Post by: milan_kecman on 02/11/2017 14:07:27
The angle of the aberration is approximately v / c.Dopler's red shift is 0.000000005
(due to transverse movement).
Red shift also occurs due to radial spread.
Let this speed be W = 1.5 [m / s].Then the Doppler redshift = 0.000000005.
Conclusion:
Earth and Sun spreading apart. (Hubble 1888-1953,).But and all the galaxies!
This is a base big bang.
Congratulations, but I do not understand.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2017 17:15:21
Congratulations, but I do not understand.
Nor do I. What are you trying to ask?
Post by: milan_kecman on 05/11/2017 08:24:36
Nor do I. What are you trying to ask?
1929 jear Hubble started to notice that the light coming from galaxies was shifted a little towards the red end of the spectrum due to the Doppler effect (known as “redshift”), which indicated that the galaxies were moving away from us.
Hubble concluded that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies were in fact flying apart from each other at great speed, and that the universe was therefore definitively growing in size.
Wrong conclusion.
The red shift is due to rotation, but he did not know it at this time.
Is so?
Post by: yor_on on 05/11/2017 16:49:24
And you prove that by using redshift, that one should be interesting. I seem to remember that the idea of a rotating universe also is one that allow time travels according to some interpretations.
Post by: milan_kecman on 05/11/2017 20:02:32
f=f0
For example, the Sun rotates around the center of the milky way at w=370 [km / s].
Dopler's red shift is 0.99999924 (center of the milky way).
The theory of "Big Bang" does not hold water.
Post by: yor_on on 06/11/2017 05:44:07
Do you mean that 'spinning suns' are what create the redshift 'mistakenly assumed' to be a cosmological redshift? Or are we talking about something more than that? In the case of suns it then would have to account for the fact that this 'expansion' accelerates the further away you look, shouldn't it?
"The velocity of receding objects is based on their distance from us. Currently expansion causes objects to recede from us at an increasing velocity of about 74 km/s per megaparsec in distance. So for every megaparsec, or about 3 million lightyears, objects are from us, they will on average be moving away at another 74 km/s. Very distant objects are many thousands of megaparsecs away from us, leading to very high recession velocities. For example, an object that is 10 billion lightyears from us is receding at about 250,000 km/s, almost the speed of light! At 40 billion lightyears from us, almost as far out as we can see, recession velocity is almost 1 million km/s, over 3 times the speed of light! (Which is not a violation of any laws. General Relativity allows for velocities to be greater than c between distant objects in an expanding universe) " By Drakkith
Maybe the idea is one about a 'spinning universe' though?
But then I'm losing you again. How do you propose to explain the above from that, without a 'expansion'?
Ps: there is one thing I don't agree with in Drakkiths definition though. If the recession speed surpass 'c' it seems to me that the redshift should be 'infinite' aka not possible to see/measure. There might be a explanation for it that has to do with that it's not a 'speed' per se, well, possibly?
Post by: milan_kecman on 06/11/2017 11:36:51
Imagine that you're observing a moving source. The source is moving neither away from you nor towards you - it is moving exactly sideways (or, put differently, it is moving exactly at right angles to the direction in which you are observing it)
You will still find a Doppler shift. The frequency of whatever wave the source is sending your way will be lower than if the source were at rest.
w=ωR,The distance increases, the R grows, and the ω fall.
But w is still growing.
By the relativity theory (cause dilation of time):
f=f0
transversal θ=90°
Classical Physics gives:f=f0
This observation confirms.
Post by: yor_on on 10/11/2017 12:48:03
But, don't you need to account for the fact that we find cosmological redshift to 'accelerate' the further out we look. I think you make the same premises about 'standard candles' that main stream astronomers etc does, right? And that should include their 'rotational speed'.
If one does then wouldn't that be a way to see if the 'red shift' measured is due to to those suns 'angular momentum'. Otherwise we would have to presume that all suns, no matter how we define them to be of a same 'type' and 'age' will spin differently. Possibly you could argue that the redshift we see is an average of all those suns though. But that wouldn't help, would it? I don't see how it would become testable that way.
Post by: yor_on on 10/11/2017 12:55:00
=
And I still think you would need a mean to account for how this red shift 'accelerate' the further out you look. Do you have one?
The main point is that astronomers actually use the fact that the further out you look the less something (sun) will seem to 'move' relative oneself. If a redshift is due to the relation between you and what you observe, which I think it should be, let's call it 'relative redshift'. Then if what you observe, to you, becomes 'fixed' on the firmament there can't be any measurable redshift, can it? Presuming you to mean that it is relative motion at a angle to the observer that created the redshift?
Post by: yor_on on 10/11/2017 13:45:54