[Vern (OP)]

I just finished Lyndon Ashmore's book, Big Bang Blasted. It is a good read. He points out a clear difference between Tired Light, and Expansion concepts. In Tired Light, red shifted spectra should be shifted more in the red end of the spectrum than in the blue end of the shifted spectrum. Expansion predicts no difference between red and blue. I just found a sample of red shifted spectra on Wiki, and sure enough, the red end is shifted more than the blue.

Edit: The bold text was a false assumption of my own. It was not in the book.
Is this just a fluke?

Here is a red shifted spectra example from Wiki.

Now, I'll enlarge the area of interest.

[Vern (OP)]

Here's a larger image of the spectrum. The anisotropy is still obvious.

[Bored chemist]

There are no numbers on those "axes" so you cannot tell if they are linear in frequency, wavelength or what.
This means that you cnnot interpret them in the way you seem to have done without further data.

[Vern (OP)]

There are no numbers on those "axes" so you cannot tell if they are linear in frequency, wavelength or what.
This means that you cnnot interpret them in the way you seem to have done without further data.

Yes; I know. This was just a quick look and to have any meaning it would have to be verified thousands of times by many different folks. But just looking at this particular spectrum, it is clearly shifted more at the red end than at the blue end.

Does any one know where there are more samples we could look at?

[Vern (OP)]

I just did a Google search with the phrase: samples of red shifted spectrum
Guess what was number two on the list [] That is kinda swift, since I just started this thread this morning.

[lightarrow]

Anyway, if the red shift depended on frequency, I think they would have already noticed it and it would already be in all astrophysics books.

[Vern (OP)]

Anyway, if the red shift depended on frequency, I think they would have already noticed it and it would already be in all astrophysics books.

Well, you would think so, wouldn't you. However, if you don't have a mind set for something you can miss it. The global mind set is to find support for the expansion theory.

This particular sample came from the Wiki link. I don't even know if it is real. It may just be a drawing. I wish we could find a bunch of published real samples.

[Vern (OP)]

This paper describes the strange quantization of red shifts. Tired Light folks claim this is proof that the red shift is not due to expansion, but happens in cosmic hydrogen clouds. The light may pass through any number of clouds, each one of which adds another quanta to the shift.

Red shift differences between pairs group around 72, 144 and 216 km per second. Probability theory tells us that there are only a few chances in a thousand that such clumping is accidental. In 1982 an updated study of radio pairs and a review of close visible pairs demonstrated this same periodic pattern at similarly high significance levels.

Radio astronomers have examined groups of galaxies as well as pairs. There is no reason why the quantization should not apply to larger collections of galaxies, so redshift differentials within small groups were collected and analyzed. Again a strongly periodic pattern was confirmed.

Then the paper concludes:

Several ways can be conceived to explain this quantization. As noted earlier, a galaxys' redshift may not be a Doppler shift, it is the currently commonly accepted interpretation of the red shift, but there can be and are other interpretations. A galaxys' redshift may be a fundamental property of the galaxy. Each may have a specific state governed by laws, analogues to those in quantum mechanics that specify which energy states atoms may occupy. Since there is relatively little blurring on the quantization between galaxies, any real motions would have to be small in this model. Galaxies would not move away from one another; the universe would be static instead of expanding.

This model obviously has implications for our understanding of redshift patterns within and among galaxies. In particular it may solve the so-called "missing mass" problem. Conventional analysis of cluster dynamics suggest that there is not enough luminous matter to gravitationally bind moving galaxies to the system.

[yor_on]

Yep Vern, but it's data that's missing here

You will need better proof than the statements of a book to prove that idea.
Are there no astrophysicists on this site that know of any such links?
It would be interesting.

[Vern (OP)]

You will need better proof than the statements of a book to prove that idea.
Are there no astrophysicists on this site that know of any such links?
It would be interesting.

I'm not trying to convert anyone [] I'm just trying to get the facts fixed for my own piece of mind. It is difficult to discover unbiased facts in an environment where there is a strong bias toward one possibility. In this environment, found facts against the bias are not published, while any notion in favour of the bias is widely published.

I hoped that someone might know of a treasure of graphic representations of red shifted spectra. On line I have only found the red shifts represented as z numbers, except for that one case of the Wiki representation.

[Vern (OP)]

I just did a Google search with the phrase: samples of red shifted spectrum
Guess what was number two on the list [] That is kinda swift, since I just started this thread this morning.

A Google search with the same search string this morning puts this thread in the top two positions. [] I guess BenV was right; maybe making the title to the thread a question does evoke more search engine hits.

Edit: I enlarged the graphic to show the bottom blue line derivation. I am pretty sure I lined up on the same line, left to right.

[Vern (OP)]

I received the following message from Lyndon Ashmore. It seems that this is the normal way that the red-shift phenomena works.

Hi Vern.

Redshift z is the ratio of delta lambda /lambda. In the BB, Ashmore redshift and observation, photons of light at the red end of the sprectrum are shifted more than those at the blue end such that the ratio delta lambda /lambda ie 'z' is constant, This is not a problem for either me or the BB.

Cheers,

lyndon

[lyner]

Vern
Just look up Doppler on Wikkers and see what you'd expect. Then compare it with some actual numbers. I think you'll find it all ties in with existing ideas.

[Vern (OP)]

Okay; I am still trying to get this sorted out in my mind. I can't figure out what mechanism could cause the Doppler effect to be tied to wave length.

[lyner]

The sums are very straightforward. There are two calculations you can do; one is non-relativistic and the other is relativistic. The relativistic is obviously what counts for red shift. Browse around for a link that suits you, sir.

[Vern (OP)]

The sums are very straightforward. There are two calculations you can do; one is non-relativistic and the other is relativistic. The relativistic is obviously what counts for red shift. Browse around for a link that suits you, sir.

I don't have any problem with the calculations; the problem I have is understanding why the equation should be z = delta lambda / lambda for a Doppler shift. I guess I'll just have to work on it.

[lightarrow]

The sums are very straightforward. There are two calculations you can do; one is non-relativistic and the other is relativistic. The relativistic is obviously what counts for red shift. Browse around for a link that suits you, sir.

I don't have any problem with the calculations; the problem I have is understanding why the equation should be z = delta lambda / lambda for a Doppler shift. I guess I'll just have to work on it.

Doppler's effect:

λ' = λSqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]

where v is the star's receding speed with respect to us. So:

Δλ = λ'-λ = λ{Sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] - 1}

so Δλ depends on λ and if you measured the red shift with Δλ you wouldn't have a unique value, given a unique value of star's distance D. In the Hubble law, it's Δλ/λ which is related with that parameter:

Δλ/λ = H*D/c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

since, for little v/c, {Sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] - 1} ~ v/c, you also have:

Δλ/λ ~ v/c --> v/c ~ H*D/c -->  v = H*D.

[Vern (OP)]

Thanks lightarrow, that is helpful. I had never before thought about it much, but always assumed the Doppler effect would be a function of time and not frequency.

[irish del]

Excuse my ignorance but how is red shift measured.....
Do they look at the amount of red light given from a star and then check it a few days later to see if the amount has increased
Or is it just how much red light is given out compred to other stars that are closer??

[Vern (OP)]

The different elements in starlight each radiate a specific frequency, or colour of light. We pass the starlight through a prism to see its rainbow of colours that we call a spectrum of colours. We compare the spectrum from the star with a spectrum of the sun, for example. We see that the bands of colours from the star are all shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. So we say it is red shifted.

Here's the Wiki on the subject.