[N0B0DY]

I read it more of an energy increase and mass decrease, but it doesn't oppose expansion which is why I posted it for Dave.

As for the math, all the expounded principles are based on the math, and the mathemeticians have done all the heavy work. It is only necessary to understand the principles, extract the relevant principles for our picture, and glue them together.

[dleviwing]

Hi Nobody;
It’s a very good paper but also quite obvious that it is one presented by a student. The number of trivial errors would not be made by professional scientist. He probably got a B+ from his professor though.

[N0B0DY]

Dave,

This is a link to his Bio. - http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html which is apparently not a student's.

I can understand that you may disagree with it, because it semi-opposes Big-Bang Cosmology, but what trivial errors are you referring to that are not of the type scientists make every day?

[dleviwing]

One that comes to mind is that he stated “all free moving electrons radiate EM”; this is not true and may have been due to the limited audience that his paper was intended for or his paper may have been reworked a bit. I don’t think this web page is an official publication; it is however, well worth reading.

[N0B0DY]

Just to be clear on that point, Dave, you're referring to acceleration(deceleration) of high-energy electrons moving through a magnetic field, right?

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
Check out why linear accelerators are best for accelerating electrons; I think you’ll find that it is because electrons do not loose energy due to radiation. Electrons radiate in cyclotrons due to the angular momentum change as they are accelerated; not because they are moving through magnetic fields.

[N0B0DY]

Yes they're much more effective in high-energy experiments, though the one I'm familiar with uses magnetic fields to center the electrons. Electrons moving in straight lines are impossible.

Yet, the point to me is that low-energy electron experiments, which simulate an interstellar environment, indicates there is a neglected radiation based on photon scattering accelerating electrons at rest; and the following is the part I thought you would be especially interested in as an alternative for the doppler effect.

"It may at least be realized that the redshift in emission should be, in general, different from that in absorption and also influenced by the energy of the quantum states that characterize the absorption medium.

"One must then conclude that a redshift is produced due to hydrogen in space according to Eq. (12). This redshift appears undistinguishable from Doppler redshift for radiation with a short coherence time. The energy loss of the initial radiation appears separately as very low frequency radio waves."

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "One must then conclude that a redshift is produced due to hydrogen in space according to Eq. (12). This redshift appears undistinguishable from Doppler redshift for radiation with a short coherence time. The energy loss of the initial radiation appears separately as very low frequency radio waves."

But Nob, this is only referring to the difference in redshift between the absorption lines and the emission lines. One has passed thru a cold gas, the other is emitted by a hot gas. The two redshifts have different values, even where they have been recorded for the same star.

What I don't understand is why the redshift of absorption is greater than the redshift of emission ... maybe Dave can explain this. I would expect the reverse.

Its not arguing against redshift in general, or am I wrong.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

No you're not wrong unless you're referring to the doppler effect. The argument is against the big-bang cmb and can be, though doesn't have to be, against expansion.

The latter is my own inference based on what you are questioning, which is what the paper is about; the cumulative negligible effects of the vacuum within the atoms producing the same effect as the doppler effect. The emission shift is lesser because it is accelerated, similar to the acceleration within the vacuum tube of accelerators.

[dleviwing]

You are getting into detail that requires one to understand the effects of temperature and pressure on the behavior of emission and absorption lines. These are usually considered synonymous to Doppler effect just as gravitational redshift is synonymous to pressure redshift. Absorption however is more sensitive to the state of the hydrogen molecules (space) as opposed to individual hydrogen atoms (Earthbound experiments). The redshift referred to in cosmology is not only based on hydrogen but on the heavier more stable elements not found in the interstellar regions of space; this also allows us to separate Doppler and expansion redshifts. I think most people just assume it is based only on hydrogen lines since this is what we see most on the Discovery Channel.