It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You're asking great questions. This is another good one, and actually the early cosmologists didn't quite get this distinction between doppler shift and cosmological redshift quite right, as they thought the redshift was Doppler redshift in the early days. We now know to a fairly high confidence that the cosmological redshift isn't due to Doppler redshift, but rather it's due to pretty much what you said: "the overall lengthening of the waveform from what it was originally to what it is now due to expansion".
originally posted by: pfishy
Your explanation makes perfect sense. Though I think I may have misstated my question slightly. It isn't necessarily red shift that I'm referring to, but the overall lengthening of the waveform from what it was originally to what it is now due to expansion. I know this is also a description of red shift, but since the CMB is universally pervasive, it isn't trying to measure distance. Merely the physical alteration of a given wavelength due to spacetime expanding the medium through which it's traveling. Though you did clarify that my assumption of the CMB originating an high frequency gamma isn't likely correct, so it's likely a moot point.
So, that's what happened to most of the gamma rays produced in stars then and now.
In the process of heat transfer from core to photosphere, each gamma ray in the Sun's core is converted during scattering into several million visible light photons before escaping into space.
A lot. The one thing that looks interesting are the pictures he shows of the sunspots that do make it look like the sun might be hollow inside, but images can be deceiving and this reminds me of Don Scott's claim that he's seen electrical processes carve out things that look like the grand canyon so maybe the grand canyon was carved out by electrical processes.
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
What's wrong with this idea? www.youtube.com...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Referring to my previous answer about what the universe is expanding into, if the universe is infinite it's not expanding into anything. If it's finite there could be a boundary of some sort but the question can't be answered scientifically because we've never observed any such boundary and therefore can't say anything about it. If the inside of our universe has space-time and outside our universe, there's a lack of space-time or anything else, it may provide no resistance at all. You could guess any properties you want for what's beyond our universe if there is such a thing, but if there's no way to ever make observations to confirm or reject any of the guesses, then the guesses aren't meaningful, or as Ned Wright put it in his cosmology faq, it's not a profitable thing to think about.
originally posted by: darkorange
"Wind resistance'" that is what I am asking about. is there a resistance to cosmos from what it expands into?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if I understand your question correctly, this isn't like accelerating a particle THROUGH space, where it might start bleeding off some of the additional energy it attains in other forms such as EM radiation. The reason the metric expansion of space is different is it's not moving THROUGH space, the space itself is stretching.
If ther is then entropy would find escapades punching black holes to bleed excess energy/pressure? No?
Just as we discovered dark energy in 1998, the door is open to learn more about about the profile of accelerating expansion over time, which I'm sure we will. More accurate measurements are still being made and we'll have to see what adjustments to our models will best fit the observed data, so I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of finding something more complex going on.
Prior to 1998 cosmologists were asking questions about the rate of the universe expansion and if the expansion would eventually stop, then move into a contraction phase. So, before 1998, it was an open question. I think the data they collected just before 1998 was trying to answer that, but analysis of the data blew their minds when it showed the expansion was accelerating.
originally posted by: darkorange
One day universe will enter contraction phase (if not already so). If there was no resistance then it would face cold death, which, in it's turn, suggest universe is one time event. Do you think it is?
That depends on how you define dark matter. If you include baryonic dark matter like the stuff the Earth is made of, yes of course it can travel through baryonic dark matter. But if you refer to the most popular dark matter candidate for the undiscovered particles known as "WIMPs" or "weakly interacting massive particles", sound as we ordinarily think of it probably can't travel through those as they seem to not interact with ordinary matter, and ordinary matter must interact with itself to transmit sound.
originally posted by: yulka
Can sound travel through dark matter?
We can see the Earth because we're standing on it, but distant planets are "dark" meaning they emit too little radiation to detect from a great distance, so other planets in other solar systems are a type of dark matter. So are a type of dim star called "brown dwarf", where we can only see them within so many light years of Earth and not beyond that. We can only guess at how much stuff is in the Oort cloud in our own solar system, because even that matter is dark and too dimly radiating to detect with current technology.
originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: Arbitrageur
We can see the baryonic but not the popular dark matter?
In astronomy and cosmology, baryonic dark matter is dark matter (matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter) composed of baryons, i.e. protons and neutrons and combinations of these, such as non-emitting ordinary atoms. Candidates for baryonic dark matter include non-luminous gas, Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs: condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets), and brown dwarfs.
The total amount of baryonic dark matter can be inferred from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and observations of the cosmic microwave background. Both indicate that the amount of baryonic dark matter is much smaller than the total amount of dark matter.