[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Oh sh1t! Brilliant explanation of the galaxy?s red shift! So I was pondering that since the sun has a slight red shift from its gravity that the sky is blue because light entering a gravity field is blue shifted. Red shift Blue shift occuring both because of gravity and momentum. So what if all the galaxy?s show red shift because of their enormous gravity?

[Kryptid]

the sky is blue because light entering a gravity field is blue shifted.

It isn't.

So what if all the galaxy?s show red shift because of their enormous gravity?

That would imply that galaxies are progressively more massive the further away from us they are (since redshift is larger for more distant galaxies). That seems unlikely, as that would put the Milky Way in some kind of privileged position in the cosmos, which goes against the Copernican principle. The redshift as explained by the universe expanding in all directions equally is therefore a more sensible explanation.

There are probably other problems with positing distant galaxies as being very massive. For one, all that extra gravity should make them spin faster and be smaller. As far as I'm aware, not such observations of this have been made.

[Origin]

Brilliant explanation of the galaxy?s red shift!

We already know why galaxies are red shifted (and why some are blue shifted).

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

the sky is blue because light entering a gravity field is blue shifted.

It isn't.

So what if all the galaxy?s show red shift because of their enormous gravity?

That would imply that galaxies are progressively more massive the further away from us they are (since redshift is larger for more distant galaxies). That seems unlikely, as that would put the Milky Way in some kind of privileged position in the cosmos, which goes against the Copernican principle. The redshift as explained by the universe expanding in all directions equally is therefore a more sensible explanation.

There are probably other problems with positing distant galaxies as being very massive. For one, all that extra gravity should make them spin faster and be smaller. As far as I'm aware, not such observations of this have been made.

So you're arguing that all the galaxy's in the universe are simultaneously moving away at near light speed without getting smaller in the telescope? Your aren't thinking clearly. but we can start with that if you like from the list of things wrong with your meth induced answer from the times before times!

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

That would imply that galaxies are progressively more massive the further away from us they are (since redshift is larger for more distant galaxies).

You're increasing the amount of gravity between you and the further away galaxy's the further away they are. IDK off hand it took me a dy after hearing about redshift of ALL the galaxy's to come up with that simple idea so....

[Origin]

So you're arguing that all the galaxy's in the universe are simultaneously moving away at near light speed without getting smaller in the telescope?

No one said that or even implied that.

[paul cotter]

Oh no!!, here we go again. Kryptid "not thinking clearly"?, no, the op is not thinking at all.

[Bored chemist]

from the list of things wrong with your meth induced answer

I thought I'd quote that so you can't delete it and pretend that you didn't commit libel.

So what if all the galaxy?s show red shift because of their enormous gravity?

You need to start by showing that they have enormous gravity.

Consideration of the actual physics shows you are wrong anyway.

[Bored chemist]

IDK off hand it took me a dy after hearing about redshift of ALL the galaxy's to come up with that simple idea so

And you should clearly have thought about it for longer, before embarrassing yourself and wasting the site's bandwidth.

[Kryptid]

So you're arguing that all the galaxy's in the universe are simultaneously moving away at near light speed without getting smaller in the telescope?

I never said that they aren't getting smaller in the telescope.

Your aren't thinking clearly. but we can start with that if you like from the list of things wrong with your meth induced answer from the times before times!

Don't imply that I'm on drugs for something that I never said. It makes you look like a troll. I thought you said that you were going to play nice since you came back? Consider this strike one.

You're increasing the amount of gravity between you and the further away galaxy's the further away they are.

The strength of gravity follows the inverse square law. Galactic redshift, on the other hand, increases roughly linearly with distance. So that explanation doesn't work.

[Bored chemist]

Consider this strike one.

I thought he'd already had that.

Dave, you have failed to provide a reputable source that clearly states that a dynamo requires a solid core in order to function. That is strike one

Oops!
I'm getting my pointless timewasters muddled.
Sorry about that.

[Bored chemist]

The obvious proof that OP's idea is wrong is that, if it were true, light from stars near the middles of galaxies would strongly red shifted but light from near the edges wouldn't be.
That is not what we see.
So we know that OP's idea is wrong.

[Kryptid]

Bored Chemist, I think you might be confused as to who the OP is.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

The obvious proof that OP's idea is wrong is that, if it were true, light from stars near the middles of galaxies would strongly red shifted but light from near the edges wouldn't be.
That is not what we see.
So we know that OP's idea is wrong.

Are the colors of the galaxy perhaps not raleigh scatter?

[Bored chemist]

The obvious proof that OP's idea is wrong is that, if it were true, light from stars near the middles of galaxies would strongly red shifted but light from near the edges wouldn't be.
That is not what we see.
So we know that OP's idea is wrong.

Are the colors of the galaxy perhaps not raleigh scatter?

No.
Because, in space there's nothing to scatter light.


Why do you not accept the explanation which fits all the observed facts?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

heic1219a.jpg (556.13 kB . 1280x1424 - viewed 311 times)

[Bored chemist]

Why do you not accept the explanation which fits all the observed facts?

[Kryptid]

It would be nice if you'd put text with your pictures so that we'd know why you posted them.

[Bored chemist]

It would be nice if you'd put text with your pictures so that we'd know why you posted them.

TBH, that's debatable.
It's a nice picture; do you think his ramblings would improve it?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I just want to say, bravo to you two N G's it does appear that everything in picture is moving at like top speed in all directions.

Anyhoo could the redshift blue shift not also be the type of heat that it's emitting? Since stars aren't whizzing past us at near light speed? If the star is hotter and emitting less heat it might show gravitational redshift vs when its burning rapidly and the heat is blue.