LightFrequencyLoss:Distance from Gravitational Field Origin

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

plutocrass

Guest
In the recent press was stated:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second to become larger than the visible universe," said WMAP researcher David Spergel, also from Princeton University.<br /><br />The new observations reveal that the early expansion wasn't smooth, with some regions expanding faster than others.<br /><br />"We find that density fluctuations on the 1- to 10-billion-light-year scale are larger than density fluctuations on the hundred-million-light-year scale," Spergel said. "That is just what inflation theory predicts."<br /><br />These fluctuations are thought to have led to clumping of matter that allowed the formation of galaxies.</font><br />from: Space.com's Map Results<br /><br /><br />I have a large problem believing that a marble expanded so rapidly, in such a short time. <br /><br />Is it possible that this concept is wrong, and that light simply loses frequency per distance travelled, such that the loss of frequency is so small, that it takes a very large distance before we can measure it? <br /><br />If this was possible, then it would explain the light shift of the doppler effect, because more distant galaxies would have a relatively lower frequency in their expressed lightwaves. <br /><br />Also, this would explain the non-homogenous density effects in the "microwave background", which is light expressed from very distant superclusters.<br /><br /><br />The rationale of this post centers around these statements:<br /><br />Space is frictionless, except for gravitational waves. Light is a wave, but it can be bent by gravity. Light is also a particle, that exhibits periodic inertia. Could the self-initiated gravitational field of a photon slow the frequency of its wavelength over distance travelled? <br /><br />So I'd like to ask:<br /><br />What laws are violated with th
 
S

Saiph

Guest
in brief, the mechanism you propose is known as the "tired light" model...and was considered for about a decade before it was dropped as various consequences of such a mechanism directly contradicted observations.<br /><br />If anybody is more familiar with it, please chime in. I'll have to go dig up specifics to say more than that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
Thanks Saiph! <br /><br />I've since been reading information on this Tired Light Model, some of which is over my head. <br /><br />There was a study that disproved the Tired Light Model. This study measured the length of time duration for a supernova, which was measured at 40 days, but they were able to correct for time dilation, and the actual time was 20 days. The tired light model doesn't seem to unveil this phenomena of time dilation. I don't know what it all means.<br /><br />The other part that is disproven in the tired light model is something to do with blackbody radiation. <br /><br />It would be good to have clarity on this subject, but I will keep googling until someone can provide the clarity on this thread.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
I may not understand the finer points, but... "tired light" is old. <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>
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
<i>"What laws are violated with this assumption?"</i><br /><br />The "tired Light" theory is discounted because of this simple philosophical argument:<br /><br />Since light travels at "c" velocities, it doesn't experience the passage of time. From the perspective of the photon, it is both created and annihilated in the same instant; even though from our perspective some photons seem to be billions of years old. <br /><br />"Tired Light" theory would seem to violate some of our basic laws of physics including the TOR and E=mc<sup>2</sup>! But if it's discovered that "c" does not precisely equal time, then there may be something behind the "Tired Light" concept after all -- and this is exactly what is proposed by the "Inflation" model of the universe's initial expansion!
 
A

alkalin

Guest
I feel tired light requires mechanism other than just distance relation. That mechanism could be a number of things like Doppler, correlation, Compton or other mechanisms yet to be discovered. I personally do not think it can be singled out to be only one type mechanism for all the things we see. For example, Doppler is useful for determining spin of a star due to the double spectra due to that spin. But I feel light correlation shifting is a better fit to the red shift of the distant universe than Doppler. Yet Compton scattering can also play into the mix, the possible mechanism of cause of the CMB. <br /><br />I feel strongly that one of the most serious problems we face in further work with understanding the universe is to get over the idea that it can be described by some simple equation or law, or that what we have in one thought box covers it all. There are several important physics issues that come out of those various boxes that at times conflict even in the most accepted theory. For example, the notions in expansion conflict with the notions of inflation.<br /><br />How is that possible? First came inflation, putting everything where it is. Then came expansion to further put everything where it is. So how to decide where things are now as opposed to the past? This is a philosophical issue that needs resolving. Math can make claims to do it, but the result may be very erroneous usually, but nonetheless convincing depending on the resolve and box of tools that someone has. <br />
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
hi alkalin, nice response, thank you!<br /><br />i wanted to respond to your question regarding the overly simplified thought process in science. <br /><br />one reason we're all looking for a sum-thing, is training. <br /><br />this is because we need to design experiments. so the design needs to be simplified. <br /><br />simplified experiments are easy to follow, and easy to publish. the scientific community studies the overly simplified work, and this in turn trains the minds of the scientists who've read the paper with ideas on how to create other overly simplified experiments and so on. <br /> <br />by the way, astronomy is not my field, but i do work in a scientific field. i just wanted to say that i really did appreciate your answer, which i can use to springboard my own research. <br />
 
A

alkalin

Guest
I agree. All branches of science are a complex study really. One could find almost anything they could dream of in each branch. But to try to make sense of it we need to find a small niche where a verification experiment can be done, and what happens next is we must publish to get recognition for how right we were in the original proposal to get money for the experiment in the first place. This process sometimes has a tendency to produce favorable data and favorable interpretation of the data. I feel this happens a lot in astronomy, and the reason I say that is there are many small pieces of data that surprise astronomers all the time that simply get swept under the rug because they would embarrass the accepted notion of big bang. This seems to indicate there may be pressure to appease the peer system if there are other conflicting views.
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
alkalin - <br /> <br />I'm reminded of the research of Stanley Prusiner, nobel laureate- medicine 1997, in his research on prions, replicating proteins responsible for neurologic disease. The following is taken from his autobiography.<br /><font color="yellow"><br /><br />"I had anticipated that the purified scrapie agent would turn out to be a small virus and was puzzled when the data kept telling me that our preparations contained protein but not nucleic acid. About this time, I was informed by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) that they would not renew their support and by UCSF that I would not be promoted to tenure. When everything seemed to be going wrong, including the conclusions of my research studies, it was the unwavering, enthusiastic support of a few of my closest colleagues that carried me through this very trying and difficult period. Fortunately, the tenure decision was reversed and I was able to continue my work. Although my work was never supported by HHMI again, I was extremely fortunate to receive much larger funding from the R. J. Reynolds Company through a program administered by Fred Seitz and Macyln McCarty and shortly thereafter from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation under the direction of Walter Burke. While the vast majority of my funding always came from the NIH, these private sources were crucial in providing funds for the infrastructure which was the thousands of mice and hamsters that were mandatory.<br /><br />As the data for a protein and the absence of a nucleic acid in the scrapie agent accumulated, I grew more confident that my findings were not artifacts and decided to summarize that work in an article that was eventually published in the spring of 1982. Publication of this manuscript, in which I introduced the term "prion", set off a firestorm. Virologists were generally incredulous and some investigators working on scrapie and CJD were irate. The term prion derived from protein and infectious provided a challenge to find the nucl</font>
 
S

siarad

Guest
How true.<br />'How is it you're the only one in step' is used to stifle new ideas to save every-one out of step admitting they'd been wrong or don't understand the new. It's been used against me several times when I was right. On one occasion some-one came to me & said "I know you're right but daren't say so".<br />Never be afraid of being out of step but it does make life difficult, individuals have new ideas or make breakthroughs not massive populations <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Uh, try rewording that. For example, "If light's max speed/velocity is 186,000 miles per second, and does experience a passage of time, then time's absolute zero is, in fact, faster than light will ever be, or is it that we do not know the true speeds and/or velocities involved?
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
WMAP's new look at that old light and what it reveals about the structure of our universe:<br /><br />Rachel Bean explores dark energy by Bill Steele (Cornell Chronicle Online)<br /><br />March 28, 2006<br /><br /><i>There is a possibility, Bean said, that the force that drove the initial expansion of the universe may be related to the force that now seems to be causing the expansion to accelerate. "The same force but with a different particle," she cautioned. <br /><br />At the big bang, theory says, all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed into a space about a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a meter across. The laws of physics don't allow measurements smaller than that. As soon as it came into being, it exploded, at first releasing a field of undirected energy filled with massive particles dubbed "inflatons" that carry a sort of negative gravity, propelling everything outward. By the end of the first trillionth of a second, the inflatons had decayed into a seething plasma of elementary particles and energy in the form of photons....<br /><br />Among other conclusions, the new data confirms the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years and says that the universe is almost "flat" (that is, space is only curved a bit through a higher dimension). As for dark energy, Bean said the results are consistent with the simplest theory, a "cosmological constant" representing a fundamental property of space, meaning that dark energy has the same value at every point in space and time....</i>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">That was not the case. Most medical docs, when they saw that Prusiner's prion work being confirmed and expanded upon by other competent researchers, were very pleased to admit he was right.<br /><br />I trained in 1979 and by then the prion explanation for kuru and scrapie was well established and accepted. Contrary to false claims that it was not.<br /><br />The problem was how it was infectious. It was found by Prusiner in the 1990's that prions tended to act as catalysts for more prion formation, thus creating a cascade of prion creation in the right circumstances. This final finding was what got him the Nobel Prize, much deservedly and belatedly.<br /><br />But, and this is the point, his work on Prions was very well accepted in the medical field even in the 1970's and those few who did not accept it, were in a frank minority and largely ignored.<br /><br />A better example would be Wegener's continental drift theory in the 30's, which was rejected because there was not real evidence for it, but the shapes of the edges of a few continents.<br /><br />Once the mid oceanic rift and spreading zones were found, in the 1950's tho, that was the evidence needed, and so continental drift was developed in the 1960's.<br /><br />The real point is scientific methodology. One can, In Retrospect, be right. But without evidence, no one can be expected to be taken seriously in the field. That is the scientific method and it's insisted upon and rightly so.<br /><br />Another example would be Dr. Eric Thompson, the noted Mayologist, who refused to believe that the glyphs had any consonantly values, and were ONLY ideograms, representing ideas or object. Such was his total control of the field by sitting on the major publishing journals as a reviewer and editor, that he was able to suppress most of the translations of Mayan inscriptions for 20 years.<br /><br />Within 6 mos. of his much delayed death, these were all published and he was shown to be a dogmatic fool, who'd ******</font>
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
Hi Steve. Thanks for the response. <br /><br />Let me clear up a few things in your last post. I was interested to find out how you heard about prions in the 70's because I thought that Prusiner coined the term in 1982. <br /><br />So I checked PubMed, it's a list of all medical science research publications. You can go there and searvch for Prusiner SB, to find all of his works, his scrapie investigations were begun in 1977. (u could also search for scrapie)<br /><br />One thing I found interesting in the literature countered a statement in your last post:<font color="yellow"> I trained in 1979 and by then the prion explanation for kuru and scrapie was well established and accepted. Contrary to false claims that it was not. </font>I found out that the scientific literature does not support your statement.<br /><br />Interestingly, the literature's history of the identification of the scrapie agent parallels Prusiner's own words, listed in yellow on my last post, which were taken from his autobiography. You cand find similar thoughts in his banquet speech from the Nobel Prize website.<br /><br />Unfortunately, in my literature search, I did not find evidence that a majority of the scrapie researchers supported Prusiner. There appears to have been a hot dispute, helped by Pruisiner himself, who published that slow viruses were the causative agent of scrapie in 1980. (so how could anyone support him in 1979?)<br /><br />The citations outline suggest that the hypothesis accepted by the scientific establishment was that the scrapie agent must have come from a virus. <br /><br />I will *** star *** comments to for quick reading through an extremely long post. Apologies, especially since its off-topic, essentially.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">***Does Scrapie agent come from a virus? established hypothesis***</font><br />1974: Scrapie agent comes from a virus<br /><br />Marsh RF, Semancik JS, Medappa KC, Hanson RP,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY