Lost haltonarp.com discussions – Hubble’s “The Problem of the Expanding Universe” Transcribed

This is part of a reconstruction of some of the discussions that went on in the discussion board of haltonarp.com. Few years ago the site was reconstructed and the discussions went offline. They haven’t been seen since until now.

Hubble’s “The Problem of the Expanding Universe” Transcribed

Ritchie Annand 2005-07-20 02:59:34

Vincent did me the great favor of giving me access to a copy of Edwin Hubble’s 1942 paper on which he has scanned the two most important graphs here. I’ve done a transcription of the paper (sans the graphs) and I’ve posted it here.

After reading it, I think you’ll agree that Hubble was a very smart man. It’s a bit surprising to realize, for example, that he (and perhaps others) knew full well that an expanding universe would require an enormous amount of unseen matter.

I think in the end, he’s going to end up having been proven right, as well.

My favorite quote from the paper:

Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular [expanding] kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe.

Cheers!

— Ritchie

ted rusk 2005-07-29 00:21:46

This really is an important paper that deserves a new look. It shows clearly that Hubble was not a “proponent” of expansion/Big Bang. After all, he refers to expansion as a “problem”, and a daunting one. Yet it is a cliche that he “discovered the expansion of the universe”. The problems he raises here have still not been resolved.

Ari Jokimäki 2005-07-30 09:31:31

Thanks Richie! This is much appreciated!

Edward Duffy 2005-08-01 23:31:14

Help out a layman. Is he saying that the fact that distant objects (light that originated 100s of millions of years ago) appear to be rapidly moving away from each other and the fact that individual components of local systems are not may indicate that the universe was once expanding but has slowed down or stopped?

Edward Duffy 2005-08-01 23:52:37

Another silly question: Do you get the same type of blueshift from an object that is moving toward us and an object that is moving away, but at a declining rate? Luminosity would increase in either case right? If so how do you know the diffence between an object that is moving toward us and one that is just slowing down?

Ritchie Annand 2005-08-03 12:35:10

Quoting Edward Duffy:
Help out a layman. Is he saying that the fact that distant objects (light that originated 100s of millions of years ago) appear to be rapidly moving away from each other and the fact that individual components of local systems are not may indicate that the universe was once expanding but has slowed down or stopped?

No, in this instance, I believe that he’s saying that the expanding universe theory of the period (still applies today, as far as I know) requires that even though space itself is expanding, local collections of galaxies do not drift apart from one another (gravity?). The distance between galaxy clusters, though, would.

Radial velocities of the members of the Local Group, listed in Table I, suggest that the law of red shifts probably does not operate within the group … If the universe is expanding, the group maintains its dimensions as the theory requires.

— Ritchie

Edward Duffy 2005-08-03 21:24:43

Thanks, He did seem to be saying though that the observance of clusters moving faster the farther out you look is not an indication that they are doing so now, but that the universe was expanding faster in the past than it is now. I’d never heard that interpretation before.

Ari Jokimäki 2005-08-04 07:25:29

Quoting Edward Duffy:
Do you get the same type of blueshift from an object that is moving toward us and an object that is moving away, but at a declining rate?

No, you get redshift from the object moving away, even if it’s at a declining rate. Amount of redshift is just getting smaller in that case. When the object stops (relative to us), redshift is zero, and only when the object starts moving to our direction it starts to blueshift.

Quoting Edward Duffy:
Luminosity would increase in either case right?

No, object moving away decreases in luminosity (because it’s getting further away from us).

Edward Duffy 2005-08-04 19:46:23

Thanks again

Ritchie Annand 2005-09-04 09:47:30

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
No, you get redshift from the object moving away, even if it’s at a declining rate. Amount of redshift is just getting smaller in that case. When the object stops (relative to us), redshift is zero, and only when the object starts moving to our direction it starts to blueshift.

You know, Ari, there is something odd that comes out of that, and perhaps this is related to the mechanism issue you had in another post…

BBT has gone out of its way in recent years to say that overall redshift isn’t due to velocity, because that leaves some things hard to explain, but rather due to the expansion of space (how that affects individual photons… good question).

But if you have something that’s a distance away from us, and has no redshift or an actual blueshift, then by this logic there are two components to this. There would have to be a redshift due to the expansion of space with a higher velocity ‘towards’ us imposed on top of that.

Unless there are claims that gravity actually slows the expansion of space in local regions 😉

I don’t know if that introduces any asymmetries at all. Would this be mathematically identical? Even if we introduced a sideways component? Would any asymmetries be high enough to measure? Would we have to go to the target object (err, no small feat 🙂 and measure from there?

Alrighty, I’ll admit I have no idea 🙂

— Ritchie

Ari Jokimäki 2005-09-05 09:52:39

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
BBT has gone out of its way in recent years to say that overall redshift isn’t due to velocity, because that leaves some things hard to explain, but rather due to the expansion of space (how that affects individual photons… good question).

I used to think that too, but currently I think that BBT has never said redshift is due to velocity, because I believe it has the same equation for redshift as it had did 80 years ago. So I think that it’s just a misconception which has probably arised due to terminology which has always equated redshift with velocity. Also, the introductory layman level BB books, papers, etc. usually start with description of regular Doppler shift, which does nothing more than clouds the real issue.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
But if you have something that’s a distance away from us, and has no redshift or an actual blueshift, then by this logic there are two components to this. There would have to be a redshift due to the expansion of space with a higher velocity ‘towards’ us imposed on top of that.

Of course mainstream would conclude that blueshifted objects are nearby, unless we have other distance indicators to those objects, and even then those other distance indicators would probably be suspected (as redshift distance is not to be doubted).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Unless there are claims that gravity actually slows the expansion of space in local regions 😉 I don’t know if that introduces any asymmetries at all.

That’s an interesting question. One thing I have been thinking is that if gravity slows or halts the expansion, you would get expanding regions that are surrounded by non-expanding regions (i.e. the voids they claim are there). I think that those expanding regions would work like lenses, because when a beam of light travels through expanding space, that beam of light should expand too. My question is, are those lenses ideal, so that we should see distant galaxies clearly? I think not. You would get lenses (expanding regions) with quite strange shapes, so I think images of distant galaxies should be distorted. Unless light has some property that is able to keep that beam together against the feeble force of space expansion.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Would this be mathematically identical?

I don’t think so, but I’m under the impression that BB-theory doesn’t address it. Way I have understood it is that local effects are ignored when expansion of the universe is considered, and expansion is ignored when local dynamics are considered. But I’m not sure about this.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Even if we introduced a sideways component?

I once suggested in a BABB-discussion, tongue halfway in the cheek, that if we ever detect proper motions in quasars, then the mainstream might explain it by sideways motions due to asymmetric expansion. 🙂

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Would any asymmetries be high enough to measure?

It is hard to evaluate, but I think that, as I said above, we should be able to see some effect when we look very distant objects.

But I admit too that I actually have no idea, this is all just quessing. 🙂

Ritchie Annand 2005-09-28 22:50:57

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I used to think that too, but currently I think that BBT has never said redshift is due to velocity, because I believe it has the same equation for redshift as it had did 80 years ago. So I think that it’s just a misconception which has probably arised due to terminology which has always equated redshift with velocity. Also, the introductory layman level BB books, papers, etc. usually start with description of regular Doppler shift, which does nothing more than clouds the real issue.

I’m not so solid on the entire history of the expanding space versus velocities debate. The space-itself-expands seems to have solidified with inflation theory, perhaps before. When I was younger, I did not have access to the same range of materials – the implication of a ‘real’ velocity from an explosion was strong, although relativity with no preferred frame would have come into play.

Hard to think what good alternative to regular Doppler shift could be used as introductory material…

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Of course mainstream would conclude that blueshifted objects are nearby, unless we have other distance indicators to those objects, and even then those other distance indicators would probably be suspected (as redshift distance is not to be doubted).

That’s a problem when there aren’t enough other reliable yardsticks to use for measuring. Beyond a certain point, galaxies start to be considered as being ‘anomalous sizes’, etc. when their redshift is high enough. The pre-made assumption that high redshift means that the galaxy must be younger and thus different means that the expectation is that the galaxy will be different, which screws up any attempt to apply local standards to distant objects as a reliable ‘candle’.

Ah, but I’m ranting. I think there’s possibly something interesting in more local objects. After all, despite any intrinsic redshifting component, there is a cosmological one as well. I wonder if local objects have or lack some part of the cosmological component to redshift. Taking Arp’s ‘quantized redshifts’ to heart, perhaps a local anomaly might show it, or perhaps redshifts step down when passing through something in particular outside of the local group?

Of course, there’s also the possibility that the local group is actually larger than has been ascertained, and the larger redshift ones have merely been a priori excluded.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
That’s an interesting question. One thing I have been thinking is that if gravity slows or halts the expansion, you would get expanding regions that are surrounded by non-expanding regions (i.e. the voids they claim are there). I think that those expanding regions would work like lenses, because when a beam of light travels through expanding space, that beam of light should expand too. My question is, are those lenses ideal, so that we should see distant galaxies clearly? I think not. You would get lenses (expanding regions) with quite strange shapes, so I think images of distant galaxies should be distorted. Unless light has some property that is able to keep that beam together against the feeble force of space expansion.

That’s an interesting thought, although I’d bet mainstreamers would insist that the space that expands ‘more’ to make up for the shortfall caused by gravity ‘holding back’ local pockets of space are indistinguishable in every way.

Mind you, if you take a look at things from a geometry point of view, you could perhaps claim that at the edges of the big valley that local galaxy groups are in, that the very edges would be slightly steeper than they otherwise should be.

I don’t know how we would detect any of these cases – it seems hard enough to know what’s actually being looking at, never mind that it could be 1% different from what it ‘really’ is 😉

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I don’t think so, but I’m under the impression that BB-theory doesn’t address it. Way I have understood it is that local effects are ignored when expansion of the universe is considered, and expansion is ignored when local dynamics are considered. But I’m not sure about this.

I think we might have to go further back than the Hubble paper here to find out why expansion and local effects are allowed to be so independent of one another.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I once suggested in a BABB-discussion, tongue halfway in the cheek, that if we ever detect proper motions in quasars, then the mainstream might explain it by sideways motions due to asymmetric expansion. 🙂

*laugh*! Halfway is right 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
It is hard to evaluate, but I think that, as I said above, we should be able to see some effect when we look very distant objects.

But I admit too that I actually have no idea, this is all just guessing. 🙂

Even harder is to come up with effects that can’t be ‘explained away’. Oh, wait a minute… that’s all effects – I forgot *grin*.

It’s a bit tough for laymen and semi-laymen to do the crunching that would tell us whether different combinations cosmological and proper motions are distinguishable when summed up in a real system. It could turn out, like many other things, to cancel out to something that needs to be measured… and that measurement depends on something which may be wrong as it stands.

Ah well, there will be other avenues of ‘attack’. I’m just pleased as punch that as we are looking further and further into the cosmos, it’s starting to look pretty darned ordinary and not a lick “younger” than it looks locally 🙂

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-09-29 08:36:52

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I’m not so solid on the entire history of the expanding space versus velocities debate.

I’m not sure about it, but if we could track down when it was that scale factors of the universe were introduced to BBT, then we would know when redshift stopped being due to velocity (that is, if it ever was).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Hard to think what good alternative to regular Doppler shift could be used as introductory material…

I would say that leave the Doppler part out and just say how it actually is (although there is not much to say in that case).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I wonder if local objects have or lack some part of the cosmological component to redshift. Taking Arp’s ‘quantized redshifts’ to heart, perhaps a local anomaly might show it, or perhaps redshifts step down when passing through something in particular outside of the local group?

In Arp’s model, it’s an issue of age of the objects. If local group has common origin, it is (perhaps) to be expected that most objects have the same redshift (secondary ejections have higher redshift).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Of course, there’s also the possibility that the local group is actually larger than has been ascertained, and the larger redshift ones have merely been a priori excluded.

Yes, here is a paper about it: Arp (1987).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I think we might have to go further back than the Hubble paper here to find out why expansion and local effects are allowed to be so independent of one another.

I agree, that arises from the theory of relativity.

Btw, what’s “semi-layman”, someone who hangs his doctor diploma to the wall only for 3 or 4 days a week? 🙂

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-01 04:44:15

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I’m not sure about it, but if we could track down when it was that scale factors of the universe were introduced to BBT, then we would know when redshift stopped being due to velocity (that is, if it ever was).

My Googling skills are really failing me today 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I would say that leave the Doppler part out and just say how it actually is (although there is not much to say in that case).

Considering that they don’t really know how the expansion of space affects individual photons, perhaps couching it in “mundane” terms is all they can do 🙂 Then again, after reading that book last week, perhaps they are fuzzy on the concept of photon in the first place. What would stretch with space? The probability wave surrounding the photon?

I read a rant last week somewhere that we should be teaching quantum physics first, in high school, and then introduce classical later. Sounds like a bad idea at first blush, and we certainly wouldn’t be getting grade 10 students to do math in Hilbert space, but perhaps qualitatively. It would fire up some imaginations… oh, and probably make more kids drop science class. Okay, maybe it is a bad idea at second blush too 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
In Arp’s model, it’s an issue of age of the objects. If local group has common origin, it is (perhaps) to be expected that most objects have the same redshift (secondary ejections have higher redshift).

It can’t solely be that, or else we wouldn’t have a general progression of redshifts with distance. There really is a cosmological component.

Unless, of course, things really are younger the further out we look. In which case, we really would have a Big Bang *grin* 😉

That’s one thing I must admit I would love to know… is where the “seeds” for the big galaxy groups we know and love came from. In a static/semi-static universe the way it looks at present, if you really get Seyferts spawning other things, it seems like you’d almost need some hellishly big super-Seyferts spitting out the seeds for the mega-Seyferts that spawned the local group, Centaurus, Fornax, Virgo, etc. Either that, or you need an interesting recycling mechanism that we have not yet observed.

I mean, we could have mere Seyferts spitting these things out, but in the examples I’ve seen, the ejecta don’t get all that far before they turn into real galaxies. Either that, or there’s some ‘drunken walk’ math that makes these series of galaxy formations come out as separate clusters. Or, perhaps it would look less mysterious if we had a proper 3-D map of the universe with the proper correction factors applied.

How many generations are in the local group, anyhow? I wonder. I know it may be complicated by the fact that Seyferts often eject over and over again.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Yes, here is a paper about it: Arp (1987).

Now that’s classic Arp! Mixing local group membership and redshift quantization into the same paper. I think he should have split them up for general consumption, but what the hey 🙂 If I read it correctly (I really was just skimming), there are members of the local group that undergo quantization? That’s interesting. I had it in the back of my head that quantization might require something outside of our local group somehow, be it a shell of bounding materials or what have you. Damn, I want to know what that quantization is all about.

Thanks for the pointer to the paper, Ari 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I think we might have to go further back than the Hubble paper here to find out why expansion and local effects are allowed to be so independent of one another.

I agree, that arises from the theory of relativity.

You think so? How would relativity help say that local pockets stay free of expansion? Hmmm, maybe something in the ‘geometry of spacetime’ could be employed in the explanation, but wouldn’t there have to be something going on at the edges?

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Btw, what’s “semi-layman”, someone who hangs his doctor diploma to the wall only for 3 or 4 days a week? 🙂

*laugh* I was thinking about several steps below Pro-Am. Someone who may have heard the jargon (like me), but hasn’t done a magnitude plot, paper, or even been willing to sit out in the cold at 3 am in the swamp to catch a glimpse of a nebula (like me) 😉

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-01 08:50:00

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
It can’t solely be that, or else we wouldn’t have a general progression of redshifts with distance. There really is a cosmological component.

Yes there is, but I’ve seen David Russell saying that it is due to ages of objects as well. Think about two galaxies that have been born at the same time (say 10 billion years ago). Galaxy A lies right beside Milky Way, and galaxy B lies one billion lightyears away. We see no redshift in galaxy A. When we look at galaxy B, we look one billion years to the past, therefore we see galaxy B as 9 billion years old. Now, if redshift decreases as objects get older, we would see that galaxy redshifted, because we see younger galaxy than galaxy A.

One thing I’m not quite sure of is what that means. To me it suggests that almost all galaxies we are able to see have been born at the same time. Otherwise we wouldn’t see redshift so nicely distance related. I think your super-Seyferts might not be so far fetched, but what was the object that spat out those super-Seyferts?

If you are trying to draw the big picture, I think you need to remember that galaxies should also be destroyed somehow. If there is new matter created in cores of galaxies and that new matter is then ejected and it then creates another galaxy, which probably then starts creating matter, etc. So, if you don’t destroy galaxies, and if your universe is infinitely old, you end up with universe very tightly packed with galaxies.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Unless, of course, things really are younger the further out we look. In which case, we really would have a Big Bang *grin* 😉

Well, sort of. But we still would have static space. There is also an upside in this. Think about how all these signs of universal evolution are tossed to our direction as if they would prove that universe is not infinitely old and static. Now, if you have all galaxies in our visible universe born at roughly the same time, you don’t have any problems explaining those signs of evolution, they are expected!

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Damn, I want to know what that quantization is all about.

I have to confess that I’m not very bought on the quantization. 😦

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Thanks for the pointer to the paper, Ari 🙂

It was my pleasure. 🙂 Btw. here’s another paper that has some Local Group stuff in it: Arp (1994)

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
You think so? How would relativity help say that local pockets stay free of expansion?

BBT is based on theory of relativity, so if BBT says that, then the theory of relativity says it too. First thing would be to find out which is true (in theory), expansion doesn’t occur inside matter concentrations, or expansion occurs but gravity holds matter concentrations together.

Argh, this thread is starting to corrupt, I wonder if this post will be visible at all. I also wonder if anyone else is even reading this thread anymore, as it is now on the page 2 of “New Cosmology”. I know I’m usually browsing only the front page. Hmm… I wonder if there is some active discussion still going on on page 8 (ok, I checked, there were some posts from august of this year, I have to check other pages too).

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-04 04:20:38

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Yes there is, but I’ve seen David Russell saying that it is due to ages of objects as well. Think about two galaxies that have been born at the same time (say 10 billion years ago). Galaxy A lies right beside Milky Way, and galaxy B lies one billion lightyears away. We see no redshift in galaxy A. When we look at galaxy B, we look one billion years to the past, therefore we see galaxy B as 9 billion years old. Now, if redshift decreases as objects get older, we would see that galaxy redshifted, because we see younger galaxy than galaxy A.

One thing I’m not quite sure of is what that means. To me it suggests that almost all galaxies we are able to see have been born at the same time. Otherwise we wouldn’t see redshift so nicely distance related. I think your super-Seyferts might not be so far fetched, but what was the object that spat out those super-Seyferts?

I can’t see the all-born-at-the-same-time alternate quite working, simply because ejecta close to active galaxies are so additionally redshifted, and then become less so with time (but never below a certain cosmological redshift).

It would imply, I think, yet another mechanism or variation that produces redshift: youth of ejected material plus original age of the matter/energy no matter what its state. In other words, quasars would have a certain redshift because the energy/matter ancestry they came from was the same age as ours (but took so many billion years to radiate here), and an additional redshift because it was newly reformed as matter.

I miss David Russell in these forums. The last exchange I remember having with him was here. A very perceptive and astute man, that.

If you are trying to draw the big picture, I think you need to remember that galaxies should also be destroyed somehow. If there is new matter created in cores of galaxies and that new matter is then ejected and it then creates another galaxy, which probably then starts creating matter, etc. So, if you don’t destroy galaxies, and if your universe is infinitely old, you end up with universe very tightly packed with galaxies.

I and a few folks (including you!) were babbling on a little bit about that topic in the cosmogony forum here. That’s the one spot with matter creation theories that just doesn’t sit well with me yet is that I haven’t seen the opposite end of it.

William Mitchell and his “Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality” book did one of the best general jobs of outlining the parameters of a good new theory. I don’t remember the particulars (his book will make it back onto my reading rotation at some point), but the basic idea was “endless recycling universe”, emphasis on recycling.

Well, sort of. But we still would have static space. There is also an upside in this. Think about how all these signs of universal evolution are tossed to our direction as if they would prove that universe is not infinitely old and static. Now, if you have all galaxies in our visible universe born at roughly the same time, you don’t have any problems explaining those signs of evolution, they are expected!

I wouldn’t rule out a “fireworks model”. If there really was space already, then there’s no problem explaining flatness or evolution. That said, most of the observations coming out of telescopes these days seem to be initially “hey, these look younger” followed by “oh god, there are things that look anomalously normal at that distance”, so evolution may not end up being a factor.

I despise BBT for its backhanded shenanigans, but the question of whether there was a start or not is still not resolved. That said, we should be able to find some actual signs of it once we can trash the redshift-equals-real-velocity-or-space-expansion assumption.

I have to confess that I’m not very bought on the quantization. 😦

It’s not 100% compelling, but Arp wouldn’t be the only force behind the issue. I’ve seen some of the other things that otherwise lead to weird “we are the center of the universe” implications, like the ‘shells’ found in pencilbeam surveys. The “Fingers of God” effect is still strange – and the mainstream explanation, the Virial theorem seems too “pat” an answer. It feels an awful lot like the paper I came across “disproving” Arp by removing detail from the sample and then applying overly simplistic stats to say, “see? since you don’t really know which way the galaxies are going, then the redshifts are all by chance!”. Utter tripe 🙂

I don’t know if I can knock virial on the head like that, but it seems thrown up as a barrier to objections, rather than being fully integrated and something BBT is “proud” of.

It was my pleasure. 🙂 Btw. here’s another paper that has some Local Group stuff in it. ..

Actually, this is a more interesting paper. Little snippets like other galactic groups having a redshift spread of over four times what the ‘orthodox’ local group does. Or “many studies of more distant groups have consistently confirmed the propensity for companions to have higher redshift than the most massive galaxy in the group”.

BBT is based on theory of relativity, so if BBT says that, then the theory of relativity says it too. First thing would be to find out which is true (in theory), expansion doesn’t occur inside matter concentrations, or expansion occurs but gravity holds matter concentrations together.

I’d love to know as well! If the latter, it seems like there would be some possibility of discernible effects.

Argh, this thread is starting to corrupt, I wonder if this post will be visible at all. I also wonder if anyone else is even reading this thread anymore, as it is now on the page 2 of “New Cosmology”. I know I’m usually browsing only the front page. Hmm… I wonder if there is some active discussion still going on on page 8 (ok, I checked, there were some posts from august of this year, I have to check other pages too).

*laugh* Perhaps we can poke the webmaster into giving us sorting by last post date 🙂

I, too, was sitting there dreading the next message in the forum that would push this to page 2 🙂

‘S a fun thread, though. I like the way your brain ticks, Ari 🙂

— Ritchie Annand

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-04 04:21:29

FYI: The limit on posts here is 7,500 characters 🙂

Dangit 🙂

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-04 09:39:22

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I can’t see the all-born-at-the-same-time alternate quite working, simply because ejecta close to active galaxies are so additionally redshifted, and then become less so with time (but never below a certain cosmological redshift).

Well, it works for objects that have been born at the same time. But there might be a problem in why most of galaxies seem to follow redshift distance relation, we might expect more diversity because there should be new objects born constantly. Maybe there was a burst of activity ~15 billion years ago which then resulted a lot of new galaxies being born almost same time creating the illusion of the redshift distance relation we see today.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
It would imply, I think, yet another mechanism or variation that produces redshift: youth of ejected material plus original age of the matter/energy no matter what its state. In other words, quasars would have a certain redshift because the energy/matter ancestry they came from was the same age as ours (but took so many billion years to radiate here), and an additional redshift because it was newly reformed as matter.

But wouldn’t this work to the wrong direction? I mean that this would create even more diversity to the redshifts, so we would end up worse situation with redshift distance relation than with all galaxies simply starting with certain redshift.

Let’s consider an example case. First, suppose that all galaxies have z = 10 when they are born, and suppose that redshift drops by one with each billion years. Consider two galaxies (A and B) born at the same time, say 5 billion years ago. Galaxy A is one billion lightyears from us and galaxy B is two billion lightyears from us. So, actual redshift for galaxies A and B now would be z = 10 – 5 = 5. But, when we look at A, we don’t see it as 5 billion years old, instead we see it 4 billion years old because there is a distance of one billion lightyears between us and A. So we see redshift of z = 10 – 4 = 6 for A. For B it’s same thing except we see it only 3 billion years old, so the z = 10 – 3 = 7 for B. Let’s assume further that both galaxies have ejected new objects (A2 from A and B2 from B) when they were only 200 million years old (note that I’m using million = 10^6 and billion = 10^9). So they are now 4.8 billion years old. We see A2 as 3,8 billion years old so the redshift of A2 is z = 10 – 3.8 = 6.2. We see B as 2.8 billion years old making it’s redshift z = 10 – 2.8 = 7.2.

Now, let’s see how this works out with your suggestion. Same assumptions except that newly born object, in addition to z = 10 initial redshift, inherits it’s parent’s redshift. And for simplicity assume that A and have no parents. So A still has redshift z = 6 and B has z = 7. A2 has z = 10 – 3.8 + 6 = 12.2 and B2 has z = 10 – 2.8 + 7 = 14.2.

So we see that in the case of your suggestion, the redshift difference between the parent and the new object is considerably larger than in the first case. And the age difference of them is only 200 million years.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I and a few folks (including you!) were babbling on a little bit about that topic in the cosmogony forum here. That’s the one spot with matter creation theories that just doesn’t sit well with me yet is that I haven’t seen the opposite end of it.

I agree. There is lot of stuff that needs clarification and that is one of the most outstanding issues, in my opinion.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
That said, most of the observations coming out of telescopes these days seem to be initially “hey, these look younger” followed by “oh god, there are things that look anomalously normal at that distance”, so evolution may not end up being a factor.

You might be right about that.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I despise BBT for its backhanded shenanigans, but the question of whether there was a start or not is still not resolved. That said, we should be able to find some actual signs of it once we can trash the redshift-equals-real-velocity-or-space-expansion assumption.

I’m not sure I understand you here, are you suggesting that the age of universe might be finite in static universe?

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
The “Fingers of God” effect is still strange – and the mainstream explanation, the Virial theorem seems too “pat” an answer.

Thanks, I didn’t know that there is this kind of explanation attempt. Btw, I think that you don’t need quantized redshifts to explain fingers of god effect, I think that simply existence of intrinsic redshift (with or without quantization) is enough to produce it.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Or “many studies of more distant groups have consistently confirmed the propensity for companions to have higher redshift than the most massive galaxy in the group”.

Yes, it’s very interesting issue.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I’d love to know as well! If the latter, it seems like there would be some possibility of discernible effects.

I don’t think so, the amount of expansion in, say, Solar system would be so small that we wouldn’t have any chance of seeing it.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
‘S a fun thread, though. I like the way your brain ticks, Ari 🙂

Same applies very well to you Richie, thanks for the compliment! 🙂

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-08 10:39:47

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Well, it works for objects that have been born at the same time. But there might be a problem in why most of galaxies seem to follow redshift distance relation, we might expect more diversity because there should be new objects born constantly. Maybe there was a burst of activity ~15 billion years ago which then resulted a lot of new galaxies being born almost same time creating the illusion of the redshift distance relation we see today.

Hmmm… so many things would have to be the case. The formation of new objects in the present era of quasar/galaxy formation seems to be of a relatively random distribution. I can’t see just the present era being that much more random in its time distribution for creating child galaxies that we wouldn’t notice a profound randomness in prior generations.

Also, if there is an evolution of galactic forms at all as well, I’m not sure if the age difference between late-type spirals and elliptical galaxies, which I surmise to be fairly large given their stellar populations, is well represented enough in the redshift spread between the two types. I’ve read a few papers on how late-type spirals are systematically red-shifted, and it causes a definite (and commonly ignored, I imagine 🙂 bias, but still with significant enough redshift overlap that I can’t really see age being that much of a sole determinant of redshift.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
It would imply, I think, yet another mechanism or variation that produces redshift: youth of ejected material plus original age of the matter/energy no matter what its state. In other words, quasars would have a certain redshift because the energy/matter ancestry they came from was the same age as ours (but took so many billion years to radiate here), and an additional redshift because it was newly reformed as matter.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
But wouldn’t this work to the wrong direction? I mean that this would create even more diversity to the redshifts, so we would end up worse situation with redshift distance relation than with all galaxies simply starting with certain redshift.

What I meant to imply in my scenario is that if you had a common origin of matter, the redshift would be based on the ‘absolute age’ of the matter that was emitting the radiation. Newly-created matter would reverse this redshift trend temporarily, “bucking the curve” as it were, but then with the increasing age of the object, it would rejoin the curve that reflected the matter’s true absolute age.

It would certainly cause a redshift-distance relationship, and explain the quasars’ excess redshift. That said, it’s more likely to be utter bunk 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I agree. There is lot of stuff that needs clarification and that is one of the most outstanding issues, in my opinion.

Reasoned dissension has got to stop being a taboo subject 🙂

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
That said, most of the observations coming out of telescopes these days seem to be initially “hey, these look younger” followed by “oh god, there are things that look anomalously normal at that distance”, so evolution may not end up being a factor.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
You might be right about that.

Ted Rusk, Mike Petersen and Nick White have my great thanks for tracking down links to such articles and posting them in the forums.

The constant surprise of the people being interviewed is often amusing 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I’m not sure I understand you here, are you suggesting that the age of universe might be finite in static universe?

I wouldn’t say that’s my first choice, but if we don’t have any matter destruction, then you may have a finite age, but the strong disconnect in many cases between redshift-as-velocity (either of space or matter) makes an actual expansion of space seem silly, or at least extremely overstated. So if there’s a start, my vote would be for space already being there 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Thanks, I didn’t know that there is this kind of explanation attempt. Btw, I think that you don’t need quantized redshifts to explain fingers of god effect, I think that simply existence of intrinsic redshift (with or without quantization) is enough to produce it.

I haven’t seen any anti or really much pro talk on virial theorem as an actual explanation of things. I’d like to see a skeptic take it on.

As to the Fingers of God, indeed, quantization is likely not as much at fault as distances based on redshift assumptions that are not reliable 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I don’t think so, the amount of expansion in, say, Solar system would be so small that we wouldn’t have any chance of seeing it.

Perhaps the solar system is too small, but then again, how much verification do we have for the heliopause/interstellar winds theories of why the Voyager probes went off course? Of course, it may be that, or have other, equally mundane explanations, or even odd ones like having mismeasured the distance because there are some actual redshift effects even at that short distance making the probes appear at a different distance than they actually are 🙂

Not something you can run too many experiments on very quickly or cheaply 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Same applies very well to you Richie, thanks for the compliment! 🙂

I call ’em as I see ’em, and you’re welcome 😉

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-10 08:09:37

I more or less agree with your first comment.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
What I meant to imply in my scenario is that if you had a common origin of matter, the redshift would be based on the ‘absolute age’ of the matter that was emitting the radiation. Newly-created matter would reverse this redshift trend temporarily, “bucking the curve” as it were, but then with the increasing age of the object, it would rejoin the curve that reflected the matter’s true absolute age.

It would certainly cause a redshift-distance relationship, and explain the quasars’ excess redshift. That said, it’s more likely to be utter bunk 🙂

There’s one problem with that, or not so much a problem, but a strangeness. To produce redshift-distance relation with redshift decreasing with age, you need roughly linear decrease over large periods of time. But you, if I understood you correctly, suggest that at first the decrease follows either non-linear (or linear but much steeper decrease), and then it suddenly turns into linear (or less steep) decrease which creates the redshift-distance relation. That point where redshift decrease changes it’s nature is strange, at least if you can’t give any reason why it should work that way. My reasoning here is due to the fact that I don’t think it’s possible to do this kind of redshift decrease with a simple exponential decreasing, because I think it wouldn’t create linear enough decrease for the redshift-distance relation.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Ted Rusk, Mike Petersen and Nick White have my great thanks for tracking down links to such articles and posting them in the forums.

Hear, hear!

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
The constant surprise of the people being interviewed is often amusing 🙂

True. There’s a lot of mixed signals coming out of these studies of cosmological evolution, some find signs of evolution, some find signs of non-evolution. I wonder what we could come up with if we would do a study on Local group with presumption that there should be signs of evolution inside Local group, would we get same kind of distribution of mixed signals, as they are getting from for example Hubble Deep Field?

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I wouldn’t say that’s my first choice, but if we don’t have any matter destruction, then you may have a finite age, but the strong disconnect in many cases between redshift-as-velocity (either of space or matter) makes an actual expansion of space seem silly, or at least extremely overstated. So if there’s a start, my vote would be for space already being there 🙂

Well, I think there has to be some kind of matter destruction scheme ongoing. It might be just due to decay of matter if not anything else. If quasars are created out of new matter in nuclei of galaxies, then perhaps that new matter is created out of old matter that has fallen in to the nucleus.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I haven’t seen any anti or really much pro talk on virial theorem as an actual explanation of things. I’d like to see a skeptic take it on.

I have to say that I didn’t understand that Wikipedia article, especially in the sense that how it is applied to the “Fingers of God” effect.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Perhaps the solar system is too small, but then again, how much verification do we have for the heliopause/interstellar winds theories of why the Voyager probes went off course? Of course, it may be that, or have other, equally mundane explanations, or even odd ones like having mismeasured the distance because there are some actual redshift effects even at that short distance making the probes appear at a different distance than they actually are 🙂

Finding some kind of effect in the Solar System would mean that there is a need for a revision to the Big Bang theory, because expected effect really is so small that you shouldn’t be able to notice anything. Ned Wright writes: “Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth’s orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System”. He goes on: “Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster”.

Btw, I noticed that the thread becoming corrupted is probably a browser related issue, Netscape shows this thread correctly, but IE shows the text starting to migrate to the left.

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-24 12:03:35

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
There’s one problem with that, or not so much a problem, but a strangeness. To produce redshift-distance relation with redshift decreasing with age, you need roughly linear decrease over large periods of time. But you, if I understood you correctly, suggest that at first the decrease follows either non-linear (or linear but much steeper decrease), and then it suddenly turns into linear (or less steep) decrease which creates the redshift-distance relation. That point where redshift decrease changes it’s nature is strange, at least if you can’t give any reason why it should work that way. My reasoning here is due to the fact that I don’t think it’s possible to do this kind of redshift decrease with a simple exponential decreasing, because I think it wouldn’t create linear enough decrease for the redshift-distance relation.

Just sounding out some possibilities. I don’t know how to calculate whether ejected galaxies have an age difference that can be totally accounted for by their age in a ‘fireworks’ model. If it could, then there’s no need for my spurious “correction”.

Of course, I’m not really going to put my weight behind a fireworks model at the moment either 😉

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
True. There’s a lot of mixed signals coming out of these studies of cosmological evolution, some find signs of evolution, some find signs of non-evolution. I wonder what we could come up with if we would do a study on Local group with presumption that there should be signs of evolution inside Local group, would we get same kind of distribution of mixed signals, as they are getting from for example Hubble Deep Field?

It’s going to be a little hard when inclusion in a galactic group, especially the Local one, has a questionable cut-off point 🙂

Some rules behind change in the composition of galaxy groups would be an utter revolution in cosmology. BBT very likely has the age wrong in spades, but apart from that, it could give us some clue as to whether things are recycling or not. If we see an even mix of galaxy ages in clusters as far as our instruments can detect into the future, then it’s hard to come up with something other than recycling to explain it.

If we see things tending towards more and more Seyfert and super-Seyfert-like galaxy composition with fewer normal members towards one spot in the sky, then we have to revisit the “no privileged frame” idea somewhat, and it makes a fireworks-style scenario more likely.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Well, I think there has to be some kind of matter destruction scheme ongoing. It might be just due to decay of matter if not anything else. If quasars are created out of new matter in nuclei of galaxies, then perhaps that new matter is created out of old matter that has fallen in to the nucleus.

There are some possibilities there. Since quasar ejection seems extremely periodic, there might be some process that goes on past a certain critical point that rips old matter apart.

As a complete flight of fancy, perhaps our understanding of antimatter is incomplete at this point… we expect that if it’s out there, that it would be in great clumps, and we can’t explain the asymmetry very well, but perhaps matter is just the normal form, and antimatter is part of an energetic process past a certain energy that happens to reset matter back to hydrogen. From what I know of particle accelerators, the only matter creation events you get at nuclear masses and above are either mesons or proton-antiproton pairs – not even alpha particles.

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I have to say that I didn’t understand that Wikipedia article, especially in the sense that how it is applied to the “Fingers of God” effect.

Me neither; I’ve yet to find a good layman’s explanation. I haven’t been through all of this paper, but I think this one look promising.

Again, it may be a matter of people needing to come up with a theory for something that does not actually happen, in order for the framework to work 😉

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
…”Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth’s orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System”. He goes on: “Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster”.

Good to find some estimates that an effect would have at certain scales. Well, there goes a good local test for a lensing effect 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
Btw, I noticed that the thread becoming corrupted is probably a browser related issue, Netscape shows this thread correctly, but IE shows the text starting to migrate to the left.

You know what? I figured it out. Well, it’s still confusing as to WHY this would be a problem – I’ll bring it to our webmaster’s attention 🙂 The a.css style for “message_block_quote” has a padding: 5px; That should work, but on IE it creeps. It works if changed to individual padding excluding padding- bottom. Go figure 🙂

— Ritchie Annand

Ari Jokimäki 2005-10-25 09:11:34

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Just sounding out some possibilities.

Understood, and I salute you for that, Richie. It’s nevertheless an interesting possibility.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
I don’t know how to calculate whether ejected galaxies have an age difference that can be totally accounted for by their age in a ‘fireworks’ model. If it could, then there’s no need for my spurious “correction”.

I had a rethink on this. I think that what I said earlier is not a problem after all, there’s nothing strange in redshift first decreasing rapidly and then settling to a linear decrease. But the problem arises when the redshift approaches zero, because the approach toward zero redshift is linear, so we would expect it to continue past zero and we would get linearly increasing blueshift. We don’t see very blueshifted galaxies out there, so it looks like that redshift settles to zero. Of course we can just say that the redshift decrease just stops at zero, but to me that seems to be a magic event that a linearly progressing function would just stop at certain point.

But perhaps it happens so that first there’s your rapid decrease, then linear phase which then changes to exponential curve closing in to the zero. I’m sure that this could be achieved with some complex function. It’s just that all these events in the curve progression reminds me about the progression of the space expansion in the Big Bang theory (you know, inflation, steady, deceleration, acceleration…) and I don’t know if I want to construct something similar, as it seems a bit artificial to me. 🙂

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Of course, I’m not really going to put my weight behind a fireworks model at the moment either 😉

Same here, not behind any model. I’m just satisfied getting familiar with the observations, never mind the theories. My current cosmological model is that there is no cosmological model, perhaps I should write a book about it, hmm… title might be “Grand Unified Non-theory”.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Some rules behind change in the composition of galaxy groups would be an utter revolution in cosmology. BBT very likely has the age wrong in spades, but apart from that, it could give us some clue as to whether things are recycling or not. If we see an even mix of galaxy ages in clusters as far as our instruments can detect into the future, then it’s hard to come up with something other than recycling to explain it.

Good point. Of course, we could just keep on pushing the age of universe further and further to keep the BB alive.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
If we see things tending towards more and more Seyfert and super-Seyfert-like galaxy composition with fewer normal members towards one spot in the sky, then we have to revisit the “no privileged frame” idea somewhat, and it makes a fireworks-style scenario more likely.

Yes, at any case I think that there’s going to be some signs of evolution we would have to explain away (as it is claimed that there’s lot of evidence for the cosmic evolution).

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
There are some possibilities there. Since quasar ejection seems extremely periodic, there might be some process that goes on past a certain critical point that rips old matter apart.

Why periodic? I don’t recall seeing that suggested.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
As a complete flight of fancy, perhaps our understanding of antimatter is incomplete at this point… we expect that if it’s out there, that it would be in great clumps, and we can’t explain the asymmetry very well, but perhaps matter is just the normal form, and antimatter is part of an energetic process past a certain energy that happens to reset matter back to hydrogen. From what I know of particle accelerators, the only matter creation events you get at nuclear masses and above are either mesons or proton-antiproton pairs – not even alpha particles.

I don’t know enough about particle physics to say anything to this. I gained a certain amount of distaste for the whole field after getting familiar with Copenhagen interpretation. 😉

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
Me neither; I’ve yet to find a good layman’s explanation. I haven’t been through all of this paper, but I think this one look promising.

Again, it may be a matter of people needing to come up with a theory for something that does not actually happen, in order for the framework to work 😉

Well, yes it seems so. Although I didn’t read it thoroughly yet, but it seems to offer the peculiar velocities as the answer. I’m under the impression that the FOG-effect is way too large to be explained by peculiar velocities.

Quoting Ritchie Annand:
You know what? I figured it out. Well, it’s still confusing as to WHY this would be a problem – I’ll bring it to our webmaster’s attention 🙂 The a.css style for “message_block_quote” has a padding: 5px; That should work, but on IE it creeps. It works if changed to individual padding excluding padding- bottom. Go figure 🙂

…[applauds]… I noticed your post about it, is it really happening only in threads I’m involved with?

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-26 11:50:02

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
I had a rethink on this. I think that what I said earlier is not a problem after all, there’s nothing strange in redshift first decreasing rapidly and then settling to a linear decrease. But the problem arises when the redshift approaches zero, because the approach toward zero redshift is linear, so we would expect it to continue past zero and we would get linearly increasing blueshift. We don’t see very blueshifted galaxies out there, so it looks like that redshift settles to zero. Of course we can just say that the redshift decrease just stops at zero, but to me that seems to be a magic event that a linearly progressing function would just stop at certain point.

I don’t know… it’s always possible that the blueshifted galaxies, perhaps everything in the ‘Great Attractor’, are older than us even including the travel time of the light to get to us 🙂

But perhaps it happens so that first there’s your rapid decrease, then linear phase which then changes to exponential curve closing in to the zero. I’m sure that this could be achieved with some complex function. It’s just that all these events in the curve progression reminds me about the progression of the space expansion in the Big Bang theory (you know, inflation, steady, deceleration, acceleration…) and I don’t know if I want to construct something similar, as it seems a bit artificial to me. 🙂

Oh god, please don’t have multi-curve functions as a first guess! Auuugh, inflation theor… 🙂

Same here, not behind any model. I’m just satisfied getting familiar with the observations, never mind the theories. My current cosmological model is that there is no cosmological model, perhaps I should write a book about it, hmm… title might be “Grand Unified Non-theory”.

You know how hard it is to get expensive galaxy-probing telescopes built based on a theory that there’s nothing out there? 🙂

I like the way Kuhn talked about things… you have to have some sort of paradigm to test things against, even if it’s wrong. That said, the ‘ scientific revolution’/’paradigm-busting’ part takes one heck of a frustratingly long time 🙂

Good point. Of course, we could just keep on pushing the age of universe further and further to keep the BB alive.

You know that’s going to be the default position if redshift directly correlating with actual/expandatory velocity starts to shimmy or fall 🙂

Yes, at any case I think that there’s going to be some signs of evolution we would have to explain away (as it is claimed that there’s lot of evidence for the cosmic evolution).

I’m not so sure about that – a lot of evolutionary signs seem to disappear when more powerful telescopes get involved or the observation time is increased. That said, everyone is also just looking for galaxies seeming younger regardless of which direction they look. It’d be a pretty good insult if things were actually only younger in one direction 🙂

Bah, you never know what we’re going to find out there if we keep looking harder, so keep building those telescopes!

Why periodic? I don’t recall seeing that suggested.

Ah, periodic wasn’t the right word. What would suffice properly? Ah yes, episodic is what I really meant. Since quasars seem to be emitted with great time lags in-between, it’s a strong possibility that the process requires some threshold or critical conditions to occur. It could be mass buildup in the center, or a magnetic bottle forming or bursting… who knows?

I don’t know enough about particle physics to say anything to this. I gained a certain amount of distaste for the whole field after getting familiar with Copenhagen interpretation. 😉

Oh, I hate the freaking Copenhagen interpretation. It really feels far too much like saying “the math will do us just fine forever; there’s no possibility of peering behind the curtains, so why bother?” Yeah, so full of promise for the future 😉

Still, I reserve the most sulf’ry flatuence for those who do things like “we don’t understand quantum mechanics, we don’t understand consciousness, therefore consciousness exists and is explainable only in the mysteeeerious quantum mechanical world. Ooogity boogity boo!

Actually, I encountered some interesting things in particle physics when I went looking. I have quiet a few books from the 80’s and 90’s, but the interesting things I came across lately were things like: sure, energy can create particles, but it appears that you actually need a close encounter with a charged particle to do it (why?). Another surprise was to find out that no matter how much energy you pumped in, you could never produce any normal matter more complicated than proton-antiproton pairs. It’s either smaller particles, mesons and the like heavier than two protons, and proton-antiproton pairs.

So you would never get anything higher than hydrogen or hydrogen ions directly out of energy->matter conversions. Antiprotons attacking other nuclei might catalyze a reformation into energy, then back to hydrogen/protons.

It’s just a thought, ‘cos I liked your suggestion, and we haven’t heard hide nor hair of a decent recycling explanation. I don’t know how Arp and Narlikar’s ever-increasing mass stops its march towards infinite heaviness 🙂

Well, yes it seems so. Although I didn’t read it thoroughly yet, but it seems to offer the peculiar velocities as the answer. I’m under the impression that the FOG-effect is way too large to be explained by peculiar velocities.

I haven’t seen anything definitive. It seems a little like dark matter, that when you run the numbers, you come up short, but if you cook it up for more layman or the benefit of sympathizers and neglect any factor of 5 disparities, it becomes the truth 😉 I just wish I could see a proof and a rebuttal 🙂

Quoting Ari Jokimäki:
…[applauds]… I noticed your post about it, is it really happening only in threads I’m involved with?

I don’t know – I went looking for other threads, and I think we’re the only ones with the full-on blockquoting habit, so we truly notice it (well, we only notice it when we use IE 🙂

I haven’t tried it yet, but it seems so terribly unlikely that IE would have a hissyfit over an ä. Maybe the browser has a personal vendetta. Care to share? 😉

— Ritchie Annand

Ritchie Annand 2005-10-27 08:40:12

You know what? It might be a good idea to reply in a new forum posting so that we get front page billing again – *chortle* 🙂

— Ritchie

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: