mainstream science.

 

This is debatable and I hope that Pantheory would agree that this thread should not turn into a debate about alternative vs mainstream theories.

 

Instead, this thread should be about what Edgarcito wants to discuss and investigate.

 

 

Ed, the take home points from Pantheory's post, where it relates to your questions about the absolute are these.

 

"As Einstein also explained, speed is relative to the observer."

 

"It has also been shown that the speed of light is relative to the observer as sound is."

 

 

So, there is no absolute, universal frame of reference by which speed is measured.

 

Instead, the individual frame of reference of any observer anywhere, is considered to be as valid as any other observers.

 

All observers and all events, anywhere in the universe, are relative to each other and not to any absolute cosmic standard, measure or framework.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

48 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello Ed,

 

 

Pantheory's answers are very good, but are somewhat coloured by his alternative theories.

 

I agree with him in most respects except where he treats the Zero Point energy field and the aether as being THE accepted answers in mainstream science.

 

This is debatable and I hope that Pantheory would agree that this thread should not turn into a debate about alternative vs mainstream theories.

 

Instead, this thread should be about what Edgarcito wants to discuss and investigate.

 

 

Ed, the take home points from Pantheory's post, where it relates to your questions about the absolute are these.

 

"As Einstein also explained, speed is relative to the observer."

 

"It has also been shown that the speed of light is relative to the observer as sound is."

 

 

So, there is no absolute, universal frame of reference by which speed is measured.

 

Instead, the individual frame of reference of any observer anywhere, is considered to be as valid as any other observers.

 

All observers and all events, anywhere in the universe, are relative to each other and not to any absolute cosmic standard, measure or framework.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I'm sorry if you got that impression. A physical medium for the void is alternative theory, although there have been, and continue to be many of them, like the link I posted.  Mainstream theory simply refers to the ZPE (the void) as a field of energy only.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

No, I'm sorry if you got that impression. A physical medium for the void is alternative theory, although there have been, and continue to be many of them, like the link I posted.  Mainstream theory simply refers to the ZPE (the void) as a field of energy only.

 

I see.

 

 

So is there any way that the ZPE can give Edgarcito what he is looking for in nature?

 

An absolute frame of reference by which all other things can be measured?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I see.

 

 

So is there any way that the ZPE can give Edgarcito what he is looking for in nature?

 

An absolute frame of reference by which all other things can be measured?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Knowing little about this Walter… I personally suspect that observations above the quantum level likely involve so many factors I’m not sure it would help the inquiry.. but thanks.  Truthfully, I expect the answers are going to come from the collider experiments.  

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello Ed,

 

 

Pantheory's answers are very good, but are somewhat coloured by his alternative theories.

 

I agree with him in most respects except where he treats the Zero Point energy field and the aether as being THE accepted answers in mainstream science.

 

This is debatable and I hope that Pantheory would agree that this thread should not turn into a debate about alternative vs mainstream theories.

 

Instead, this thread should be about what Edgarcito wants to discuss and investigate.

 

 

Ed, the take home points from Pantheory's post, where it relates to your questions about the absolute are these.

 

"As Einstein also explained, speed is relative to the observer."

 

"It has also been shown that the speed of light is relative to the observer as sound is."

 

 

So, there is no absolute, universal frame of reference by which speed is measured.

 

Instead, the individual frame of reference of any observer anywhere, is considered to be as valid as any other observers.

 

All observers and all events, anywhere in the universe, are relative to each other and not to any absolute cosmic standard, measure or framework.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Thx, I will try to increase my understanding.  Thx again 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I see.

 

 

So is there any way that the ZPE can give Edgarcito what he is looking for in nature?

 

An absolute frame of reference by which all other things can be measured?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

In mainstream theory probably not.  In alternative theory the Zero Point Field (ZPF) is the point of reference concerning the speed of light.

 

For instance, when a galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light or greater, that means that its redshift is greater than 1 and its light can no longer reach us. Within all such galaxies the speed of light is moving relative to the center of the galaxy, which is also the center of the ZPF in that galaxy. So if one considers that the speed of light is relative to the ZPF that contains it, then all is quite easy to understand IMO. This is my own theory as well as the theory of many others, if not the mainstream theory.

 

When Einstein proposed his theory of Special Relativity it was not known by him or anyone else that there were other galaxies, or that most were moving away from us at faster than light speeds -- relative to the Earth.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Knowing little about this Walter… I personally suspect that observations above the quantum level likely involve so many factors I’m not sure it would help the inquiry.. but thanks.  Truthfully, I expect the answers are going to come from the collider experiments.  

 

Collider experiments can in no way avoid the problem of quantum indeterminacy, Ed.

 

Think of it this way.  If you want to observe particles at the quantum level you have to interact with them.  And they are so small that doing this disturbs them.  So then you aren't observing the particles as they actually are, you are observing the disturbance you caused them when you interacted them.

 

And that is why the properties of electrons, neutrons and other particles are usually expressed as probabilities.  We cannot absolutely say that one is 'there', we can only say that it is probably 'there'.   This is quantum indeterminacy.  It prevents things being known absolutely and only allows us to know probabilities about the quantum level.

 

That is why collider experiments are performed millions or billions of times.  The results of all these experiments are then averaged to get the best possible statistical value of a particles mass, spin or charge.  And that was how the Higgs boson was discovered at the LHC in CERN.

 

Billions of collisions were performed millions of times, with experimental runs lasting months and months.  The results were collated, averaged and analysed using supercomputers.  And then, after years and years of such research the discovery of the Higgs boson was announced in 2012. 

 

So, the discovery of some kind of absolute in the quantum realm is an impossibility, Ed.  For us humans there are only probabilities to be found there - no absolutes.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

55 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

In mainstream theory probably not.  In alternative theory the Zero Point Field (ZPF) is the point of reference concerning the speed of light.

 

For instance, when a galaxy is moving away from us at the speed of light or greater, that means that its redshift is greater than 1 and its light can no longer reach us. Within all such galaxies the speed of light is moving relative to the center of the galaxy, which is also the center of the ZPF in that galaxy. So if one considers that the speed of light is relative to the ZPF that contains it, then all is quite easy to understand IMO. This is my own theory as well as the theory of many others, if not the mainstream theory.

 

When Einstein proposed his theory of Special Relativity it was not known by him or anyone else that there were other galaxies, or that most were moving away from us at faster than light speeds -- relative to the Earth.

 

No, that's not correct Pantheory.

 

 

This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds (forbes.com)

Either way, there's a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift. 

 

 

 

Redshift | Las Cumbres Observatory (lco.global)

z	Time the light has been traveling	Distance to the object now
0.0000715	1 million years	1 million light years
0.10	1.286 billion years	1.349 billion light years
0.25	2.916 billion years	3.260 billion light years
0.5	5.019 billion years	5.936 billion light years
1	7.731 billion years	10.147 billion light years
2	10.324 billion years	15.424 billion light years
3	11.476 billion years	18.594 billion light years
4	12.094 billion years	20.745 billion light years
5	12.469 billion years	22.322 billion light years
6	12.716 billion years	23.542 billion light years
7	12.888 billion years	24.521 billion light years
8	13.014 billion years	25.329 billion light years
9	13.110 billion years	26.011 billion light years
10	13.184 billion years	26.596 billion light years

 

 

 

Galaxies with a redshift value (z) of 8 and above are the ones that have recession velocities greater than the speed of light.

 

A redshift value of 1 is simply the wrong answer.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

57 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

  So then you aren't observing the particles as they actually are, you are observing the disturbance you caused them when you interacted them.

 

 

Wow!  Sounds like they are shifty little characters.  

[pantheory]

“Galaxies with a redshift value (z) of 8 and above are the ones that have recession velocities greater than the speed of light.”

Everything you have writer is and I have written is correct Walter except for your last statement in quotes above.  This statement totally contradicts beginning Astronomy 101. The redshift number "z" indicates the speed of light. Any whole number is faster than light, as many times as that number indicates.

For instance, with the James Webb space telescope, some astronomers believe they have observed galaxies with redshifts of 16 or greater. This is 16 times the speed of light. Looking in the opposite direction of the sky if we would also see galaxies at redshifts of 16 or greater, they also would be moving away from us at 16 times the speed of light. Each side is moving away from each other at 32 times the speed of light or greater. And this is only the observable universe. With inflation Theory the universe could be countless times bigger. Again, this is not alternative theory of my own theory which is completely different. This is beginning astronomy 101, totally unrelated to Einstein’s theory Special Relativity which you commented on.  I taught astronomy and other subjects to college students in the mid 1970’s. To know the meaning of redshift numbers is very important in astronomy.

Here’s two links. If you cannot understand them or disagree with any of my statements then just disagree with me and comment no further on redshifts.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cadNZJvfl7shttps:

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-expand-faster-than-light

 

This thread is to clarify Edgarcito’s understandings and for our entertainment.   If you want further clarification from me simply message me. I will comment no further on this redshift matter with you in this thread.

 

 

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Knowing little about this Walter… I personally suspect that observations above the quantum level likely involve so many factors I’m not sure it would help the inquiry.. but thanks.  Truthfully, I expect the answers are going to come from the collider experiments.  

 

For the quantum realm most all calculations are probabilities, simply the likelihood of events. Few quantitative predictions can be made. Some would say this pails in comparison to large scale matter where often exact numerical predictions can be made. IMO nothing in reality is complicated to understand; excepting for the quantity of its detail which is never ending.

 

I think the collider experiments will resolve little. IMO most future gains in knowledge will come from better theories in modern physics and the experiments that will follow those new theories. 

[walterpthefirst]

 

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

“Galaxies with a redshift value (z) of 8 and above are the ones that have recession velocities greater than the speed of light.”

Everything you have writer is and I have written is correct Walter except for your last statement in quotes above.  This statement totally contradicts beginning Astronomy 101. The redshift number "z" indicates the speed of light. Any whole number is faster than light, as many times as that number indicates.

For instance, with the James Webb space telescope, some astronomers believe they have observed galaxies with redshifts of 16 or greater. This is 16 times the speed of light. Looking in the opposite direction of the sky if we would also see galaxies at redshifts of 16 or greater, they also would be moving away from us at 16 times the speed of light. Each side is moving away from each other at 32 times the speed of light or greater. And this is only the observable universe. With inflation Theory the universe could be countless times bigger. Again, this is not alternative theory of my own theory which is completely different. This is beginning astronomy 101, totally unrelated to Einstein’s theory Special Relativity which you commented on.  I taught astronomy and other subjects to college students in the mid 1970’s. To know the meaning of redshift numbers is very important in astronomy.

Here’s two links. If you cannot understand them or disagree with any of my statements then just disagree with me and comment no further on redshifts.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cadNZJvfl7shttps:

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-expand-faster-than-light

This thread is to clarify Edgarcito’s understandings and for our entertainment.   If you want further clarification from me simply message me. I will comment no further on this redshift matter with you in this thread.

 

No, now you're wrong about two things, Pantheory.

You're still wrong about about the z value of galaxies that are receding at velocities faster than light.  You cited a z value of 1 and the true value is 8.  You got that wrong.

 

 

The second thing you are wrong about is my understanding of galactic recession.

I DO understand that it is not the galaxies themselves that are receding, but that they are being carried away from us by the expansion of space.  And so my choice of words and my use of terminology in the following sentence is correct and precise.  “Galaxies with a redshift value (z) of 8 and above are the ones that have recession velocities greater than the speed of light.”

 

The term "recessional velocity" is the accepted and exact terminology used in cosmology and astronomy to describe galaxies moving away from us, not because they are travelling through space at superluminal speeds but because space itself is expanding and the galaxies are being carried along for the ride.  As these links will show.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_velocity

Recession velocity is the rate at which an extragalactic astronomical object recedes (becomes more distant) from an observer as a result of the expansion of the universe.

 

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html

Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift. 

 

 

https://depts.washington.edu/astroed/HubbleLaw/measurements.html

The formula for redshift should remind you of the process where you calculated your percentage error: [(your value) - (true value)] / (true value). Thus, we can view the redshift (at least for those galaxies with a recessional velocity much less than the speed of light) as a "percentage" wavelength shift. It is a measure of the ratio between the velocity of the galaxy and the speed of light.

 

 

https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/basic-extragalactic-astronomy-part-1-redshift-and-recession-velocity-r3213

Redshift is caused by the movement of a light source away from the observer. For nearby galaxies, receding at non-relativistic velocities, the approximate relation between the recession velocity of the light source, V, and the redshift, Z, is linear:

 

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.2633.pdf  Hubble, Hubble’s law and the expanding universe

We first rewrite the recession velocity in terms of the redshift of spectral lines that is determined directly from spectra.

Redshifts, and hence recession velocities of a number of galaxies were already known from the work done by V. M. Slipher.

Lundmark decided to fit a quadratic relationship between velocity and distance, postulating that there must be finite maximum recession velocity.

 

 

http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html

Hubble compared recession velocities of galaxies measured from their spectra to their apparent brightness estimated from photographic plates. 

Hubble concluded that the fainter and smaller the galaxy, the more distant it is, and the faster it is moving away from us, or that the recessional velocity of a galaxy is proportional to its distance from us:  v = Ho d,

Hubble's Law states that the galaxy's recession speed = Ho * distance, where Ho is known as the Hubble constant and is a measure of the slope of the line through the distance versus recession velocity data.

 

 

All of these sites (and I can find many more) are using the term recessional velocity in exactly the same way that I did - to mean the expansion of space itself and not the movement of galaxies through space.

 

The original error was yours Pantheory, mistaking a z value of 1 for 8.  Your subsequent error was to try and paint me as the one who erred.  I did not.  As I have shown and will continue to show, if need be.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.