Welcome
Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Red shift

Red shift

Postby Gtor » Tue May 02, 2017 3:38 pm

Has anyone proved that light doesn't redshift with distance.
Gtor
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 7:43 am

 

Re: Red shift

Postby wlminex » Tue May 02, 2017 5:16 pm

Gtor: As I understand it, redshifted light with distance asssumes a doppler-like frequency shift that is determined by approaching (blue-shift) or recessional (redshift) velocities relative to the observer (I think). Observed light waveforms appear to 'stack-up' (higher frequency; bluer) with approach and appear to 'stretch-out' (lower frequency; redder) with recession. Since one might can attach distance to (to or from) velocity, at dt, distance would be a second-order effect.

I don't think (corrrect me, if I'm wrong on this) anyone has 'proven' that light doesn't 'redshift' (or, at least "appear" to do so!) with distance; rather, the current thinking is that redshift (and blueshif, as well) does occur. Whether these effects are real or not, and due to gravity, velocity, or just cosmological distance effects (i.e., 'tired light' hypothesis - light loses energy with distance, thus reducing frequence and increasing wavelength) is still argued by proponents of each's pet theories.

This is a poor (and too wordy) answer to your query - sorry!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Red shift

Postby wlminex » Tue May 02, 2017 5:25 pm

. . . .BTW: Pls excuse my typos . . . some of the keys on my keyboard are 'sticky' . . .!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Red shift

Postby Gtor » Thu May 04, 2017 8:29 pm

Thanks Wiminex,
So let me understand this – the assumption that the stars are moving away from us measured by the red-shift assumes that light doesn’t red-shift with distance. Wouldn’t the sky look the same if the stars weren’t moving away (I’m not saying that the stars are tied a fixed firmament) and light lost energy in transit? The real problem is that we can’t (as far as I know) set up an experiment to find out – we don’t have the time and we can’t deal with the distances.
Gtor
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 7:43 am

Re: Red shift

Postby wlminex » Fri May 05, 2017 1:03 am

Gtor: I think the argument made is that since we "observe" (mostly) redshift, and that redshift is (presumed to be) a doppler effect, and that redshift is observed to be greater for light sources that are measured to be farther away, that the "universe" is expanding away from our assumed point-of-view (location). This 'apparent' expansion is supposedly a relict ot the Big Bang event and coeval inflation.

To me the above is kind of "circular" reasoning and depends upon the observer's (all being great scientists, I'm sure!) assumptions. But, regardless, it (redshift) is touted by most in the scientific community to support the Standaard Model (SM), including Big Bang - and we "can't" tread on THAT hallowed ground, can we?

Of the options, I guess I tend to subscribe more to the "tired light" hypothesis. This is based on analogy with other processes in nature - e.g., there are ALWAYS forces acting on 'things' in motion - tending to 'slow-them'down' or 'speed them up'. In this regard, I am of the opinion that over such vast,universe-large distances of 13.8 billion light years, or so, that some portion of the photon energy is yielded to the properties of space - pricipally via energy --> mass by gravitational interactions . . . . or by other mechanisms.

But . . . .hey . . . . .those are just my opinion(s)!.

Regards,
wlminex (Bill)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Red shift

Postby Gtor » Sat May 06, 2017 9:57 am

Bill,

I’m convinced that light must red-shift with distance. This is for two reasons. The first is that I don’t want to believe in the Big Bang which has taken on a quasi religious aspect in which we are asked to “Have Faith” even though it is totally illogical that at one moment there was nothing and then Bang and the Universe appeared. The second is a conclusion which comes from many years of thought leading to the little contribution below “A Layman's thoughts on gravity Inertia and Time” . The piece is a mess and needs a lot of work. I tried to remove it from the BB so I could rewrite it but unfortunately there is a comment attached which blocks my editing privileges.

Gtor (Pat)
Gtor
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 7:43 am

Re: Red shift

Postby wlminex » Sat May 06, 2017 7:09 pm

Pat: Thanks for your interesting discussions. I,too have some reservations about the 'chicken and egg'' - like arguments made for BB - BB may have happened, but IMO, is NOT required - there are alternatives and I'm particularly more interested in the pre-BB condition, as it (pre-BB) trends toward a more metaphysical investigation that we can't really directly observe (like most of metaphysics, I guess!). Would like to read your piece on gravity inertia and Time, but could not locate it here (forum). You can email it to me at: wlminex@msn.com, or send me a link where it can be found. Also, I've written-up a few ideas on one of my (simple) webpages at: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/. BTW: Google SItes is a good place to easily create your own webpages - for FREE, plus they give a lot of guidance on webpage design - templates, etc. I started using Google SItes so that I can place my ideas, etc. somewhere in cyberspace - where they will live-on forever, I suppose . . . . another path to eternal life? (HAHA!)

Rergards,
Bill
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Red shift

Postby Gtor » Mon May 08, 2017 9:57 am

Bill,

I had a read of your EEMU Hypothesis paper. I’m not sure I understood much of it but I did get that you are an original thinker and are not bound by scientific convention. A very refreshing read – I liked the bit on SETI and the idea that we may be looking at wrong scale.

Here is the link to my little contribution:

a-layman-s-thoughts-on-gravity-inertia-and-time-t1137.html

As I said before it is sloppy and needs work and also may not be in any way original.

All the best,

Pat
Gtor
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 7:43 am

Re: Red shift

Postby wlminex » Tue May 23, 2017 5:51 pm

Pat:

Thanks for visiting my "ideas" webpage. I tried to link to your html piece, but it did not work. You can send it directly to me via email at: wlminex@msn.com.

Kindest regards,

Bill
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Return to Time and Space

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred