I believe the redshift theory is based on false grounds. I believe that space is NOT a vaccume, rather has a STRUCTURE. One theory is an EPOLA: electron positron lattice. In any case, the redshift theory cannot be correct. It is calculated by determining the ammount the light wave shifted in frequency (redshift is lower, blueshift is higher), and because of the doppler effect of sound (a train coming towards you blows its whistle and it would be louder, when it is moving away it is lower) this must mean that when we see a redshift it means it is moving away from us, at x speed. Now, this makes sense so far, untill we start seeing redshifts of 5 and 6 and ever 8 or 9, and this simply cannot be. This would mean that the light source is moving away from us at speeds faster then the speed of light, and our current understanding of physics doesnt allow that. I believe like all waves, light must be absorbed by a medium. This medium i believe is the STRUCTURE of space, possibly the epola. Even here on earth we cannot achieve a perfect vaccume. I also believe the big bang theory COULD be false, because it is based on observing the fact that "all stars are moving away from us because their redshift says so" but we know light is affected by gravity, so wouldnt the light emitted by a star be slowed down as it left its gravitational field, and on the trip encounter billions of weaker fields from nearby stars in the galaxy?
Dear inDecline, I totally agree with you, I took a lot of negative comments for this but here's a copy of what I posted on the Expansion and Contraction Thread by Crunchy Cat, you might want to review that thread also. Sincerely deweyb Additional viewpoint, there is no expansion- my comment from discussion on speed of light thread.Glad to see you're confused about the expansion of the universe. It is non-collapsing and NON-expanding AKA steady state. Therefore there is nothing outside the universe, it simply goes on forever. I had a great answer for you earlier (another member), hit the back button and lost it. So I thought I would try it again, the easy way to solve the expansion problem is to realize there is no expansion, another example of modern physics gone wrong. Think about it. Have the Hubbell tele Look in the 6 cartesian directions, UpDown, FrontBack, and Left Right (x,-x,y,-y,z,-z) and what you get is the farther out you look the greater the red shift and the "faster" galaxies are receding (from earth position). This means, for example, since the farthest up galaxy is alleged to be receding by 1/3 the speed of light and thd farthest down galaxy is the same, they are moving at 2/3 the speed of light relative to each other. This is absurd. AND would be the same result looking in any 2 opposite directions!! Big Bang expansion is becoming more and more untenable. What's the alternative? Steady state. Why? There are 3 major premises which modern physics claims supports Big Bang expansion, Doppler Red Shift velocities, CBR (cosmic background radiation), and Einstein's General Theory of relativity which according to the theory demands either expansion or contraction of the universe. Red Shift could also be explained by tired light theory [John Kierein - Steady State and COMPTON Redshift effect - Angelfire][ http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html ] or similar decay vs distance. For energy to move billions of light years and not expect some sort of decay in energy is absurd, it makes equal (actually better) sense to calculate red shift from distant galaxies as a function of distance decay rather than doppler velocities. CBR is said to be left over radiation from the big bang, it has been recalculated multiple times over the years to get the data to fit the formula and vice versa. It is just as easily and I believe better explained as the natural constant vibratory state of aether (CDM, etc) With all the light crisscrossing the universe from all the galaxies, there is always a baseline humm of the ether, never quite getting to absolute zero. This vibratory state would be present as an isotropic humm in all directions, or CBR. And finally, General Relativity mandatory expansion OR contraction are NOT the only two possible solutions, the 3rd is alternating expansion-contraction which is what our solar system does for each planet. The elliptical orbit of earth means the orbit expands and contracts equally for one loop, resulting in a null effect,[ok so it actually expands and contracts twice per loop] in any case the result is the same, AKA steady state. I believe the same is true for galaxies. with a periodic expansion-contraction and final null result. Aether theory supports this concept. General theory may survive in aether as an alternating expansion contraction appearance. the key word here is may. sincerely deweyb
Oh man! For all these years astronomers have been forgetting that things aren't supposed to go faster than the speed of light when they were calculating redshift values! Boy, we sure are lucky that you came along to point that little error out to us. There are actually three causes of redshift. These are: 1. Movement. Light is redshifted if its source is moving away from you. 2. Gravity. Light will be redshifted if it must escape from a massive body before it can reach us. 3. The expansion of the universe. You can notice some redshift between two 'stationary' points simply because the universe is expanding. This only shows up over very long distances. So while we might observe redshifted light with a z value of 8 or 9, we can't just assume that all of the reshift is caused by movement and that the source must therefore be traveling faster than light. You can get a redshift of 8 or 9 from a source that isn’t moving relative to you at all, simply because the source is very massive. Check out http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html and http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RelativisticRedshift.html for more specific information.
This is an interesting conundrum I think because there is so much evidence to say there is a red shift as well as evidence indicating that there is some other effect. I think there is actually a redshif effect but this effect is also conjoined with other effects that appear to make the redshift larger than it is. Something like the tired light hyphothesis may be at work (possible anyway and not unprovable). I think the best evidence thus far is from Halton Arp. And one of the best sites out there is here http://members.aol.com/arpgalaxy/index.html Anyway thats my two cents worth as I am not really cognisant of all the scientific evidence. Cheers
What evidence are you talking about? There's nothing controversial about redsift. It's pretty well understood.
woof do you realyy dont have a clue about general relativity indecline: in GR the expansion of the universe is based on the fact that space time itself expands not that the universe is expanding by the movement of its content in a void away from each other it means that the space time between us is at some point expanding faster that light this will mean anyting outside this i cant see cause distance is expanding faster thatr light that's why the visible universe is surrounded by an event of horizon whats outside we cant see as the universe slows down in expansion we start to see more things thats why it is said that the event of horizon is expanding duh
This is incorrect as Nasor pointed out. Also, the expansion of the universe itself can be fatser than the speed of light so you could get such a redshift from that alone! I agree partly with this. I believe that a fourth way light could be redshifted (and that Nasor left out) is indeed absorption and loss of energy when travelling immense distances through space. I don't agree it is because of EPOLA however! What about the simpler idea of stray hydrogen atoms??! I believe that astronomers have also investigated independent ways of determining the size and composition of stars and thereby their temperature. From that we should be able to deduce their 'expected' frequency.
Actually, even movement alone is sufficient to produce any redshift you like. If v = 0.999c, for example, the redshift is 43.7. I suspect you're not using the relativistic redshift formula.
Yeah, but ususally, when someone talks about a red shift of 6 or 7, it's usually a red shift caused by cosmological expansion. Althought an object cannot move at a speed faster than the speed of light, the universe can expand at speeds higher than the speed of light, hence the red shifts of 6 or 7.
Of course, as has already been indicated. I was pointing out a sub-error in the original post, I guess.
I totally agree with you. Now correct me if i'm wrong (which I probably am) but Doppler effect of sound waves happen because of your relativity of the sound source. For example, if you approached a noisy object at half the speed of sound, it would cause the sound waves from the objects to scaleinto half the frequency they originially were, at least from your prespective. Though the same thing is NOT the same with light, remeber as you increase in speed, time slows down for you. In other words if you went half the speed light towards a bright object, the light emitted from the object wouldn't be half the frequency they orginally are. Why? Because time has slowed down to half it's normal rate, cancelling out the "dopplershift" of the light.
Did you do the calculations by yourself? I am quite sure you didn't, because if you would have performed them, you would have seen that the two effects do not cancel as you claim.
Yea I'm a still a newbie to this stuff. I have much to learn. That's why you guys are here to help me. BTW I'm only 16 Jaredster:You guys = Kinematics:Runge-Kutta 4
OK, if you are a newbie, then ask, we will answer. But if you say that you totally agree with something that is wrong and that you don't understand, don't be surprised of the answers you'll get.
No the speed of light would appear the same (c) but the energy (frequency) of the light would increase as you approach it. There would be a blueshift.
Yea I was thinking about that when I was making the post, but why would it change, shouldn't the slowing of time for you and the increasing of the frequency of the blueshift cancle each other out, making it appear to be the same frequency?
Let's consider a beacon flashing once per second in it's own frame. You and the beacon are approaching each other at 0.866c (Lorentz factor = 2). What do you see? In your frame, the beacon is actually flashing once every two seconds (time dilation). But between each flash, it gets 2 x 0.866 light-seconds closer to you. So, the second flash leaves the beacon 2 seconds later, but has 1.732 seconds less travelling time. This means that the second flash will arrive 0.268 seconds after the first. Blueshift = (frequency in emitter's frame) / (observed frequency) = 1 / 0.268 = 3.73
