0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
Light does not bend to EM.It has no charge.Distance doesn't matter.A gravitational field will not take away its intrinsic energy.All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance'.
QuoteThere is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these. There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength.
There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption.
Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough.
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.
Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.
The standard cosmological model explains redshift as an effect related to gravity; specifically, to the way that the geometry of spacetime influences the properties of light. Through general relativity, we can measure the gravitational effects of matter and energy on redshift over cosmological time. We can see that the relationship between redshift and distance changes over billions of years. It changes in ways that are readily explainable in general relativity and that gives us measurements of the matter and energy in the universe that we can compare with other types of measurements.
Is gravitational red-shift at source taken into account? I haven't found anything to verify that it has.
When observing anything outside of the solar system it will appear blue shifted relative to us. Is this taken into account. When observing anything outside our galaxy, it will appear more blue shifted. Is this taken into account?
Mike - why don't you do the sums - use upper bounds rather than exact masses if you feel the exact masses are compromised by the methods used to calculate them. They are not particularly taxing - and you will then have a rough idea of the magnitude of the shifts involved. With that your questions might have a bit more bite. You see; if the upper bounds of the graviational redshift are orders of magnitudes less that those observed with distant galaxies then we can move on - if they are of the same or similar magnitude then you are right to highlight a problem.
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance. Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift. This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude. Not an insignificant amount.
Presumably, to estimate red-shift at source one must estimate the mass of the object but that means knowing the objects distance and for that we use red-shift. See the problem?
Quote from: MikeS on 29/07/2011 13:16:51Quasars are frequently used to determine distance. Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift. This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude. Not an insignificant amount.It has already been established that there is a red-shift problem here, a discrepancy of 'orders of magnitude'Quote from: imatfaal on 29/07/2011 16:43:44Mike - do the sums!There is absolutely no point in me doing the maths as there is nothing for me to prove. The problem is known to exist.
Mike - do the sums!
The largest uncertainty is probably that we ignore the fact that the higher frequencies within multi-chromatic white light loose energy faster than the lower frequencies. This tends to bias all multi-chromatic white light toward the red after a few million years of travel through a busy universe.
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, seehttp://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html [nofollow]
Quote from: MikeS on 30/07/2011 07:11:16According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, seehttp://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.htmlIt all depends on what it encounters along the way. There is a vast difference between how cosmology looks at the photon; as an indisputably fixed reference, and what optics and radio/radar technology know about the intricacy of electromagnetic radiation.The claim that a photon is unalterable during a million year zigzag journey through a forest of gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a wishful assumption and oversimplification at best.
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, seehttp://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
Quote from: MikeS on 29/07/2011 13:16:51Quasars are frequently used to determine distance. Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift. This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude. Not an insignificant amount.This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.For example, see Peebles et al. in Nature, 1991.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.Quote from: MikeS on 01/08/2011 09:17:10How can we determine that other than by red-shift?We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies. This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
Quote from: MikeS on 05/08/2011 10:04:23As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies. This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.One neat thing about determining quasar distances is that one can look at gravitationally lensed images of quasars and test whether or not they match the mass of the galaxy that is lensing the image. This allows us to test whether or not the quasar really is as distant as its redshift suggests. Whenever we could do this, it works out.Either there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are some anomalous alignments that create temporary confusion, or there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are also quasars that are not at their redshift distance but that are completely indistinguishable from these other quasars. This is not impossible, but it is something that is impossible to work into a good theory of the universe that can be compared to measurement.
Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.
I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.
This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.