You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-13-2007, 10:26 PM
Is spectroscopically determined red-shift a correct (Doppler) method determining an ongoing expansion of deep space - the further the faster, or, is it the alteration of light over greater distances; not an indicator of a spatially expanding universe, according to Hubble's Law? Is the spatial universe really expanding, or is it static?
Best Regards, - RP
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Re: RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-13-2007, 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Is spectroscopically determined red-shift a correct (Doppler) method determining an ongoing expansion of deep space - the further the faster, or, is it the alteration of light over greater distances; not an indicator of a spatially expanding universe, according to Hubble's Law?
Best Regards, - RP
The spectroscopically determined red-shift (Doppler) method is used to determine the change in frequency of the light spectrum from a distant object.
The results from this method indicate, reasonably conclusively that the Universe is spatially expanding, the further the faster, from any observer.
Hubbles Law is another method that reaches the same conclusion.
They are not necessarily independent of each other.
cool bananas ... greg
'Blondie says I must hate all Brunettes. I'll try, but if I can't ... I'll love them both' ... graffiti on Tavern wall, Pompeii, circa AD 70.
Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that were proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light - 44k - Cached - Similar pages Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML a new tired-light mechanism involving an interaction between a ... arguments in favour of reviving the tired-light mechanism or Segal’s. chronogeometry. ... redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V0N02PDF/V0N02VIG.pdf - Similar pages CE425: Tired light
The red shift from distant galaxies has been interpreted as a Doppler effect from the universe expanding. However, it may instead be due to "tired light. ... www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE425.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages THE INFINITE UNIVERSE Chapter 1-2
The redshift of far away galaxies is explained with a tired light hypothesis. ... The redshift is to be seen of the type of the tired light hypothesis ... www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part1/2.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Crank Dot Net | tired light
Crank Dot Net: tired light. ... Big Bang . steady state . tired light ... "When the Hubble variable was discovered in 1926 it had a value of 500 kilometres ... www.crank.net/tired.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages 1986: "TIRED LIGHT" REVIVED AGAIN
"...compared the tired light cosmology to the standard model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one ... www.science-frontiers.com/sf047/sf047p05.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages __________________________________________________ __________________
Also, please Google: 'static universe'.
Kewl Kukumbers, - RP
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Re: RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-14-2007, 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard
Hey Rascal ..... You had that ready to paste. You were just waiting for me to reply ..... LOL
will have to read them
cool bananas ... greg
If I had to pick one of those to suggest, I'd immediately suggest this one: www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm. It's on Ned Wright's page, and it's the only one on that list that's obviously written by a cosmologist.
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
The Following User Says Thank You to neutralino For This Useful Post:
Re: RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-14-2007, 05:04 AM
Rascal ... If I read you correctly .......... ?
I read four of the links you offered including the one Neutralino suggested, as well as the Wiki. I had never heard or read on it before.
'Tired Light' supports theories that the Universe is not expanding, but is somewhat static.
'Tired Light' does not support theories that Space is expanding.
'Tired Light' proposals would support your contention that both matter and space are expanding in proportion.
Nice try, I almost fell in. But for the following reasons I don't agree with it.
The maths don't fit. In the link that Neutralino proposed 'errors in tired light cosmology' it can be clearly seen that in a study of 60 supernovae that redshift exactly fits the decay pattern, whereas 'tired light' would be independent of this decay.
The CMB is consistent. It would not be with 'tired light'
The resolution of distant objects would not be in 'focus', but somewhat blurred, depending on how far the light had come.
The Wiki lists many more observations and measurements that are inconsistent with the theory. But it does not rule it out absolutely:
Quote:
Originally Posted by From the Wiki
There are nonstandard cosmologies who rely on tired light mechanisms though the vast majority of physicists and astronomers accept the conclusions of various studies [citation needed] that such an effect either does not or cannot account for cosmological redshifts.
cool bananas .... greg
PS: Xmas seems to have bought some sort of viral spiritual mania to most of the members on our forum. I am glad you haven't caught it yet ... its lonely around here ... bearing this in mind I will take the opportunity to wish you a happy one old mate ... cheers ... LOL
'Blondie says I must hate all Brunettes. I'll try, but if I can't ... I'll love them both' ... graffiti on Tavern wall, Pompeii, circa AD 70.
Re: RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-14-2007, 10:09 AM
Greg:
An excerpt from your last post:
'Tired Light' proposals would support your contention that both matter and space are expanding in proportion."
Whereas, you do get a red shift in a universe where both matter and space are expanding proportionately.
I don't agree with the 'tired light' premise, either.
Kewl Kewkumbers
- RP
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Re: RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-14-2007, 02:21 PM
"The speed of light itself has not decayed at all, really. Rather, the obstacles (virtual particles) which absorb and then re-emit any given photon of light has increased with the increase in the Zero Point Energy in space, thus causing light to take longer to reach its final point of absorption – its destination. However, in between obstacles, the speed of light remains the same as the moment it was emitted from the atom. There is, in short, no such thing as ‘tired light.’ There is simply light being held up in its travel by denser mediums." A lay explanation can be found here: http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
I'm surprised that Setterfield has been subjected to such a great shun of his work, seeing as though he is like a modern LeMaitre - creationist. I think it might have something to do with his adherence to zpe, eventhough he has much support to back up his inferences.
Though I don't fathom literal expansion, but rather light taking time to observably-"traverse" scales, the mechanics involved in his explanations are somewhat midway to opposing views.
Re: RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con -
12-14-2007, 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard
Redshift supports a Universe expanding spatially, or even spacetime, but I don't see how it supports matter expanding. ???
cool bananas ... greg
Is not expansion - accelerating expansion - the dominant micro-macro paradigm?
There are exceptions to the expansive rule of course, Greg.
Did you have something particularly non-supportive in mind?
Kewl Kukumbers,
- RP
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
