It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CLPrime
As for redshift...of course the expansion of space affects wavelength. In the time it takes an EM wave to travel from point A to point B, space has stretched by a given amount. This stretches the wavelength of the EM wave by a corresponding amount.
What gave you the idea I didn't know who he is? Of course I know who he is. I was asking for a source for the quote from that other guy you mentioned with a similar name, which I'm still waiting for.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Arbitrageur
You really don't know who's Stephen Hawking???
reply to post by Arbitrageur
That's an interesting point because the next generation space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope is being designed to see what we humans can't see...infrared. The reason for this is the expansion of the universe results in such great redshifts of more distant objects that limiting our observations to visible light may be limiting what we can observe. So WE are for the most part not observing infrared. Our eyes can't see that. We build instruments which can see infrared which then translate those wavelengths into something we can interpret with our senses.
Of course I have great respect for great minds of the past, but I think many of them would have respect for the scientific method we have if they were alive today. At the time Plato lived, (from your link that you suggested relates to this thread but I'm still not quite sure how it does) the concept of infrared wavelengths was not understood, yet this turns out to be critical to advancing our observation of the most distant objects which are redshifted so far that infrared wavelengths are relevant. I don't fault Plato for this, but I do point out there were limitations in ancient scientific knowledge.
According to Cooperstock et al., the Earth's orbit might experience non-zero expansion, despite being gravitationally bound to the sun. However it's probably too small an effect to measure as there are other larger but still miniscule influences on Earth's orbit.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Despite the Milky Way being a gravitationally bound system, the Earth would still experience non-zero expansion if it wasn't, on its own, gravitationally bound. The human body would expand ever so slightly over billions of years if we weren't thoroughly bound together. But we are, so we don't.
It's so small I can't really object to saying it's pretty close to zero, but it is interesting that it may have a tiny non zero value.
For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe.
You're not alone in questioning the origin of the redshift, and there are some possible alternate explanations that aren't completely dead like "tired light", but the gravitational redshifts of galaxies don't explain observations of the Hubble constant.
Originally posted by swan001
You sure observed redshift couldn't simply be the result of galaxie's Gravitationnal Redshift?
They do have gravitationnal redshift, right? They are massive as several bilions of suns. Surely this redshift can be observed by Earth.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
According to Cooperstock et al., the Earth's orbit might experience non-zero expansion, despite being gravitationally bound to the sun. However it's probably too small an effect to measure as there are other larger but still miniscule influences on Earth's orbit.
You're not alone in questioning the origin of the redshift, and there are some possible alternate explanations that aren't completely dead like "tired light" ...
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by MamaJ
One must not confuse metaphysics (which is philosophy, alot of times based on weird prediction from physics theories) and physics.
But one must keep an open mind too. The harder part is keeping both in constant balance in your mind.
It's dead in my opinion and for most of the scientific community. I'm also guilty of overstating the case, which I think Wikipedia states more accurately:
Originally posted by CLPrime
I'm assuming you're saying that "tired light is completely dead, but there are some possible alternative explanations that aren't," as opposed to the possible alternative, non-dead, explanations being inclusive of tired light. The lack of a comma suggests the former, but I want to make sure.
Just like you no longer hear about cold fusion but instead it's been renamed to LENR, the speculative theories aren't called "tired light" but instead are given names like CREIL which stands for "Coherent Raman Effect on time-Incoherent Light" which claims to give better explanations of quasar redshifts, so I'm not sure everyone recognizes that as a tired light theory but that's how I see it. They never seem to gain any more credibility than cold fusion, but some people just won't give up on that either.
tired light theories still appear occasionally in speculative journals
I just joined the forum and read this thread before I did. You are doing a good job of sorting out the issues surrounding expansion and I thank you for sticking with it.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by CLPrime
So, if you would send a photon in this stretched space and time, would the photon vary in speed and wave length (space between 2 crests)? No. The speed is related to time. As the photon travel a stretched time, it has more time to make it to the next wave crest, which means, no overall variation would be observed.edit on 28-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Thanks for your post. I admit I'm a little confused by your post and am not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, so I'll post a few things I think are related and see if it helps clarify issues related to some possible points you might be suggesting.
Originally posted by BogieSmiles
I want to introduce an idea that relates to the photon energy and the measure of time, and that is that the observed raw redshift data confirms galaxy separation but does not suggest to me that space is being added.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either coordinate system is valid mathematically.
This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates. In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views. Part 3 of the tutorial shows space-time diagrams for the Universe drawn in both ways.
If that is what you're trying to suggest, my understanding of this claim is the authors have ruled that out to a confidence of 23 sigma (that's a lot of confidence).
We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
This part I understood, but it's not possible. Remember an object in motion remains in motion....that's momentum, right? It doesn't say anything about acceleration. You can't get acceleration from just momentum, so to say "expansion momentum could be winning out over gravity as indicated by the accelerating rate of expansion recently observe" is inconsistent with the concept of momentum.
Originally posted by BogieSmiles
Eventually the clumping resulted in the observed expansion, and it appears that expansion momentum could be winning out over gravity as indicated by the accelerating rate of expansion recently observe.
You're welcome.
Originally posted by BogieSmiles
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I was thinking of there being two opposing forces associated with expansion; separation momentum and gravity. The gravity component declines with the increase in distance (inverse square rule) so if one of the two forces declines, I'm wondering why the other doesn't get relatively stronger, hense accelerating spearation (expansion).