Could redshift be wrong?

DrRocket · Jul 28, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Notice the timestamp on our last 2 posts.  A little bit of simultaneity (pun intended) on the recognition of the attempted redirection. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Yeah.  But my graphic is better. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kg · Jul 28, 2008

<p>I hope it's ok to ask this now...</p><p>As light travels through an expanding universe it's wavelength lengthens and looses energy.  So where is that energy going and doing?  Is it the end of the line as far as entropy is concerned?</p>

michaelmozina · Jul 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Translation:  "I have no clue whatever what GR is all about, so I will try to redirect the conversation." <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No.  It means that when I went back through his definition of GR I could not find anything wrong with his definition of GR as a preexisting comoving coordinate system.  Where you both seem to have difficulty is accepting the fact that your theory doesn't begin with a "comoving coordinate system."  It begins with a singularity. </p><p>If your cosmology theory began with "In the beginning were a bunch of comoving galaxies, there isn't much I could complain about if you then tried to use GR to support your theory.  Your theory however begins with "In the beginning all matter was concentrated to singularlity", compressed under the crushing force of gravity.  There is no comoving coordinate system at the moment of the BB, just a gravity well of epic proportions.  Without inflation you aren't going anywhere, and you can't use GR to support your theory *without* inflation to get the expansion process going.  Your redshift theory is no better than Ari's theory because it is based strickly on math rather than emprical physics.   About the only thing you could suggest is better about it is that accepted theory is popular whereas Ari's tired light theory is a less popular "interpretation" of the same redshift phenomenon. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jul 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.  It means that when I went back through his definition of GR I could not find anything wrong with his definition of GR as a preexisting comoving coordinate system.  Where you both seem to have difficulty is accepting the fact that your theory doesn't begin with a "comoving coordinate system."  It begins with a singularity. If your cosmology theory began with "In the beginning were a bunch of comoving galaxies, there isn't much I could complain about if you then tried to use GR to support your theory.  Your theory however begins with "In the beginning all matter was concentrated to singularlity", compressed under the crushing force of gravity.  There is no comoving coordinate system at the moment of the BB, just a gravity well of epic proportions.  Without inflation you aren't going anywhere, and you can't use GR to support your theory *without* inflation to get the expansion process going.  Your redshift theory is no better than Ari's theory because it is based strickly on math rather than emprical physics.   About the only thing you could suggest is better about it is that accepted theory is popular whereas Ari's tired light theory is a less popular "interpretation" of the same redshift phenomenon. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have just successfully demonstrated the truth of my post, and of dereckmd's -- that you are utterly clueless about general relativity.</p><p>The issue that was raised was the ability to discuss cosmology intelligently using the tool of general relativity.  You have just  proved that you do not understand that cosmology and general relativity are two different things entirely.  General relativity is the physical theory of gravitation.  Using general relativity one can construct cosmological models, and in fact one can construct competing cosmological models.  There are models of a static universe, and expanding universe, an infinite universe, a finite universe, and in some cases different types of each.  There are models with a non-zero cosmological constant, and there are models with no cosmological constant. </p><p>By equating the question on general relativity to a specific model you have conclusively proven that you have no idea what general relativity really is.  Therefore your ensuing comments, criticisms and protestations against various models have no credibility whatsoever.  Basically you don't know what you are talking about.  Worse, you don't know that you don't know what you are talking about.</p><p>Perhaps if you would go learn some physics this discussion might proceed in a logical fashion.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hope it's ok to ask this now...As light travels through an expanding universe it's wavelength lengthens and looses energy.  So where is that energy going and doing?  Is it the end of the line as far as entropy is concerned? <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>That is a really good question.  I think the answer is that as objects move apart the potential energy of the universe is increasing, as when you lift an object in the gravitational field of the Earth.  So as the universe expands the potential energy in the gravitational field is increasing, and that ought to counteract the decrease in energy of the photons in the background radiation.</p><p>I don't understand the entropy question.  As far as I know entropy continues to increase, and I don't and end to that anytime soon.  I guess in a finite universe if all the matter and energy were thermalized that would be a state of maximum entropy. But I am not certain what the far far far distant future will really look like.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jul 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have just successfully demonstrated the truth of my post, and of dereckmd's -- that you are utterly clueless about general relativity.</DIV></p><p>You have never demonstrated that your singularity based theory is in any way related to expansion in general relativiity theory.  You chose to start your theory as a singular mass object.  All you're demonstrating is that you are unwilling to admit that your singularity isn't going anywhere without inflation and/or dark energy and without these things your theory cannot involve general relativity theory, only special relativity theory since all your mass starts as part of the same system.   The rest of your speal about GR theory isn't even worth wasting my breath on.</p><p>You can't handle the truth. The truth is that you opted to claim that all mass was once compressed to something smaller than a breadbox and without inflation, expansion isnn't going to happen.  That's all this is about, not GR theory, or any other theory.  You're just miffed because your redshift solution is no better than Ari's resolution of the redshift phenomenon in terms of real emprical physics, and you don't want to admit it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Hicup · Jul 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have never demonstrated that your singularity based theory is in any way related to expansion in general relativiity theory.  You chose to start your theory as a singular mass object.  All you're demonstrating is that you are unwilling to admit that your singularity isn't going anywhere without inflation and/or dark energy and without these things your theory cannot involve general relativity theory, only special relativity theory since all your mass starts as part of the same system.   The rest of your speal about GR theory isn't even worth wasting my breath on.You can't handle the truth. The truth is that you opted to claim that all mass was once compressed to something smaller than a breadbox and without inflation, expansion isnn't going to happen.  That's all this is about, not GR theory, or any other theory.  You're just miffed because your redshift solution is no better than Ari's resolution of the redshift phenomenon in terms of real emprical physics, and you don't want to admit it. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Throw in FTL expansion, and a rapid cooling and it all goes to hell.. LOL</p><p> </p><p>Imagine a universe that only expanded for 300,000 years, or even less, and is now simply staitc.

</p><p> </p><p>Tim-</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

DrRocket · Jul 29, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have never demonstrated that your singularity based theory is in any way related to expansion in general relativiity theory.  You chose to start your theory as a singular mass object.  All you're demonstrating is that you are unwilling to admit that your singularity isn't going anywhere without inflation and/or dark energy and without these things your theory cannot involve general relativity theory, only special relativity theory since all your mass starts as part of the same system.   The rest of your speal about GR theory isn't even worth wasting my breath on.You can't handle the truth. The truth is that you opted to claim that all mass was once compressed to something smaller than a breadbox and without inflation, expansion isnn't going to happen.  That's all this is about, not GR theory, or any other theory.  You're just miffed because your redshift solution is no better than Ari's resolution of the redshift phenomenon in terms of real emprical physics, and you don't want to admit it. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Never once have you directly responded to the issues that have been raised.   Your consistent tactic is to change the subject to as to avoid having to reveal that you do not have the knowledge to address the original issue.  This is no exception. You really do need to get over your math anxiety and learn some physics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is a really good question.  I think the answer is that as objects move apart the potential energy of the universe is increasing, as when you lift an object in the gravitational field of the Earth.  So as the universe expands the potential energy in the gravitational field is increasing, and that ought to counteract the decrease in energy of the photons in the background radiation. Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>I agree.  A fantansic question... one that is not easily answered.  I should say not easily answered quantitatively.  Not by me anyway.</p><p>I think your notion of potential energy is born out of the need to satisfy the requirement of conservation of energy and is a vaild way to approach the problem.  I don't believe it's necessary, though.  General Relativity doesn't require conservation of energy as the FLRW metric isn't really a closed system and our universe, as a whole, can be considered infinite for all intents and purposes.  Therefor, trying to define the total energy that must be conserved in an open system is pretty much a useless endeavor.</p><p>A quantitative description of this approach using psuedo tensors looks quite intimidating.  My eyes just glazed over when I looked at them.</p><p>I think most cosmologists are simply satisfied with saying the energy doesn't go anywhere... it's just lost.  Again, this doesn't violatate conservation laws as they don't apply to General Relativity... at least not that I'm aware of. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Throw in FTL expansion, and a rapid cooling and it all goes to hell.. LOL<br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>How so? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

BoJangles · Jul 30, 2008

<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Ok let me try and get my bearings here (correct me if I'm wrong), michaelmozina is saying redshift is probably caused by Tired Light, and the competing argument is that redshift is caused by inflation?</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Personally I think, if redshift was incorrect, it would solve a lot of what seem like hacks in cosmology (i.e. dark energy, accelerating universe, even some parts of relativity). Though don’t let my personal opinions get you down; I didn’t study a lot of physics or any astronomy / cosmology at uni, <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'">I’m </span>just trying to get up to speed.</font></p><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">After some research and the help of wiki I have the following.</font></p><ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif'">Could someone explain my following questions (in red) with regards to tired light criticisms.</span></font></div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font color="#000080">michaelmozina</font> , in your opinion how are these questions invalidated or solved with Tired light (or any other mechanism),</font><font face="Calibri" size="3"> be as detailed or as layman as you like, ill manage.</font></div></li></ul><div style="padding-right:0cm;padding-left:0cm;background:#f8fcff;padding-bottom:2pt;padding-top:0cm"><span style="font-size:19pt;color:black;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This is lifted straight from wiki</font></span></div><div style="padding-right:0cm;padding-left:0cm;background:#f8fcff;padding-bottom:2pt;padding-top:0cm"><span style="font-size:19pt;color:black;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Criticisms</span></div><span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Any "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must:</font></font></span> <ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font size="3"><span><font face="Calibri">Admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band </font></span><span style="color:#c00000;font-family:Wingdings"><span>ß</span></span><font face="Calibri"><span style="color:#c00000">I’m not sure what this means? Is this like, the same shifting happens at all bands like x-ray and gamma ultraviolet?</span></font></font></div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font size="3"><span><font face="Calibri">Not exhibit blurring </font></span><span style="color:#c00000;font-family:Wingdings"><span>ß</span></span><font face="Calibri"><span style="color:#c00000">Why would it blur?</span></font></font></div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font size="3"><span><font face="Calibri">Follow the detailed Hubble-relation observed with Supernova data (see accelerating universe) </font></span><span style="color:#c00000;font-family:Wingdings"><span>ß</span></span><font face="Calibri"><span style="color:#c00000">My pseudo friend Alex filipkenko explained this one</span></font></font></div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm"><font size="3"><span><font face="Calibri">Explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events. </font></span><span style="color:#c00000;font-family:Wingdings"><span>ß</span></span><span style="color:#c00000"><font face="Calibri"> What events are they talking about?</font></span></font></div></li></ul><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#000000"><span style="color:#c00000">---</span></font></p><p><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#000000"><span style="color:#c00000"><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#000000"><span style="color:#c00000"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12pt">Oops sorry about that hicup, </span></font><span style="font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">I think the server was having a little trouble; my pages were loading heaps slow for about 5 -10 minutes around that time.</font></span></span></font></span></font></p><p><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#000000"><span style="color:#c00000"><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#000000"><span style="color:#c00000"><span style="font-size:12pt"></span></span></font></span></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

Hicup · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How so?  <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p> </p><p>God Damn Pluck!!!!!   ARRRARRGGHH</p><p> </p><p>That's it I'm done with this place again.. I just lost a huge post and that is that last straw..  I'll be on the other forum if you want to read my thoughts on it.</p><p> </p><p>looking, I see that manohwar posted at roughly the same time I did and I'll bet that's what it was???????</p><p> </p><p>Anyway, I'm sick and tired of losing posts like that..  GOD DAmn you PLUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p><p> </p><p>I know I can type in word and then copy and paste, but COME ON..</p><p> </p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok let me try and get my bearings here (correct me if I'm wrong), michaelmozina is saying redshift is probably caused by Tired Light, and the competing argument is that redshift is caused by inflation?<br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Tired light or not, many of this light originated 13 or less billion years ago. How can one say with  absolute certainty that even the physical constants then  were the same  as we see now? One thing we can say about this universe with a little certainty is 'everything in this universe changes with time, some changes are slow some are fast'. </font><font size="2">Even speed of light could have been different when those light started their journey. </font><font size="2">We are looking through a very very small window of time, and we have already noticed how slow cosmological changes are. In our window of time, we may see zero changes of most, if not all, universal constants. </font></p><p><font size="2"> In my personal opinion, which I have nothing to backup, red shift is not the outcome of 1 or 2 factors, but many many factors, some factors are already known and some are  still known. </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is lifted straight from wikiCriticismsAny "tired light" mechanism must solve some basic problems, in that the observed redshift must: </p><p>Admit the same measurement in any wavelength-band <em>ßI’m not sure what this means? Is this like, the same shifting happens at all bands like x-ray and gamma ultraviolet?</em></p><p>Not exhibit blurring <em>ßWhy would it blur?</em></p><p>Follow the detailed Hubble-relation observed with Supernova data (see accelerating universe) <em>ßMy pseudo friend Alex filipkenko explained this one</em></p><p>Explain associated time dilation of cosmologically distant events. <em>ß What events are they talking about?</em></p><p>Posted by <strong>Manwh0re</strong></DIV></p><p> </p><p>You might want to look at Ned Wrights page on tired light problems. It addresses 2 of your unanswered questions, blurring and time dilation.  Blurring occurs if you propose that something in between the emitter of the light and the observer is absorbing and then re-emitting the photons (at a lesser frequency).  Some aren't going to come out going in the same direction as the went in.  Time dilation has to do with the concept that certain supernovae take a very predicable time to decay once they explode.  If you were "close" you might measure it to be 20 days.  However if you're very far away remember that spacetime is expanding during those 20 days. So the photons emitted in the last day have further to travel than those emitted in the first day and thus take longer to get to the distant observer.  The timing of the event is stretched out or dilated as a result. The further away the more dilation, which the curve in the link above depicts.</p><p>FWIW I interpret the first issue the same way you did.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

Hicup · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You might want to look at Ned Wrights page on tired light problems. It addresses 2 of your unanswered questions, blurring and time dilation.  Blurring occurs if you propose that something in between the emitter of the light and the observer is absorbing and then re-emitting the photons (at a lesser frequency).  Some aren't going to come out going in the same direction as the went in.  Time dilation has to do with the concept that certain supernovae take a very predicable time to decay once they explode.  If you were "close" you measure it to be 20 days.  However if you're very far away spacetime is expanding during those 20 days. So the photons emitted in the last day have further to travel than those emitted in the first day and thus take longer to geet to the distant observer.  The timing of the even is stretched out or dilated as a result. The further away the more dilation which the curve in the link above depicts.FWIW I interpret the first issue the same way you did.  <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Ok, so, I can't ressit.  How do you know the Type 1a SN take a predictable 20 days to decay if you're close?  By what measurement do they know this for a certainty?  Ok, so let me see if I have this straight (Familiar term here LOL)  T1aSN up close and personal take 20 days to decay, where we are it takes 30 days to complete the observational light cycle, (For instance) correct?  So we assume that because of this, space is "stretched", I.e, time-dilation, or an expaning universe.</p><p> </p><p>What I want to know is how do we know that the light up close only takes 20 days to complete the cycle?</p><p> </p><p>I'm really asking honestly.. How do we know?</p><p> </p><p>Tim-</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ok, so, I can't ressit.  How do you know the Type 1a SN take a predictable 20 days to decay if you're close?  By what measurement do they know this for a certainty?  Ok, so let me see if I have this straight (Familiar term here LOL)  T1aSN up close and personal take 20 days to decay, where we are it takes 30 days to complete the observational light cycle, (For instance) correct?  So we assume that because of this, space is "stretched", I.e, time-dilation, or an expaning universe. What I want to know is how do we know that the light up close only takes 20 days to complete the cycle? I'm really asking honestly.. How do we know? Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />Roughly, the Type !a supernova is very well understood as far as where the light curve comes from. From memory, it has to do with Nickel 56 being produced during the event, and the half life of the nickel 56 controls the light output. Since that half life is well known, the actual light curve can be predicted quite accurately.</p><p>I checked, and it appears my memory was right...this from Wiki</p><p>Type Ia supernovae follow a characteristic light curve—the graph of luminosity as a function of time—after the explosion. This luminosity is generated by the radioactive decay of nickel-56 through cobalt-56 to iron-56.<sup class="reference">[33]</sup> The peak luminosity of the light curve was believed to be consistent across Type Ia supernovae (the vast majority of which are initiated with a uniform mass via the accretion mechanism), allowing them to be used as a secondary<sup class="reference">[38]</sup> standard candle to measure the distance to their host galaxies.<sup class="reference">[39]</sup> However, recent discoveries reveal that there is some evolution in the average lightcurve width, and thus in the intrinsic luminosity of Supernovae, although significant evolution is found only over a large redshift baseline.<sup class="reference">[40]</sup></p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok let me try and get my bearings here (correct me if I'm wrong), michaelmozina is saying redshift is probably caused by Tired Light, and the competing argument is that redshift is caused by inflation?..Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>No, that is not quite correct.</p><p>1.  Michael Mozina may be saying that redshift is probably caused by tired light.  Or he may be saying is it caused by something called plasma redshift, a phenomena known only to Ari Brynjolfsson.  Or he might be saying something else. </p><p>2.  The mainstream theory is that redshift is caused by expansion of the universe and the recessional speed of distanct galaxies, basically Doppler shift (but that term is sometimes reserved for an effect caused by a proper motion in space).  This expansion of the universe is NOT driven by the mechanism of inflation which was essentially over and done a very long time ago.  Michael Mozina continues to insist that inflation and expansion of the universe at this epoch are linked in a way that they simply are not.  So a large part of the "debate" is the result of Michael's ignorance and tendancy to want to argue to simply promote EU ideas in general.  A key piece of his strategy is to misstate the mainstream theory, and that is what he continues to do here.</p><p>3.  The expansion of the universe also accounts for a lot of other things besides redshift, including the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe on a large scale that tired light theories do not.</p><p>Not only would tired light not explain a lot, it would raise a whole host of new problems.  First and foremost is the need for a new explanation of how "tired light" causes red shift -- there is no good explanation within known physical law.  You also get into all of the old arguments regarding the stability of a static universe within general relativity, and general relativity is our theory for all gravitational phenomena -- loose that and things get really sticky.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Hicup · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Roughly, the Type !a supernova is very well understood as far as where the light curve comes from. From memory, it has to do with Nickel 56 being produced during the event, and the half life of the nickel 56 controls the light output. Since that half life is well known, the actual light curve can be predicted quite accurately.I checked, and it appears my memory was right...this from WikiType Ia supernovae follow a characteristic light curve—the graph of luminosity as a function of time—after the explosion. This luminosity is generated by the radioactive decay of nickel-56 through cobalt-56 to iron-56.[33] The peak luminosity of the light curve was believed to be consistent across Type Ia supernovae (the vast majority of which are initiated with a uniform mass via the accretion mechanism), allowing them to be used as a secondary[38] standard candle to measure the distance to their host galaxies.[39] However, recent discoveries reveal that there is some evolution in the average lightcurve width, and thus in the intrinsic luminosity of Supernovae, although significant evolution is found only over a large redshift baseline.[40]MW <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Ah, I see, so then the "light-Spectrum" tells us what the atomic structure is, and from this we can overlay the expected decay of these atomic structures with that of the frequency of the emitted light and from this we know that if theyr don't add up, then one physical property is taking longer than expected to get to us.  In other words, after 20 seconds from our location we no longer see the decay of the nickle in the light spectrum, but we see the light.</p><p> </p><p>That makes sense..</p><p> </p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

Hicup · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Roughly, the Type !a supernova is very well understood as far as where the light curve comes from. From memory, it has to do with Nickel 56 being produced during the event, and the half life of the nickel 56 controls the light output. Since that half life is well known, the actual light curve can be predicted quite accurately.I checked, and it appears my memory was right...this from WikiType Ia supernovae follow a characteristic light curve—the graph of luminosity as a function of time—after the explosion. This luminosity is generated by the radioactive decay of nickel-56 through cobalt-56 to iron-56.[33] The peak luminosity of the light curve was believed to be consistent across Type Ia supernovae (the vast majority of which are initiated with a uniform mass via the accretion mechanism), allowing them to be used as a secondary[38] standard candle to measure the distance to their host galaxies.[39] However, recent discoveries reveal that there is some evolution in the average lightcurve width, and thus in the intrinsic luminosity of Supernovae, although significant evolution is found only over a large redshift baseline.[40]MW <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Ah, I see, so the atomic structure of the emitted light is predictable as to it's decay as we observe it on Earth.  In other words, after 20 seconds we no longer observe the spectrum of nickle, BUT, we still see the light emitted from the event.  From this we know that metric space is expanding?  Interesting..</p><p> </p><p>By the way, I answered this already but lost that post as well.  If this conversation wasn't so damn interesting I'd be gone already..  </p><p> </p><p>Copying into word just to make sure this time..</p><p> </p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

derekmcd · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.  The mainstream theory is that redshift is caused by expansion of the universe and the recessional speed of distanct galaxies, basically Doppler shift (but that term is sometimes reserved for an effect caused by a proper motion in space).<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think it's important to note the distinction between doppler and cosmological redshift.  Doppler, as I understand it, is only an apparent change in wavelength.  The energy loss (or gain for that matter) can be recovered by simply changing your reference frame.  Cosmological redshift, on the other hand, is a real, physical change in wavelength where is no single reference frame (with the exception of a collapsing universe) that you can change to in order to recover the loss. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ah, I see, so the atomic structure of the emitted light is predictable as to it's decay as we observe it on Earth.  In other words, after 20 seconds we no longer observe the spectrum of nickle, BUT, we still see the light emitted from the event.  From this we know that metric space is expanding?  Interesting.. By the way, I answered this already but lost that post as well.  If this conversation wasn't so damn interesting I'd be gone already..   Copying into word just to make sure this time.. Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />It's actually 20 days, not hours, but yes you've got it right.</p><p>Yeah, pluck ain't fun today.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ah, I see, so the atomic structure of the emitted light is predictable as to it's decay as we observe it on Earth.  In other words, after 20 seconds we no longer observe the spectrum of nickle, BUT, we still see the light emitted from the event.  From this we know that metric space is expanding?  Interesting.. By the way, I answered this already but lost that post as well.  If this conversation wasn't so damn interesting I'd be gone already..   Copying into word just to make sure this time.. Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>I don't quite understand your post, but I think it is roughly correct.  Try this</p><p>We see a spectrum for hot nickel here in a laboratory.  We know what that spectrum looks like, i.e. we know the frequencies and relative magnitudes of those frequencies that are emitted.  We make the reasonable assumption that the laws of physics are same throughout the universe, so that if we were able to travel to a distant galaxy and look at the spectrum if nickel there it would look just like what we see in our laboratory.  Then we look far out into the universe and detect photons that were emitted long long ago and far far away.  They are of various frequencies and relative magnitudes, a spectrum, and they look just like the spectrum for nickel that we found in our laboratory, with one small but very important exception.  That exception is that the frequencies that we see coming from distant galaxies are shifted slightly.  The spacing of the spectral lines is the same, the relative magnitudes are the same, but the actual frequencies are slightly lower than what we see in the laboratory -- the spectrum is red-shifted.</p><p>Next, we ask ourselves how this could happen.  We need a mechanism that preserves spacing between frequencies and relative magnitudes.  Doppler shift is just such a mechanism.  If an emitter is moving away from you then the frequencies as you perceive them are lower than the frequencies perceived by someone traveling along with the emitter.  So movement directly away from our observation station is indicated.  You also observe that the same red shift is seen no matter which direction you look.  So one a large scale with only minor local fluxuations, the galaxies are all moving away from us.  </p><p>Either we are incredibly to be at the very center of some sort of explosion (highly unlikely) or everything is moving directly away from everything else.  And general relativity, our best theory for gravity offers and explanation of how this not only might occur but how it almost is forced to occur.  An expanding universe offers a stable solution to the field equations of general relativity.  It also provides in that solution an explanation for red shift, the expansion of space.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ah, I see, so the atomic structure of the emitted light is predictable as to it's decay as we observe it on Earth.  In other words, after 20 seconds we no longer observe the spectrum of nickle, BUT, we still see the light emitted from the event.  From this we know that metric space is expanding?  Interesting.. By the way, I answered this already but lost that post as well.  If this conversation wasn't so damn interesting I'd be gone already..   Copying into word just to make sure this time.. Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>The expansion can be determined due to the amount of time from explosion to peak luminosity which appears to be standard.  Nearyby type Ia supernovae take 20 days for the initial expanding cloud to disperse enough to 'see' the most energetic elements of the explosion.  It's well known that all elements can be identified by their spectrum.  By looking at the light curve of SNe, you can determine the age of the SNe.  Knowing what elements are most prominent at the specific age of the SNe, you should have expected spectral lines.  All those expected lines are redshifted depending on the distance of the SNe and are quite consistent.</p><p>Type Ia supernova that are at much higher redshift distances also have a side consequence of the number of days between the initial explosion and peak luminosity matching quite precisely to the distance of the SNe.  The light from the event is literally stretched out over a longer period of time and we witness the evolution to take longer.  The only solution to this observation is that space is expanding and all but completely rules out any tired light theories.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

Hicup · Jul 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't quite understand your post, but I think it is roughly correct.  Try thisWe see a spectrum for hot nickel here in a laboratory.  We know what that spectrum looks like, i.e. we know the frequencies and relative magnitudes of those frequencies that are emitted.  We make the reasonable assumption that the laws of physics are same throughout the universe, so that if we were able to travel to a distant galaxy and look at the spectrum if nickel there it would look just like what we see in our laboratory.  Then we look far out into the universe and detect photons that were emitted long long ago and far far away.  They are of various frequencies and relative magnitudes, a spectrum, and they look just like the spectrum for nickel that we found in our laboratory, with one small but very important exception.  That exception is that the frequencies that we see coming from distant galaxies are shifted slightly.  The spacing of the spectral lines is the same, the relative magnitudes are the same, but the actual frequencies are slightly lower than what we see in the laboratory -- the spectrum is red-shifted.Next, we ask ourselves how this could happen.  We need a mechanism that preserves spacing between frequencies and relative magnitudes.  Doppler shift is just such a mechanism.  If an emitter is moving away from you then the frequencies as you perceive them are lower than the frequencies perceived by someone traveling along with the emitter.  So movement directly away from our observation station is indicated.  You also observe that the same red shift is seen no matter which direction you look.  So one a large scale with only minor local fluxuations, the galaxies are all moving away from us.  Either we are incredibly to be at the very center of some sort of explosion (highly unlikely) or everything is moving directly away from everything else.  And general relativity, our best theory for gravity offers and explanation of how this not only might occur but how it almost is forced to occur.  An expanding universe offers a stable solution to the field equations of general relativity.  It also provides in that solution an explanation for red shift, the expansion of space.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p>That's kinda of what I meant, but am tired of losing posts so I shortened it..

</p><p> </p><p>Anyway, just to confirm, the expected decay rate of the "nickle-light-spectrum" is stretched out, or lasts longer than what we expect to see in a laboratory, so we hypothesize that because it takes longer relative to the distance that the light is also being stretched out over space-time..</p><p> </p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at: http://www.thespaceport.us Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 30, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That's kinda of what I meant, but am tired of losing posts so I shortened it..

 Anyway, just to confirm, the expected decay rate of the "nickle-light-spectrum" is stretched out, or lasts longer than what we expect to see in a laboratory, so we hypothesize that because it takes longer relative to the distance that the light is also being stretched out over space-time.. Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />That's correct, it's 50% longer at the greatest distances. That's a lot. It's not like a 1% difference that could be measurement error, it's a 2X4 in the face. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

Could redshift be wrong?

DrRocket

Guest

kg

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Hicup

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

Hicup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

Hicup

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Hicup

Guest

Hicup

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Hicup

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page