Reply With Quote
Wild Cobra is a master of all disciplines of science and understands it more than the practicing scientists. Thats why he's a parts changer. Nothing says curious scientific mind like someone who changes parts. Nothing.
You obviously don't. Reread and refresh your understanding.
Wild Cobra is a master of all disciplines of science and understands it more than the practicing scientists. Thats why he's a parts changer. Nothing says curious scientific mind like someone who changes parts. Nothing.
Then tell me what I missed.
I could very well be missing something.
How is an expanding universe different than galaxies moving in space? Better question, how can they claim there is enough information to claim a more complex hypothesis?
Tell me what I missed. In layman terms then, since you seem to understand it, how does the red shift take place when it's not by the Doppler effect?
How does a given wavelength change length, in such a manner that our relative reference doesn't also change?
The muffin comparison is the same thing as the Doppler effect.
A cosmological redshift is NOT a Doppler effect. A cosmological redshift is caused by wavelengths expanding WITH the fabric of space. If two co-moving galaxies have the space (or dough in my blueberry example) in between them stretched, then it creates a redshift. What is so difficult to understand about that?
It won’t get any more dumbed down that this:
“In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[17] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift.
There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of relative velocities, the photons instead increase in wavelength and redshift because of a feature of the spacetime through which they are traveling that causes space to expand.[24] Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3×108 m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light at their present location which is forbidden by Lorentz covariance.”
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
v = z x c is the equation WC is saying to use to measure velocity.
So redshift of 3 for a quasar basically means WC is telling us its moving at 3x the speed of light.
DMX, understand that concept. What I don't understand is why it is assumed to only affect photons, and not mass. For such a mechanism to occur, we would have to assume that space is changing. Not just expanding. That there is a physical aspect. Wavelengths change in length as they go through various mediums. For this idea to work, it means that the fabric of space is losing density of whatever this medium is. It would make sense that a quan y of space gets less dense as it expands. It's back to the idea that a new science must now be created to explained whys only the photons are affected. What about the matter? Why isn't it affected?
Still, no matter how the universe is expanding, the distances between galaxies is agreed to be increasing, meaning there is velocity between us and others, meaning there is a Doppler effect.
Removing one equation from the perceived gross change. Some pretty fine SWAGging to do when we cannot accurately place the distances and velocities in an accurate enough perspective.
I will remain skeptical of this hypothesis.
Yet we have no way to prove it.
Mathematically, we also have "i" you know. Very useful in vector mathematics, but not real in any physical aspect.
What if photons actually slow down in frequency over time with some unknown mechanism? Wouldn't that be as valid?
What if this quasar had a very strong gravity that emitted hydrogen at near the speed of light, slowing its vibration down relativistically. Wouldn't this account for the hydrogen spectral lines being displaced so far, appearing at 3x light speed shift?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-26-2011 at 08:28 PM.
WC knows more about every science than the scientists who study it. Its clearly obvious. Its why he's so widely published in peer review journals.
What? Space is expanding and the universe is less dense. Expanding space means stretched wavelengths as a result of having to travel through more space.
No . This re literally thinks he knows better than Einstein.
Its his MO. He argues with any subject that someone is specialized in. I literally cracked up when someone bumped a Freetail thread in the club last week and I saw that years ago WC had argued with Scott about beer making. Its ing hillarious.
lol, and do you notice how he keeps saying he already understands what I'm posting and yet just a few hours ago he said that the doppler effect made more sense to him than the cosmological redshift?
I follow what is being said, it just doesn't track with what I learned in the past. I do understand the explanation. Did you understand what I meant by having to subtract the Doppler red shift to see the expansion red shift? Sure, it's theoretically possible that the galaxies are stationary in space, and that space is expanding with no Doppler effect, but how do we differentiate? Our brief observation of the universe seems statistically insignificant to accept such ideas beyond a hypothesis.
If space is actually expanding as suggested, what does it mean at the subatomic level? How do we explain the nonlinear aspect of it between matter and wave? What does it mean for quantum level cohesion as time goes by? Could matter spontaneously disintegrate?
The whole reason I am skeptical of such ideas is that I believe the characteristics of matter would change if the media that the wave forces resides in, changes.
Light moves at an absolute velocity. You do not. The Hubble constant is much much much less than c.
You have no ing clue what you are talking about.
WC, photons are very unique objects. Why not ask why humans can't decohere or quantum tunnel? Anything with mass can't travel the speed of light, AFAIK, so that's a likely reason why it may only affect photons.
Because photons move at an absolute velocity and nothing else does.
And there is no direct evidence of a medium. its just a construct for simple minds to understand. The point is that things do not move through something but relative to something else
What do any of these have to do with space expanding?
And I have no clue what you meant by the media a wavelength goes through. Light traveling into water gets "bent", changing the wavelength, but that doesn't change the characteristics of light.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure WC's idea of disappearing/shrinking mass would cause a whole lot more damage to our knowledge of our universe than an expanding space theory would.
Och, I was rolling in my grave, wondering why, and then I discovered this thread. Do not let this ''WC'' keep making a mockery of my discoveries. Scheiß!!
Then their frequency wouldn't decrease as the nonexistent medium expands.
I see it as possible that this dark energy has an effect. If you notice, I haven't said the idea is impossible. I'm just not convinced.
Yes, I know photons are unique. Still, I have a hard time buying than an expanding universe would only affect photons.
As for mass not traveling at the speed of light? We don't know that as fact. Our understood mathematics tells us we cannot accelerate mass to that speed. It says that mass would be infinite, but what if there's a real variable we don't understand?
Lets not worry about that though.
If space is expanding and actually making the physical distance between galaxies increase, how do we differentiate between a red shift from that, or the actual doppler effect?
The idea of space expanding is meaningless unless space has some kind of form.
If it isn't the dopple effect that changes the frequency of light, then either light slows down some how with time, or the expanding universe hypothisis has merit. or it to have merit, space would have to have some tangible substance.
Aether, for lack of a better word.
Yes, but that simile doesn't work for me. If light leaving a galaxy is "bent" in the space between galaxies, then doesn't it stand to reason that it would correct itself when it enters the receiving galaxy? Like light going through glass at an angle.
Its not about space expanding but the universe expanding fool. SMH.
I wasn't saying that's what happens. I'm saying that of the medium of space increases, making light waves longer, that it seems the distance between subatomic particles should increase too. I went on to say that mass could actually be shrinking instead, giving a relative perspective that the universe was expanding.
In science, you have absolute, differential, and other ways to measure things. If we are accepting such sciences, how would we know the difference? What if our perception of expansion was because we were shrinking instead?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions