1
New Theories / is the big bang correct?
« on: 05/05/2009 09:11:52 »The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.
Eh?
Imagine if you will, a star moving away from something stationary. Say a random rock with no external gravitational influences. A person is standing on the surface of the rock, with all the equipment needed to measure and observe red shift. Now, the star constantly produces light, which moves in straight lines. Gravity gets weaker the further away the light beam moves; since it is inversely proportional to the square of distance. The gravitational well of the star would therefore be insignificant. By the time the light hit the person standing on the surface of the rock any red shift due to gravitational forces would be so slight that it could be ignored. Or if the planet was within the "gravitational well" then it still wouldn't matter. The proportion of red shift would still be the same.
Quote
Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt
What makes you doubt that light is a constant? In any case, there is lots of evidence for special relativity - see muon decay experiment. NASA has also done experiments which show time dilation for obiting satellites.
Quote
but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles.
Velocity is a vector and as such is determined by direction as well as magnitude. In this particular case, only the vertical component of velocity of the projectile is affected by gravity. The horizontal component stays the same until the projectile hits the ground and friction forces occur (assuming no air resistance) A light beam travelling through space travels in straight lines; thus (according to classical mechanics) we could only expect its velocity to change if it was travelling directly to or directly away from the star.
Any bending would effect perhaps the position of the star in the night sky, but it would not affect the distance. The brightness of the star would still be the same, since the intensity of light would still be the same. Also, the variation is like ridiculously small, have you seen the maths for what you're talking about? We're talking about an apparent change in position of less than a single degree.
Quote
Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?
Reflection from particles? I don't understand how this affects the constancy of velocity for light.
Evidence for the big bang includes of course all the evidence for the theories from which it draws its assumptions. There is the uniformity of the universe, doppler effect, the cosmological principle, cosmic microwave background radiation, pretty much every experiment ever done on light ever, and everything we know about particles including absorption and emission spectra.
Quote
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.
I look forward to your reply with interest.
Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.