Is the Universe Expanding ?
T. Joseph W. Lazio
<<the Beginning of the Universe [if it had a beginning] is out
there in space at the end of our line of sight in every direction
we look. Will we ever see it? Will we see the Beginning? We don't
know,yet.>>
RM> The Universe was filled with dense plasma, hence opaque to light,
RM> until about 300,000 years after the start, so we can't see any
RM> further back than that time, and we'll NEVER be able to see any
RM> further back in time, hence we'll NEVER be able to see the
RM> Beginning.
Minor addition. The remnant of the radiation from the time when this
plasma was no longer opaque to light is called the cosmic background
radiation or cosmic microwave background. There should also be a
cosmic neutrino background and a cosmic gravitational radiation
background. Just like the Universe was opaque to the propagation of
light prior to about 300,000 years, at earlier times it was opaque to
the propagation of neutrinos and at even earlier times it was opaque
to the propagation of gravitational radiation. With our current
technology it is not possible to detect these other two backgrounds.
However, in the future it may become possible to detect them and
thereby probe even earlier in the Universe's history.
dbr...@globec.com.au
When we look out at the night sky we are looking at the Past; this
is because light has a finite speed. Near at hand is the recent past,
further out is the more distant past; the further out, the further back
in time.
It follows that the Beginning of the Universe [if it had a beginning]
is out there in space at the end of our line of sight in every direction
we look. Will we ever see it? Will we see the Beginning? We don't
know,yet.
But one thing we can say for sure:- we will never be able to see
beyond the Beginning. There is nothing beyond the Beginning because
there is nothing before the Beginning. "Before the Beginning" is a
contradiction in terms.
So the Beginning, out there in space, sets an absolute limit to our
observable universe. Note that we are not talking about the universe as
it is; we are talking about the universe that is visible [or potentially
visible] to us - the universe that we can see.
This means that the edge or boundary of our observable universe must
coincide with the Beginning.
The Boundary and the Beginning are one and the same.
The distance to this Boundary/Beginning can be measured in two
distinct ways. We can measure the distance in time and this is the age
of the universe. We can also measure the distance in space and this is
the radius of the observable universe. The distance in time measured in
years must be equal to the distance in space measured in light years.
Why? Imagine that light has travelled the entire distance from the
Beginning to our eye. If the age of the universe is X billion years the
light has travelled for this length of time. But how far does light
travel in X billion years? Answer: X billion light years. So:-
The age of the universe in years equals the radius of the observable
universe in light years.
Now we come to the crucial point. The age of the universe increases
by one year every year, so the radius of the observable universe must
increase [or appear to increase] by one light year every year which is
the speed of light. In other words, the Boundary of the observable
universe must appear to recede at the speed of light.
My conclusion is that to any observer, positioned anywhere in the
universe, space must appear to be expanding radially at the speed of
light. The observed expansion of the observable universe has nothing to
do with an initial [explosive] event. It is a necessary consequence of
the fact that we are looking at the Past, and the Past is indeed
expanding by one year every year.
db
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert Maas
in space at the end of our line of sight in every direction we look.
Will we ever see it? Will we see the Beginning? We don't know,yet.>>
The Universe was filled with dense plasma, hence opaque to light,
until about 300,000 years after the start, so we can't see any further
back than that time, and we'll NEVER be able to see any further back
in time, hence we'll NEVER be able to see the Beginning.
<<This means that the edge or boundary of our observable universe must
coincide with the Beginning.>>
Nope.
<<We can measure the distance in time and this is the age of the
universe.>>
We can't directly measure the time from then to now, only the
redshift. Depending on whether tne expansion is speeding or slowing or
staying the same, we might calibrate redshift against time. If it's a
smoothe curve from the earliest galaxies to now, we can extrapolate to
find the total time from the Beginning to now. We're pretty sure it's
somewhere between 12 and 18 thousand million years.
<<We can also measure the distance in space and this is the radius of
the observable universe.>>
No, I don't think there's any way to do that. Remember the Universe is
expanding. Do you mean the radius as it is now, even though everything
we observe is long ago when it was smaller? Or do you mean the radius
as it was as far back as we can observe? Besides, radius makes no
sense except if you're looking at some kind of sphere, which I assume
in your discussion means embedding a spacelike slice of the Universe
into some higher dimensional space. Better would be to talk about the
circumference, which DOES make sense. You can divide that by 2*PI, but
that doesn't equal the radius of anything in particular. Circumference
can be defined as how far you'd have to travel in a straight line
before you came back to where you started, assuming you could travel
infinitely fast (so the Universe doesn't get larger while you're en
route), which you can't. But hypothetically you could imagine a bunch
of different ET civilizations each measuring their local part of
space, as some multiple of some standard wavelength such as Lyman
alpha, then add up all the measurements along a straight line. You
can't actually do the measurement, but at least in principle you can
define the circumference that way.
At present we have no way to actually measure, nor even estimate, the
circumference of a spacelike slice at present time. Depending on how
much inflation happened, the circumference of the 300,000 year old
Universe could be as large as (a number so large I don't even know its
name) light years, and then the circumference at the present time
would be a few hundred or thousand times that big, sigh I don't
remember how temperature scales inversely with size as the Universe
expands. Can somebody more expert fill in the numbers here?
<<The age of the universe in years equals the radius of the observable
universe in light years.>>
Nope. The circumference of the Universe could be so much larger than
what you compute that you can't even imagine how much bigger it is.
brien stratton
I have never heard of the two other backgrounds, neutrino and gravitational.
I am only aware of the microwave. This sounds interesting. Any book that
discusses this?
Brien Stratton
T. Joseph W. Lazio <jla...@patriot.net> wrote in message
news:m2r9ds8...@patriot.net...
> >>>>> "RM" == Robert Maas <r...@shell.netmagic.net> writes:
>
> <<the Beginning of the Universe [if it had a beginning] is out
> there in space at the end of our line of sight in every direction
> we look. Will we ever see it? Will we see the Beginning? We don't
> know,yet.>>
>
John Savard
>It is a necessary consequence of
>the fact that we are looking at the Past, and the Past is indeed
>expanding by one year every year.
Astronomers don't yet see the edge of the observable universe. What
they do see is objects on this side of the edge, and those objects are
moving.
One certainly could live in a static Unverse that came into being
everywhere at a definite moment in the past, but our Universe is not
like that.
Johnn...@webtv.net
out far enough to see the beginning of the universe. It is true that the
further out someone looks, the further back in time one would see;
however, there would have to be a limit to this.
Assuming the visible universe started from a point when time and space
were one, and expanded from here.....as in the case of the dots on a
balloon analogy, that time would have long past us..... Long before our
solar system even came along.
Imagine if you will, looking at a galaxy in the sky. Now once the light
from that galaxy has hit your eyes, it is now in the past.....even
though it might be receding from you, you could never see it at an
earlier time. Remember...The closer to the big bang....the closer
everything was to each other .
Like the balloon analogy, if you center on any one dot, it is not
moving; rather, every other dot is moving away from it. (Ie...The big
bang occurred everywhere) The furthest back in time one could possibly
see, would have to be the dot on the opposite side of the balloon, and
this would be "X" no. of years after the big bang otherwise it would
have to be closer...so to speak (when he balloon was smaller)
Assuming the big bang occurred everywhere, then if you were on the
furthest galaxy away from us and looked back in our direction, you would
see ourselves on the fringe of the universe.(at an earlier time,
however) Now if you travelled to the opposite side of your earth there
and looked out, you would not see just darkness, you would see stars
like what we see on the opposite side of our earth.
Perhaps there are some galaxies further out that we haven't yet seen,
because they are too dim (ie...on the far side of our balloon analogy)
however, to see them at the big bang, they would have to be at our
door-step.
Regards....Jon
T. Joseph W. Lazio
bs> I have never heard of the two other backgrounds, neutrino and
bs> gravitational. I am only aware of the microwave. This sounds
bs> interesting. Any book that discusses this?
I'm sure there are. :) Whether they are discussed in any
non-technical book, I have to confess I don't know.
Nathan Urban
> I hope not everyone believes the 'party line'. Truth is no troll.
Uh huh. And I'm sure that you can back up "truth" with hard facts?
Ones that you actually understand and didn't just uncritically copy out
of a book?
> Read "The Big Bang Never Happened" By Eric Lerner for more info.
> Theres lots of proof that the universe is way older than 20 billion years.
Sure, if you selectively ignore the rest of the evidence. See:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html
> It makes little sense to immagine all the mass in the universe comming
> out of a space smaller than a walnut for no reason at all.
Ah, the old "it doesn't make sense to me, therefore it's wrong". What
"makes sense" to someone is entirely subjective, and I see no reason why
the universe couldn't have started out "smaller than a walnut". If you
want to retain some credibility, you should refrain from such logical
fallacies.
As for "no reason at all", this shows a common misunderstanding about Big
Bang models. In point of fact, Big Bang theories don't really say how the
universe originated -- let alone that it appeared "for no reason at all".
They simply say that the universe started out very small and very hot.
Current theories aren't capable of saying how the universe started out,
though naive extrapolations predict that spacetime has a boundary at
the singularity. Even if you go by those extrapolations, they do not
themselves imply that the universe appeared "for no reason at all";
they just mean that we can't predict what, if anything, happened before.
Finally, in quantum theory one can quite arguably say that things DO
happen "for no reason at all" (such as random vacuum pair production),
so in a quantum theory of spacetime (quantum gravity) even that might not
be out of the question. Of course, there are many other possibilities
too that are compatible with Big Bang models.
> Every prediction made by the original BB theory has been shown to be wrong
Which is of course false. The original Big Bang models predicted
cosmological redshift, correct light-element nucleosynthesis ratios,
the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.
> but they keep changing their predictions so you can't win.
Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "science"? You know, when
a theory doesn't work as well as desired, people come up with better
theories?
> But it still makes no sense.
You know, I think you would have far fewer problems with Big Bang
theories if you actually understood what they said, instead of attacking
some strawman caricature of them. But then, learning about the Big Bang
would constitute caving in to the Orthodoxy and ruin your self-image of
yourself as a skeptic and revolutionary, wouldn't it?
> What about all the gravity
> produced by all that mass, for instance? That should stop it
> before it gets off 3 feet. No problem, they invent a concept of
> 'expanding space'
Even in Newtonian gravity, without expanding space, it is possible for
matter to expand without gravity instantly causing it to recollapse; in
fact the matter can expand forever without introudcing the concept of
expanding space. All you need is for the matter to start out with a
sufficiently high initial velocity; this is the same as how an object
with greater than escape velocity can escape to infinity even though
gravity is always acting to slow it down.
> something thats never been seen in real life.
Cosmological redshift is evidence for expanding space. Nucleosynthesis
and CMBR are evidence that the universe once was much smaller. There is
tons of other evidence for curved spacetime.
> Expanding space does not help either
It correctly accounts for what we observe, which is what scientific
theories are supposed to do.
> And if its not expanding fast enough to match the observations
> they simply call on inflationary forces which (for no reason)
> change the speed of the expansion at various points.
No, not for "no reason". The mechanism by which inflation can alter the
rate of expansion within general relativity is well understood.
And again, you are complaining about people fixing theories. This is
absurd -- you're SUPPOSED to fix theories that don't work well enough.
What you are revealing is simply an irrational prejudice against Big
Bang models. If people fixed the theory by getting rid of expanding
space, you would be overjoyed. If they fix it by keeping expanding
space but changing other aspects of the theory, suddenly they're just
making ad hoc changes to "save the theory". What a double standard.
> It does not take any new laws of physics to explain tired light.
It does if you want to explain it in a way that's consistent with the
observational facts:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
> Another red flag raised by the red shift/expanding universe is that we
> are supposed to believe that this object in which we can
> see a moving jet is supposed to be three times farther away than
> the farthest known galaxy.
Are you talking about quasars? We think they ARE galaxies (or rather
active galactic nuclei).
> I don't think so.
Why? Oh yeah, I forgot: "I don't understand how it could happen,
therefore it is wrong".
> The time frame is all wrong when they say its only 10^12 years.
> There are things we can see which would have taken long
> periods of time to develop. Clusters of galaxies should take at
> least 250 billion years to form given that we can tell how fast
> they are currently moving and how big the voids are between the
> clusters.
Funny, that's completely at odds with current research on structure
formation. But since you're scientifically objective, I'm sure you'll
be able to provide the calculation or cite a journal article with it.
> Galaxies which are smooth are showing their age. It
> should take thousands of billions of years for a young disk galaxy
> to evolve into a smooth one.
See above.
> (Our galaxy takes 250 million
> years for a single rotation.) Also consider the two small galaxies
> which orbit our milky way. They take 17 billion years to make
> just one orbit! Are we to believe they formed intact in those orbits
> during a 'recent' universal explosion of a Big Bang?
I don't know if your figures are correct (from your previous errors, I
tend to doubt it), but orbital periods really have nothing to do with the
Big Bang. There is no reason why any given object has to have completed
at least one orbit about any other given object since the Big Bang.
> It defies common sense, dosen't it.
No, it doesn't. Or rather, it doesn't when you take the actual facts
into account.
But even if it did "defy common sense", common sense is a remarkably
poor thing to rely upon. Ask people which way a helium balloon inside
a car will bank during a sharp turn and most people's "common sense"
will produce the wrong answer. What matters is *what actually happens*,
regardless of what "common sense" tells you. "Common sense" is nothing
but "a set of intuitions that human beings evolved through interactions
with their environment", and can generally be relied upon to fail when
applied to phenomena that are outside those directly perceivable by our
senses in daily life.
> Yet that's the current accepted position, that it was all formed intact.
What, that galaxies were "born" whole, all moving exactly the way they
are now? That certainly isn't the current accepted position!
You know, David, blinding ignorance isn't the way to convince people of
the validity of your position.
P.S. I've cross-posted to sci.astro since some cosmologists hang
out there.
Stolmar Aladar
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> David Elm <davi...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:38C79A8F...@mediaone.net...
> > There was no big bang. Every bigbang theory that has been proposed
has
> > been shown to be completely incorrect and fanciful. The truth of a
> > steady state universe may be hard to understand but that doesnt
matter
> > to the universe, eh?. Stuff has been here forever in its many forms.
> > Energy and matter thats all. It is sooo easy to explain red shift
> > without any
> > exotic 'expansion' dreams. Wake up.
>
> Well explain it then.
I'm trying to. In my understanding of the matter's structure [Ockham's
razor, only one assumption] it is a consequence that the photon has to
increase it's wavelength as it passes through the space. This is what
was discovered by Hubble, but cosmognomia insists on Doppler cause of
the redshift (even there are several other properties of photons
observed). There is no other basis for the alleged space expansion or
big bang - even the black hole misreptesentations, only this
misinterpretation of the Hubble redshift's cause.
> Also what about the CMBR ? and the ratio's of the light elements in
the
> universe ?
The CMBR is the Hubble redshifted (distance caused) light from the very
distant (z=10000 and up!) parts of the Universe, or Olbers' wall of
light. I have posted the first approximation of the calculation of
sources of light and the blocking or covering the parts farther away,
resulting in the CMBR curve AND THAT THE MOTION OF THE EARTH IS
SUPERIMPOSED AS DOPPLER SHIFT on the position of peak, anisotropy.
About the ratio of lights elements, you have no idea about the
production and consumption of the observable nuclei.
Cosmognomia's statement about the alleged prove in the ratio of light
elements is from a very narrow interpretation of the structure and
reaction of nuclei, which is erratic - useless.
> >
> If stuff has been here forever without expansion then why hasn't it
all
> clumped together by now?
Again, you think you know everything how it works. You don't.
>
> Why haven't the stars all burned out ?
Don't we see them ignite, too? Do you really think that you have even
information about everything?
>
> What about Olbers' paradox ?
What about the Olbers' paradox is the CMBR? Just put together with
Hubble redshift from an infinite Universe...
>
> Theresa Knott
>
>
Thanks for asking!
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar
Stolmar Aladar
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > Theres lots of proof that the universe is way older than 20 billion
years.
>
use of
> the word "proof."
>
> > It makes little sense to immagine all the mass in the universe
comming
> > out of a space smaller than a walnut for no reason at all.
>
it is
> about what the evidence tells us.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
I can assure you that the primary goal of cosmognomia has been met: It
does not make sense.
I wellcome the new initiative: let the evidence speak for itself.
The evidence is that the redshift is a function (linear) of distance
from the emitter to the receiver. Also, if a Doppler effect shows as a
superimposed effect on the CMBR peak, which is simple an Olbers
predicted wall of light with Hubble redshift, it really proves that the
Hubble redshift is NOT a Doppler but distance cause.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
You are right. That's why the intensity of light obeys the inverse
quare law.
Ken Seto
theresa knott
Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8af32e$957$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8aac22$e2v$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>It is sooo easy to explain red shift
> > > without any
> > > exotic 'expansion' dreams. Wake up.
> >
> > Well explain it then.
>
> I'm trying to. In my understanding of the matter's structure [Ockham's
> razor, only one assumption] it is a consequence that the photon has to
> increase it's wavelength as it passes through the space. This is what
> was discovered by Hubble, but cosmognomia insists on Doppler cause of
> the redshift
Interesting thought. I have heard it said by others that 'tired Light'
theories have problems but I've never heard what those problems are.
>(even there are several other properties of photons
> observed).
I don't know what you mean by this.
>There is no other basis for the alleged space expansion or
> big bang - even the black hole misreptesentations, only this
> misinterpretation of the Hubble redshift's cause.
>
> > Also what about the CMBR ? and the ratio's of the light elements in
> the
> > universe ?
>
> The CMBR is the Hubble redshifted (distance caused) light from the very
> distant (z=10000 and up!) parts of the Universe, or Olbers' wall of
> light. I have posted the first approximation of the calculation of
> sources of light and the blocking or covering the parts farther away,
> resulting in the CMBR curve
Where did you post ths I'd like to see it ?
> AND THAT THE MOTION OF THE EARTH IS
> SUPERIMPOSED AS DOPPLER SHIFT on the position of peak, anisotropy.
>
> About the ratio of lights elements, you have no idea about the
> production and consumption of the observable nuclei.
> Cosmognomia's statement about the alleged prove in the ratio of light
> elements is from a very narrow interpretation of the structure and
> reaction of nuclei, which is erratic - useless.
I don't know enough to argue the point here.
>
> > >
> > If stuff has been here forever without expansion then why hasn't it
> all
> > clumped together by now?
>
> Again, you think you know everything how it works. You don't.
I don't think I know *anything*. I'm just asking questions.It just seems to
me that a universe that has existed forever has problems .
>
> >
> > Why haven't the stars all burned out ?
>
> Don't we see them ignite, too? Do you really think that you have even
> information about everything?
No I don't think I know everything. I'll ask the question a different way
Why do new stars form? Why is there stuff still lying about that hasn't yet
formed stars ?
>
> >
> > What about Olbers' paradox ?
>
> What about the Olbers' paradox is the CMBR? Just put together with
> Hubble redshift from an infinite Universe...
>
> >
> > Theresa Knott
> >
> >
> Thanks for asking!
theresa knott
Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:38cc89e3$0$40...@news.voyager.net...
How do you get from a linear redshift to an inverse square law ?. Olbers'
paradox cannot be resolved by using an inverse square law of light, because
the number of stars increases as the square of the distance.
Theresa Knott
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
theresa knott
> I wellcome the new initiative: let the evidence speak for itself.
> The evidence is that the redshift is a function (linear) of distance
> from the emitter to the receiver. Also, if a Doppler effect shows as a
> superimposed effect on the CMBR peak, which is simple an Olbers
> predicted wall of light with Hubble redshift, it really proves that the
> Hubble redshift is NOT a Doppler but distance cause.
I don't see your reasoning here. Why does a Doppler redshift caused by the
Earth's peculiar velocity relative to the CMBR prove that the Hubble
redshifts are not Doppler ?
.
Stolmar Aladar
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:49:41 GMT, Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <fCzy4.15787$DF2.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>
> >I can assure you that the primary goal of cosmognomia has been met:
It
> >does not make sense.
> >
> >The evidence is that the redshift is a function (linear) of distance
> >from the emitter to the receiver. Also, if a Doppler effect shows as
a
> >superimposed effect on the CMBR peak, which is simple an Olbers
> >predicted wall of light with Hubble redshift, it really proves that
the
> >Hubble redshift is NOT a Doppler but distance cause.
>
> quare law.
>
>
>
The inverse square law comes from the view angle on a surface of a
sphere. This is the change in the wavelength, the doubling of the
wavelength in 2 to 12 billion light years, Hubble distance law.
Stolmar Aladar
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > In article <8aac22$e2v$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> >It is sooo easy to explain red shift
> > > > without any
> > > > exotic 'expansion' dreams. Wake up.
> > >
> > > Well explain it then.
> >
> > I'm trying to. In my understanding of the matter's structure
[Ockham's
> > razor, only one assumption] it is a consequence that the photon has
to
> > increase it's wavelength as it passes through the space. This is
what
> > was discovered by Hubble, but cosmognomia insists on Doppler cause
of
> > the redshift
>
> Interesting thought. I have heard it said by others that 'tired Light'
> theories have problems but I've never heard what those problems are.
>
The alleged problems with so called tired light theories follow from
the necessity of interaction of photon with something. In my
representation there is no conservation of energy.
> >(even there are several other properties of photons
> > observed).
>
> I don't know what you mean by this.
Where to start? Step over it for now.
>
> >There is no other basis for the alleged space expansion or
> > big bang - even the black hole misreptesentations, only this
> > misinterpretation of the Hubble redshift's cause.
> >
> > > Also what about the CMBR ? and the ratio's of the light elements
in
> > the
> > > universe ?
> >
> > The CMBR is the Hubble redshifted (distance caused) light from the
very
> > distant (z=10000 and up!) parts of the Universe, or Olbers' wall of
> > light. I have posted the first approximation of the calculation of
> > sources of light and the blocking or covering the parts farther
away,
> > resulting in the CMBR curve
>
> Where did you post ths I'd like to see it ?
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/firas.html
It's a crude approx there and I will be able to go back to it only
later, but the method is correct, you could continue to refine: add
intensity fit (say two triangles to follow the Plank curve)
and break-up the shell into say 1 million light years (fine?) slices.
>
> > AND THAT THE MOTION OF THE EARTH IS
> > SUPERIMPOSED AS DOPPLER SHIFT on the position of peak, anisotropy.
> >
> > About the ratio of lights elements, you have no idea about the
> > production and consumption of the observable nuclei.
> > Cosmognomia's statement about the alleged prove in the ratio of
light
> > elements is from a very narrow interpretation of the structure and
> > reaction of nuclei, which is erratic - useless.
>
> I don't know enough to argue the point here.
Nobody does. We don't know where the quarter of Sun's spectral lines
are coming from!
> >
> > > >
> > > If stuff has been here forever without expansion then why hasn't
it
> > all
> > > clumped together by now?
> >
> > Again, you think you know everything how it works. You don't.
>
> I don't think I know *anything*. I'm just asking questions.It just
seems to
> me that a universe that has existed forever has problems .
No, the man who thinks that can understand the Universe has problems.
Universe has no problems. It does not care whether we are here or not.
> >
> > >
> > > Why haven't the stars all burned out ?
> >
> > Don't we see them ignite, too? Do you really think that you have
even
> > information about everything?
>
> No I don't think I know everything. I'll ask the question a different
way
> Why do new stars form? Why is there stuff still lying about that
hasn't yet
> formed stars ?
The same evidence you relay on for forming these questions could be
interpreted that everything went through several stars infinite times
already.
My - strange - understanding of everything based on a uniform
constructing element, which is an event: a collision. The feedback
mechanisme - observed as Hubble redshift - allows the events to become
self-supporting chains and the following from it regular configuration
gives me the abundances of elements. More regular - more we find of it
in the nature. (Also, the nuclear properties are very well understood.)
> >
> > >
> > > What about Olbers' paradox ?
> >
> > What about the Olbers' paradox is the CMBR? Just put together with
> > Hubble redshift from an infinite Universe...
> >
> > >
> > > Theresa Knott
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks for asking!
> >
J. Scott Miller
> > I wellcome the new initiative: let the evidence speak for itself.
> > The evidence is that the redshift is a function (linear) of distance
> > from the emitter to the receiver. Also, if a Doppler effect shows as a
> > superimposed effect on the CMBR peak, which is simple an Olbers
> > predicted wall of light with Hubble redshift, it really proves that the
> > Hubble redshift is NOT a Doppler but distance cause.
>
> I don't see your reasoning here. Why does a Doppler redshift caused by the
> Earth's peculiar velocity relative to the CMBR prove that the Hubble
> redshifts are not Doppler ?
>
> .
Just a small point of order here. In current cosmology, the Hubble redshifts
are not the same as a Doppler effect. The Doppler effect occurs when
wave-emitting objects move through a medium. The Hubble expansion is an
expansion of the medium. That is what Einstein discovered when applying the
equations of GR to the universe.
As to a reference you made earlier as to why tired light doesn't work, I refer
you to Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial and FAQ. He outlines some of the
"other" ideas of cosmology and points out some of the fallacies in them. The
URL is http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm. You see a link to
"Cosmological fads and fallacies".
--
J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
University of Louisville
Stolmar Aladar
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ahl06$v2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I wellcome the new initiative: let the evidence speak for itself.
> > The evidence is that the redshift is a function (linear) of distance
> > from the emitter to the receiver. Also, if a Doppler effect shows
as a
> > superimposed effect on the CMBR peak, which is simple an Olbers
> > predicted wall of light with Hubble redshift, it really proves that
the
> > Hubble redshift is NOT a Doppler but distance cause.
> > --
>
> I don't see your reasoning here. Why does a Doppler redshift caused
by the
> Earth's peculiar velocity relative to the CMBR prove that the Hubble
> redshifts are not Doppler ?
>
> .
>
>
stars, Olbers' paradox. This is the underlying dirty reason why
cosmognomia does not want to hear about the possibility that the
Infrared and Microwave backgrounds are perfectly fit to a distance
caused Hubble redshift from infinite Universe.
If you would superimpose two Doppler effects you would have one effect,
ergo the peak in the CMBR would be independent from the Earth's motion.
The Doppler superimposing of the peak on the CMBR curve shows that the
Hubble is not Doppler effect caused redshift.
Paul Alan Cardinale
theresa knott wrote:
>
> How do you get from a linear redshift to an inverse square law ?. Olbers'
> paradox cannot be resolved by using an inverse square law of light, because
> the number of stars increases as the square of the distance.
>
> Theresa Knott
>
ken seto's synapses fire at random, without logic.
Paul Cardinale
Nathan Urban
> theresa knott wrote:
> The red shift we see in distant galaxies is consistant
> with a 'tired light' concept.
Did you read the page to which I referred you?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
In particular the disucssion of why the Compton effect doesn't account
for cosmological redshift:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html
Of course, this is specifically addressing Kierein's proposal. You have
to make modifications in theory to get the Compton effect to work.
Kierein's modifications ultimately don't work. If you want to claim that
the Compton effect can account for cosmological redshift, you're going
to have to be quite specific about what modifications _you_ need to make.
> > Also what about the CMBR ? and the ratio's of the light elements in the
> > universe ?
> Can we skip these ones for now?
They need to be addressed at some point. It is all too common to propose
an alternative theory that addresses only one isolated phenomenon,
while not describing (or incorrectly describing) others.
> > If stuff has been here forever without expansion then why hasn't it all
> > clumped together by now?
> I don't know. What we see in really big black holes is that the 'stuff'
> escapes out the top and bottom in the form of jets.
It escapes from the hole, precisely because it is basically an "expansion"
away from the hole. If the bodies in the universe aren't receding
away from each other, gravity WILL pull them back together and cause
a collapse.
> We really don't know enough about this process though.
We know a fair amount about this process, actually.
> > Why haven't the stars all burned out ?
> They have, again and again. And then after they get drawn into a black hole
> and blow up again they form again and repeat the cycle forever.
Not everything that gets drawn into a black hole gets ejected in a jet
emission. Some of it falls in and is lost forever. Furthermore, you
have not proposed a mechanism by which all dead stars inevitably fall
into black holes. This certainly is not likely to happen using the
known laws of gravity and distributions of stars.
> > What about Olbers' paradox ?
> This is not a problem. Even if it is true that all directions should lead to
> the surface of a star, the tired light concept means that all you should
> really see is a small background radiation in all directions.
That depends on how quickly the light is damped. Also, why don't we see
this background? Note that the cosmic microwave background radiation
cannot be due to redshifted starlight (as also mentioned in the FAQ).
> As the light loses energy of
> it frequency matter picks up energy of motion (this is the source of cosmic
> radiation with such high 'impossible' energies, in my opinion)
What produces _photons_ with such high "impossible" energies? Also,
I can't work out the interactions myself but you need to be careful to
consider the probability of a photon imparting all of its energy and
momentum to some small bit of matter versus scattering off of it.
Ken H. Seto
<the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>news:38cc89e3$0$40...@news.voyager.net...
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:49:41 GMT, Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <fCzy4.15787$DF2.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
>> > "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I can assure you that the primary goal of cosmognomia has been met: It
>> >does not make sense.
>> >
>> >I wellcome the new initiative: let the evidence speak for itself.
>> >The evidence is that the redshift is a function (linear) of distance
>> >from the emitter to the receiver. Also, if a Doppler effect shows as a
>> >superimposed effect on the CMBR peak, which is simple an Olbers
>> >predicted wall of light with Hubble redshift, it really proves that the
>> >Hubble redshift is NOT a Doppler but distance cause.
>>
>> You are right. That's why the intensity of light obeys the inverse
>> quare law.
>
>How do you get from a linear redshift to an inverse square law ?.
The intensity of light is decreasing with distance according to
1/r^2. The number of photon detected at a distance r is proportional
to 1/r^2. Therefore, the frequency detected is 1/r^2. Therefore the
amount of red shift is proportional to 1/r^2.
>Olbers'
>paradox cannot be resolved by using an inverse square law of light, because
>the number of stars increases as the square of the distance.
I don't know what you mean here.
Ken Seto
>
Martin Hardcastle
J. Scott Miller <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
>Just a small point of order here. In current cosmology, the Hubble redshifts
>are not the same as a Doppler effect.
To first order, the redshifts of nearby galaxies *are* due to the
Doppler effect; galaxies are `really' moving away from us.
See the relativity FAQ:
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/hubble.html
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol
`Innocent light-minded men, who think that astronomy can be learnt by
looking at the stars without knowledge of mathematics, will become birds...'
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me
Martin Hardcastle
Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>If you would superimpose two Doppler effects you would have one effect,
>ergo the peak in the CMBR would be independent from the Earth's motion.
>The Doppler superimposing of the peak on the CMBR curve shows that the
>Hubble is not Doppler effect caused redshift.
Let's see if we can deal with this little misconception of yours, Ali.
Here's a quick multiple-choice exam on the (non-relativistic) Doppler
effect. Answers at the bottom.
1. Consider the following situation:
A O B
A is a light-emitting body. B is an observer. O is a stationary
reference point.
a) B is stationary with respect to O. A moves towards B. Does an
observer at B measure light to be 1) redshifted, 2) blueshifted, 3)
neither?
b) B is stationary with respect to O. A moves away from B. Does an
observer at B measure light to be 1) redshifted, 2) blueshifted, 3)
neither?
I guess you probably got those two right. Let's try something harder.
c) A is moving away from O. Now B starts moving away from O
too. Does B measure light from A to be 1) more redshifted, 2) less
redshifted or 3) redshifted to the same extent as in part b)?
Perhaps you got that one too, so let's move on.
2. Now consider this situation:
A1
A2 BO A4
A3
A1..4 are light-emitting bodies. B is an observer. O is a
stationary reference point.
a) A1..4 are all moving directly away from O at the same
speed. Does an observer at B measure the redshifts of A1..4 to be
1) the same or 2) different?
This is the one you're having trouble with, perhaps:
b) B starts moving away from O towards A1. Does an observer at B
measure the redshifts of A1..4 to be 1) the same or 2) different?
c) Suppose the spectra emitted by A1..4 are black body
spectra. Does the observer at B measure the effective temperature
of A1, defined in terms of the peak of the spectrum, to be 1)
hotter 2) cooler 3) the same as it would have been if she had
remained at rest at O?
d) Suppose the spectra emitted by A1..4 are black body
spectra. Does the observer at B measure the effective temperature
of A3, defined in terms of the peak of the spectrum, to be 1)
hotter 2) cooler 3) the same as it would have been if she had
remained at rest at O?
If you answered the last three parts correctly, then you now
understand that the motion of the Earth can superpose a
direction-dependent Doppler effect on a uniform background which is
itself Doppler-redshifted -- and you've learned a bit of physics
today, which I think we would all regard as progress.
Answers: 1 a) 2 b) 1 c) 1
2 a) 1 b) 2 c) 1 d) 2
Paul Alan Cardinale
>
> The intensity of light is decreasing with distance according to
> 1/r^2. The number of photon detected at a distance r is proportional
> to 1/r^2. Therefore, the frequency detected is 1/r^2. Therefore the
> amount of red shift is proportional to 1/r^2.
>
synapses of the kenseto:
The frequency of photons is proportional to their number.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
(that's funny ken)
Paul Cardinale
J. Scott Miller
>
> In article <38CCFADF...@louisville.edu>,
> J. Scott Miller <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> >Just a small point of order here. In current cosmology, the Hubble
> >redshifts are not the same as a Doppler effect.
>
> To first order, the redshifts of nearby galaxies *are* due to the
> Doppler effect; galaxies are `really' moving away from us.
>
> See the relativity FAQ:
> http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/hubble.html
Maybe the version of the FAQ in UK is different than here. But I find from
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/hubble.html:
"What Causes the Hubble Redshift? Are the Light-Waves "Stretched" as the
Universe Expands, or is the Light Doppler-Shifted Because Distant
Galaxies are Moving Away From Us?
In a word: yes. In two sentences: the Doppler-shift explanation is a linear
approximation to the "stretched-light" explanation. Switching from one
viewpoint to the other amounts to a change of coordinate systems in (curved)
spacetime."
[long explanation deleted}
"Let me close by emphasizing the word "approximation" from the first paragraph
of this entry. The Doppler explanation fails for very large redshifts, for
then we must consider how Hubble's "constant" changes over the course of the
journey."
Also from Michael Seeds "Horizons: Exploring the Universe"
"The second fundamental observation of cosmology is that the spectra of
galaxies contain red shifts that are proportional to their distances. These
red shifts are commonly interpreted as Doppler shifts due to the recession of
the galaxies, which is why we say the universe is expanding....Although
astronomers and cosmologists commonly refer to these red shifts as Doppler
shifts and often speak of the recession of the galaxies, relativity provides a
more elegant explanation. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains
the expansion of the universe as an expansion of space-time itself...Thus, the
expansion of the universe is an expansion of the geometry and not just a
simple recession of galaxies.
"This explains, by the way, why the equation for the relativistic red shift
given in By the Numbers 14-1 is not quite correct for galaxies. That equation
comes from the special theory of relativity and expresses the Doppler shift
caused by the motion of an object through space. But the galaxies, receding
from one another, are not moving through space any more than the raisins in
our raisin bread are swimming through the bread dough. The galaxies are
carried away from each other by the uniform expansion of space itself. (pp.
279-280)."
So, to first order they can be approximated as Doppler and one can even use
the nonrelativistic Doppler formula to work out the velocities for those close
by and the relativistic one for those further away, within limits. But they
are not Doppler in the sense as I went on to describe, due to motion through
space-time.
Gerry Quinn
Would anyone care to explain:
(i) What is this space that is expanding and carrying the galaxies
apart? What is it made of?
(ii) Is it the *cause* of the galaxies moving, or is the expansion of
space merely a matter of definition, insofar as coordinates have been
selected in such a way as to move with the galaxies?
(iii) Is there any physical difference between the situation described
above and a situation in which coordinates have been chosen so as to be
static and in which the galaxies recede and the red shift is a Doppler
shift? Or - alternatively - is the third quoted paragraph complete and
utter gibberish?
- Gerry Quinn
theresa knott
Paul Alan Cardinale <pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:38CD0525...@mail.arc.nasa.gov...
>
>
> theresa knott wrote:
> >
> > How do you get from a linear redshift to an inverse square law ?.
> > paradox cannot be resolved by using an inverse square law of light,
because
> > the number of stars increases as the square of the distance.
> >
> >
> ken seto's synapses fire at random, without logic.
Ah ! I see.
>
> Paul Cardinale
Ken H. Seto
<pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>>
>> The intensity of light is decreasing with distance according to
>> 1/r^2. The number of photon detected at a distance r is proportional
>> to 1/r^2. Therefore, the frequency detected is 1/r^2. Therefore the
>> amount of red shift is proportional to 1/r^2.
>>
>So now we have a new law of physics derived from the randomly firing
>synapses of the kenseto:
> The frequency of photons is proportional to their number.
And you wonder why I call you the runt of the SR experts? Apparently
you don't know the simple fact that red shift means less frequency per
second compared to the frequency of an identical light source in the
observer's frame. Also it is apparent that you don't know that the
detected frequency rate is related directly to the number of photons
detected per second.
Ken Seto
Paul Alan Cardinale
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> Also it is apparent that you don't know that the
> detected frequency rate is related directly to the number of photons
> detected per second.
>
Wow! You're right! I don't know that. Neither does anybody else.
Paul Cardinale
Phil Cowans
> And you wonder why I call you the runt of the SR experts? Apparently
> you don't know the simple fact that red shift means less frequency per
> second compared to the frequency of an identical light source in the
> detected frequency rate is related directly to the number of photons
> detected per second.
>
What is frequency rate? Frequency is the number of oscillations per unit
time, so presumably the frequency rate is the rate of change of this?
In short, you're talking complete rubish. Red shift is the reduction in
the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer. The
frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
anyone?), percieved as the colour of the light and has absolutly bog all
to do with the number of photons detected per unit time, which is
proportional to the intensity of the light.
Phil
Jonathan Silverlight
distance (r).
In article <38cd26fd$0$40...@news.voyager.net>, Ken H. Seto
<ken...@erinet.com> writes
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> And you wonder why I call you the runt of the SR experts? Apparently
>> you don't know the simple fact that red shift means less frequency per
>> second compared to the frequency of an identical light source in the
>> observer's frame. Also it is apparent that you don't know that the
>> detected frequency rate is related directly to the number of photons
>> detected per second.
>>
>> Ken Seto
>
>What is frequency rate? Frequency is the number of oscillations per unit
>time,
Yes the number of oscillations per observer's clock second.
>so presumably the frequency rate is the rate of change of this?
The detected frequency (oscillation per observer's clock second) is
related to the number of the number of photons detected per observer's
second..
>
>In short, you're talking complete rubish.
In short you don't know what you are talking about.
> Red shift is the reduction in
>the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer.
Red shift is the reduction in frequency due to the distance between
the source and the observer.
>The
>frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
>anyone?),
So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
> percieved as the colour of the light and has absolutly bog all
>to do with the number of photons detected per unit time, which is
>proportional to the intensity of the light.
So you are saying that frequency is not related to photon? Or perhaps
you don't know what you are talking about?
Ken Seto
Aladar
Martin Hardcastle <M.Hard...@xxx.xxx.xxx> wrote:
> In article <8aivfc$s11$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >If you would superimpose two Doppler effects you would have one
effect,
> >ergo the peak in the CMBR would be independent from the Earth's
motion.
> >The Doppler superimposing of the peak on the CMBR curve shows that
the
> >Hubble is not Doppler effect caused redshift.
>
> Let's see if we can deal with this little misconception of yours, Ali.
>
No misconception here.
--
Ali
Aladar
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
> In article <38CD498C...@louisville.edu>, "J. Scott Miller"
<Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Would anyone care to explain:
I do.
>
> (i) What is this space that is expanding and carrying the galaxies
> apart? What is it made of?
The statement that [the space] "is expanding and carrying the galaxies
apart" is incorrect. It can't do that.
The space is a human concept used to identify the apparatus which is
most widely usable to describe the relation between objects. The normal
usage is to assign a base and define the relation of the object to this
base.
In my understanding the space gets an independent meaning of the
statement that "there are observable objects" separating from the just
existing no-things of the sum of existing everything. Since the
observable objects are consecutive crossing events and in a crossing
event the colliding elements are changing their directions -- the next
collision event could be defined only by two prior events producing one
of the colliding elements on one side and two on the other side, but
from which one is the present, the total of four. The same four is
resulted from considering one one prior, the present and a future
defined event. It means that the space is three dimensional and has to
be used with the time and with the mass or number of interconnected
coexisting collisions, defining the traectory of colliding elements.
The time is equivalent to the statement that "the objects are
changing". There is always a prior, present and future event if there
is an object, constructed of coexisting collision event system.
>
> (ii) Is it the *cause* of the galaxies moving, or is the expansion of
> space merely a matter of definition, insofar as coordinates have been
> selected in such a way as to move with the galaxies?
>
The observed evidence is the Hubble redshift. Nothing else. It could be
interpreted as a fundamental property of matter as it follows from the
direction change of the colliding elements in every collision: the
wavelength of photons increases with the distance between the emitter
and the observer.
If someone does not want to accept this fact - like cosmognomia - one
can argue that Doppler effect could cause similar change. It is quite
obvious that with velocity some other factors may arise to take care
of, so let's talk about "space streching" but use the same Doppler
effect for calculations. How this science is done.
> (iii) Is there any physical difference between the situation
described
> above and a situation in which coordinates have been chosen so as to
be
> static and in which the galaxies recede and the red shift is a
Doppler
> shift? Or - alternatively - is the third quoted paragraph complete
and
> utter gibberish?
>
> - Gerry Quinn
>
>
The last one. Not only the third paragraph, so I just deleted.
Dag Ostvang
[FAQ]
> In two sentences: the Doppler-shift explanation is a linear
> approximation to the "stretched-light" explanation. Switching from one
> viewpoint to the other amounts to a change of coordinate systems in (curved)
> spacetime."
>
> "Let me close by emphasizing the word "approximation" from the first paragraph
> of this entry. The Doppler explanation fails for very large redshifts, for
> then we must consider how Hubble's "constant" changes over the course of the
> journey."
>
In metric gravity, *all* spectral shifts due to space-time geometry
are technically Doppler shifts in curved space-time. See the article
J.V. Narlikar, American Journal of Physics, 62, 903 (1994).
Here it is shown that if one parallel transports the 4-velocity of the
source along the null geodesic connecting the source and the observer,
one may apply all the usual special relativistic formulae to the resulting
parallel-transported 3-velocity of the source in the rest frame of the
observer.
This is an exact result not involving any approximations. However, for
sufficiently small distances one may approximate the curved connection
with a flat one, so that spectral shifts are approximately Doppler shifts
in flat space-time if the distance between the source and the observer
is sufficiently small.
>
> Also from Michael Seeds "Horizons: Exploring the Universe"
>
> "The second fundamental observation of cosmology is that the spectra of
> galaxies contain red shifts that are proportional to their distances. These
> red shifts are commonly interpreted as Doppler shifts due to the recession of
> the galaxies, which is why we say the universe is expanding....Although
> astronomers and cosmologists commonly refer to these red shifts as Doppler
> shifts and often speak of the recession of the galaxies, relativity provides a
> more elegant explanation. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains
> the expansion of the universe as an expansion of space-time itself...Thus, the
> expansion of the universe is an expansion of the geometry and not just a
> simple recession of galaxies.
>
> "This explains, by the way, why the equation for the relativistic red shift
> given in By the Numbers 14-1 is not quite correct for galaxies. That equation
> comes from the special theory of relativity and expresses the Doppler shift
> caused by the motion of an object through space. But the galaxies, receding
> from one another, are not moving through space any more than the raisins in
> our raisin bread are swimming through the bread dough. The galaxies are
> carried away from each other by the uniform expansion of space itself. (pp.
> 279-280)."
>
As said above, the relativistic spectral shift formula can be used
in curved space-time if applied to the parallel-transported 3-velocity.
In particular one can do this for cosmological space-times, and the
result is identical to the cosmological spectral shift. Also one may do
this for e.g. Schwarzschild space-time, and the result is identical to
the gravitational spectral shift. This illustrates the fact that in metric
gravity, all spectral shifts induced by space-time geometry are
Doppler shifts in curved space-time. That is, cosmological and
gravitational spectral shifts are only special examples of Doppler
spectral shifts in particular types of space-time metric. See the
abovely mentioned article for details.
> So, to first order they can be approximated as Doppler and one can even use
> the nonrelativistic Doppler formula to work out the velocities for those close
> by and the relativistic one for those further away, within limits. But they
> are not Doppler in the sense as I went on to describe, due to motion through
> space-time.
No, the cosmological spectral shift *is* mathematically a Doppler shift in
curved space-time. That is, to separate between redshift due to expansion
and redshift due to "motion through space-time" (whatever that means)
one must specify in detail which cosmological model one has in mind; without
such a specification this separation does not really mean anything.
An illustrative example is an empty Friedman model, which is mathematically
described by a line element representing a piece of Minkowski space-time
(see e.g. MTW for details). Now, any fundamental observer in this model will
observe that light signals emitted from other fundamental observers are
redshifted
just as for other Friedman models. Yet space-time is flat, so this
cosmological
redshift is obviously a Doppler effect in flat space-time, i.e. due to "motion
through
space-time".
Bill Nelson
:> Red shift is the reduction in
:>the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer.
: Red shift is the reduction in frequency due to the distance between
: the source and the observer.
How does this explain the galaxies we see, which are red shifted on one
side and blue shifted on the other. In both cases, the distance is
identical.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Phil Cowans
> >time,
>
> Yes the number of oscillations per observer's clock second.
I know - I was trying to make a point using a rhetorical question, but
clearly that is lost on you.
> >so presumably the frequency rate is the rate of change of this?
>
> The detected frequency (oscillation per observer's clock second) is
> related to the number of the number of photons detected per observer's
> second..
No it isnt.
> >
> >In short, you're talking complete rubish.
> In short you don't know what you are talking about.
I must be doing a good job of fooling the people who keep giving me 1st
class results in my physics exams then.
>
> > Red shift is the reduction in
> >the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer.
>
> Red shift is the reduction in frequency due to the distance between
> the source and the observer.
Well, that's true, but only indirectly. By the Hubble law the velocity of
the movement of objects away from us due to the expansion of the universe
is proportional to their distance, and hence their red shift increases the
further away you get. There would be no red shift from a stationary
object, no matter how far away it was. Conversly, two objects with the
same velocity at different distances will have the same redshift.
> >The
> >frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
> >anyone?),
>
> So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
That tends to depend on the length of time that you count for :-)
> > percieved as the colour of the light and has absolutly bog all
> >to do with the number of photons detected per unit time, which is
> >proportional to the intensity of the light.
>
> So you are saying that frequency is not related to photon? Or perhaps
> you don't know what you are talking about?
Frequency is related to photons - just it's proportional to the energy
carried per photon, not the number received per unit time. Thel latter is
the intensity of the radiation.
Phil
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >so presumably the frequency rate is the rate of change of this?
>>
>> The detected frequency (oscillation per observer's clock second) is
>> related to the number of the number of photons detected per observer's
>> second..
>
>No it isnt.
Yes it is.
>
>> >
>> >In short, you're talking complete rubish.
>> In short you don't know what you are talking about.
>
>I must be doing a good job of fooling the people who keep giving me 1st
>class results in my physics exams then.
The other possibility is that you were regurgitating the stuff that
they fed you.
>
>>
>> > Red shift is the reduction in
>> >the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer.
>>
>> Red shift is the reduction in frequency due to the distance between
>> the source and the observer.
>
>Well, that's true, but only indirectly. By the Hubble law the velocity of
>the movement of objects away from us due to the expansion of the universe
>is proportional to their distance, and hence their red shift increases the
>further away you get.
So the further away you get the less photons are detected due to
inverse square law and thus higer red shift.
> There would be no red shift from a stationary
>object, no matter how far away it was.
Proof it.
> Conversly, two objects with the
>same velocity at different distances will have the same redshift.
Same velocity? Are you saying that the observer and the source have
the same velocity? Same velocity relative to what? The ether?
>
>> >The
>> >frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
>> >anyone?),
>>
>> So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
>
>That tends to depend on the length of time that you count for :-)
So are you saying that a photon have no set number of oscillations?
>
>> > percieved as the colour of the light and has absolutly bog all
>> >to do with the number of photons detected per unit time, which is
>> >proportional to the intensity of the light.
>>
>> So you are saying that frequency is not related to photon? Or perhaps
>> you don't know what you are talking about?
>
>Frequency is related to photons - just it's proportional to the energy
>carried per photon,
If that's the case why the detection of two photons per second not
have a higher frequency than the detection of 1 photon per second?
> not the number received per unit time. Thel latter is
>the intensity of the radiation.
Same question as above.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
>In sci.astro Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>:> Red shift is the reduction in
>:>the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer.
>
>: Red shift is the reduction in frequency due to the distance between
>: the source and the observer.
>
>How does this explain the galaxies we see, which are red shifted on one
>side and blue shifted on the other. In both cases, the distance is
>identical.
The red shifted side is in an receding absolute motion and thus it is
increasing in distance of separation and thus red shifted. The blue
shifted side is in an approaching motion and thus the distant of
separation is decreasing and thus blue shifted.
Ken Seto
Martin Hardcastle
Delighted to hear it. So you accept that your argument that the CMB
dipole in some way rules out a cosmologically redshifted origin for
the CMB is in fact complete rubbish. Excellent!
Phil Cowans
> The other possibility is that you were regurgitating the stuff that
> they fed you.
There must be a fair conspiracy going on here then - all those text books
and peer reviewed journals just to make people like me believe the lies!
> > There would be no red shift from a stationary
> >object, no matter how far away it was.
>
> Proof it.
OK, but I fear it would be lost on you:
(apologies for the problems of writing equations in ascii)
Let S' be the frame of the source, moving at velocity V away from the
observer in the observer's frame, S. T' is the period between the emission
of successive wavefronts in S'
We therefore have in the obeservers frame
T = gamma * T' + gamma * T' * V/c
where the first term is the time dilation of the emission of wavefronts
and the second term represents the extra distance travelled by subsequent
wavefronts. Gamma is the standard SR gamma factor. Re-arranging this
T = gamma * (1 + V/c) * T'
T = ( (1 + V/c) / sqrt(1 - (V/c)^2) ) * T'
T = sqrt( (1 + V/c) / (1 - V/c) ) T'
f = sqrt( (1 - V/c) / (1 + V/c) ) f' (as f = 1/T etc)
Where f is the frequency in S and f' is the frequency in S'
This is the standard doppler shift formula. Setting V=0 (ie making the
source stationary in the observers frame), you get f = f' - ie the
frequency is the same in both frames, ie NO REDSHIFT.
Note that that distance DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS FORMULA AT ALL ANYWHERE.
OK - Got it now?
> > Conversly, two objects with the
> >same velocity at different distances will have the same redshift.
>
> Same velocity? Are you saying that the observer and the source have
> the same velocity? Same velocity relative to what? The ether?
The observer actually. Surely that was obvious?
> >> >The
> >> >frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
> >> >anyone?),
> >>
> >> So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
> >
> >That tends to depend on the length of time that you count for :-)
>
> So are you saying that a photon have no set number of oscillations?
Well, yes.
> If that's the case why the detection of two photons per second not
> have a higher frequency than the detection of 1 photon per second?
>
> > not the number received per unit time. Thel latter is
> >the intensity of the radiation.
>
> Same question as above.
Ah - I think I see where you're getting confused here. You're talking
about the frequency of detection of photons. This is NOT what most people
mean when they talk about the frequency of light, and is not the
equivalent of the classical frequency (ie the frequency of oscillation of
the EM field, determining the colour of light). Photons also have an
associated intrinsic frequency, which is in fact given by their energy,
which is the equivalent of the classical frequency of light.
The 1/R^2 law is nothing to do with frequency - it describes the intensity
of the light, and is just as applicable to classical e/m theory as it is
to quantum theory (think of spherical shells enclosing the source - the
surface area is proportional to R^2, but the same amount of energy has to
pass though each shell, so the intensitry must follow an inverse square
law)
Phil
Gerry Quinn
>In article <38CCFADF...@louisville.edu>,
>>are not the same as a Doppler effect.
>
>To first order, the redshifts of nearby galaxies *are* due to the
>Doppler effect; galaxies are `really' moving away from us.
>
>See the relativity FAQ:
>http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/hubble.html
>
FIRST PARAGRAPH OF FAQ:
In a word: yes. In two sentences: the Doppler-shift explanation is a
linear approximation to the "stretched-light" explanation. Switching
from one viewpoint to the other amounts to a change of coordinate
systems in (curved) spacetime.
LAST PARAGRAPH OF FAQ:
Let me close by emphasizing the word "approximation" from the first
paragraph of this entry. The Doppler explanation fails for very large
redshifts, for then we must consider how Hubble's "constant" changes
over the course of the journey.
Note the way the word "approximation" is used to suggest - without
any factual basis - that the curved spacetime model is somehow more
accurate than a Doppler explanation in which the changes in Hubble's
constant are taken into account.
- Gerry Quinn
Alexej
> > Would anyone care to explain:
>
> I do.
> The observed evidence is the Hubble redshift. Nothing else.
Some days ago I saw(TV) astronomer of Europe who said
expanding of universe go with acceleration! by last data from
space observatory.
What can you say about it and big bang theory now.
Aladar
Martin Hardcastle <M.Hard...@xxx.xxx.xxx> wrote:
> In article <8ak7lk$rc3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Aladar <alist...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Dear Martin,
> >No misconception here.
>
> Delighted to hear it. So you accept that your argument that the CMB
> dipole in some way rules out a cosmologically redshifted origin for
> the CMB is in fact complete rubbish. Excellent!
>
> Martin
> --
No Dear Martin,
It means that the CMBR is indeed the Olbers paradox with Hubble
redshift from z=10000 to over a million distant regions of Universe.
The peak "dipole" - in reality the superimposed motion of the Earth as
Doppler effect - proves that 1. the Cosmic Microwave Background is
Hubble redshifted starlight and
2. Hubble redshift is a fundamental property of matter. It is the loss
of energy of photons during their progression.
If there is a misconception, it's not here.
Aladar
Dorogoj Alexej!
Nie pravda.
Nichego tokogo uskareniia oni nie videli. Big bang pohoronim. Konec.
Daniel R. Reitman
<the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8af32e$957$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>. . . .
>. . . .
>> I'm trying to. In my understanding of the matter's structure [Ockham's
>> razor, only one assumption] it is a consequence that the photon has to
>> increase it's wavelength as it passes through the space. This is what
>> was discovered by Hubble, but cosmognomia insists on Doppler cause of
>> the redshift
>Interesting thought. I have heard it said by others that 'tired Light'
>theories have problems but I've never heard what those problems are.
>> . . . .
>. . . .
Were it not for the fact that Aladar doesn't even understand what a
tired light theory is. Tired light theories are independent of the
source of the fatigue.
The flaws of tired light include that it would predict, among other
things, non-uniform reddening and blurring of very deep objects.
Neither of these are observed.
Dan, ad nauseam
Bill Nelson
:>: the source and the observer.
:>
:>How does this explain the galaxies we see, which are red shifted on one
:>side and blue shifted on the other. In both cases, the distance is
:>identical.
: The red shifted side is in an receding absolute motion and thus it is
: increasing in distance of separation and thus red shifted. The blue
: shifted side is in an approaching motion and thus the distant of
: separation is decreasing and thus blue shifted.
I understand that, Ken. That has nothing to do with my question, which
was addressed to the claim in the first sentence above.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Martin Hardcastle
Aladar <alist...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>The peak "dipole" - in reality the superimposed motion of the Earth as
>Doppler effect - proves that 1. the Cosmic Microwave Background is
>Hubble redshifted starlight
No it doesn't, Ali, go back, read my post, learn some basic physics;
it will do you good.
Aladar
drei...@teleport.com wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:58:54 -0000, "theresa knott"
> <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8af32e$957$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >>. . . .
> >. . . .
>
> >> I'm trying to. In my understanding of the matter's structure
[Ockham's
> >> razor, only one assumption] it is a consequence that the photon
has to
> >> increase it's wavelength as it passes through the space. This is
what
> >> was discovered by Hubble, but cosmognomia insists on Doppler cause
of
> >> the redshift
>
> >Interesting thought. I have heard it said by others that 'tired
Light'
> >theories have problems but I've never heard what those problems are.
>
> >> . . . .
> >. . . .
>
> Were it not for the fact that Aladar doesn't even understand what a
> tired light theory is. Tired light theories are independent of the
> source of the fatigue.
Your basis for such statements?
>
> The flaws of tired light include that it would predict, among other
> things, non-uniform reddening and blurring of very deep objects.
> Neither of these are observed.
>
> Dan, ad nauseam
>
And if you accept the Hubble redshift as a fundamental property of
matter, as follows from my representation, there is no reddening and
blurring expected.
Keep-up the good work!
--
Aladar
Aladar
You made a step into the right direction when you accepted that the
Diffused Infrared Background is a result of redshifted distant star
light.
Why do you have to interrupt the electromagnetic spectrum? It is
continuous, and the Cosmic Microwave Background is indeed a result of
redshift from stars at the range of redshift of z=10000 and up to a
million! (Where the Olbers' paradox is.)
The fact that the Hubble redshift is a fundamental property, the photon
loses it's momentum, increasees it's wavelength as it passes through
the space opens the field of your investigation (which is somewhere up
to z<7 now) to z=1 million, almost infinity!
theresa knott
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8KfLWWAE...@merseia.demon.co.uk...
> Am I missing something here? I thought red shift was proportional to
> distance (r).
You thought right.
>
> In article <38cd26fd$0$40...@news.voyager.net>, Ken H. Seto
> <ken...@erinet.com> writes
> >
> >The intensity of light is decreasing with distance according to
> >1/r^2. The number of photon detected at a distance r is proportional
> >to 1/r^2. Therefore, the frequency detected is 1/r^2. Therefore the
> >amount of red shift is proportional to 1/r^2.
But it's not proprtional to 1/ r^2, look at the experimental data.
theresa knott
> Because the CMBR curve is a result of Hubble redshift from distant
> stars, Olbers' paradox. This is the underlying dirty reason why
> cosmognomia does not want to hear about the possibility that the
> Infrared and Microwave backgrounds are perfectly fit to a distance
> caused Hubble redshift from infinite Universe.
But the CMBR is a perfect blackbody fit. Stars are not perfect black bodies.
How do you account for this ?
> If you would superimpose two Doppler effects you would have one effect,
only if you do it in 1 D .
> ergo the peak in the CMBR would be independent from the Earth's motion.
> The Doppler superimposing of the peak on the CMBR curve shows that the
> Hubble is not Doppler effect caused redshift.
theresa knott
Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:38cd26fd$0$40...@news.voyager.net...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:05:41 -0000, "theresa knott"
> <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Olbers'
> >paradox cannot be resolved by using an inverse square law of light,
because
> >the number of stars increases as the square of the distance.
>
> I don't know what you mean here.
Divide space up into a series of concentric shells like an onion, with you
the observer in the centre. Let the shells radius be R and thickness be dR.
( where dR is * small* ) Assume the following:
1) The Universe is not expanding, conservation of energy holds. ( Hubble's
law had not been discovered when Olbers formulated this paradox)
2) the universe has always existed
3) the universe is infinite.
Now consider the amount of light reaching your eye from each of the shells.
The intensity of a stars light from within a shell with radius R falls off
as 1/R^2 ( like you said) but the total light coming from each shell is
proportional to the number of stars within each shell; which in turn is
proportional to the volume of the shell (assuming constant density). Now the
volume is 4 pi R^2, so this means that each shell contributes an equal
amount of light. Integrating from 0 to infinity then implies an infinite
amount of light. However stars are not points, they have a volume which will
block out light from stars that are farther away, so this implies that
instead of an infinite amount of light, you would instead expect each point
in the sky to *only*!! be as bright as the surface of a star.
This is Olbers' paradox, and as you can see from the above an inverse square
law of light intensity is not enough to solve it. Instead one or more of the
above assumptions must be thrown away.
Theresa Knott
>
> Ken Seto
> >
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
>
>> The other possibility is that you were regurgitating the stuff that
>> they fed you.
>
>There must be a fair conspiracy going on here then - all those text books
>and peer reviewed journals just to make people like me believe the lies!
Don't be so hard on yourself. They too believe the stuff they fed you.
>> > There would be no red shift from a stationary
>> >object, no matter how far away it was.
>>
>> Proof it.
>
>OK, but I fear it would be lost on you:
>
>(apologies for the problems of writing equations in ascii)
>
>Let S' be the frame of the source, moving at velocity V away from the
>observer in the observer's frame, S. T' is the period between the emission
>of successive wavefronts in S'
>
>We therefore have in the obeservers frame
>
>T = gamma * T' + gamma * T' * V/c
>
>where the first term is the time dilation of the emission of wavefronts
>and the second term represents the extra distance travelled by subsequent
>wavefronts. Gamma is the standard SR gamma factor. Re-arranging this
>
>T = gamma * (1 + V/c) * T'
>
>T = ( (1 + V/c) / sqrt(1 - (V/c)^2) ) * T'
>
>T = sqrt( (1 + V/c) / (1 - V/c) ) T'
>
>f = sqrt( (1 - V/c) / (1 + V/c) ) f' (as f = 1/T etc)
>
>Where f is the frequency in S and f' is the frequency in S'
>
>This is the standard doppler shift formula. Setting V=0 (ie making the
>source stationary in the observers frame), you get f = f' - ie the
>frequency is the same in both frames, ie NO REDSHIFT.
>
>Note that that distance DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS FORMULA AT ALL ANYWHERE.
Giving me an SR equation is not a proof. It is likely that relative
motion have no effect on measured frequency unless the relative
motion is the difference in absolute motions between the source and
the observer.
I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
relative motion with the observer. BTW, how do you determine that a
distant light source is stationary relative to the observer since we
know that the earth lab is moving continuously?
>
>OK - Got it now?
NO.
>
>> > Conversly, two objects with the
>> >same velocity at different distances will have the same redshift.
>>
>> Same velocity? Are you saying that the observer and the source have
>> the same velocity? Same velocity relative to what? The ether?
>
>The observer actually. Surely that was obvious?
No. In relativity the observer consider himself at rest. So 'same
velocity' has no meaning.
>
>> >> >The
>> >> >frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
>> >> >anyone?),
>> >>
>> >> So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
>> >
>> >That tends to depend on the length of time that you count for :-)
>>
>> So are you saying that a photon have no set number of oscillations?
>
>Well, yes.
>
>> If that's the case why the detection of two photons per second not
>> have a higher frequency than the detection of 1 photon per second?
>>
>> > not the number received per unit time. Thel latter is
>> >the intensity of the radiation.
>>
>> Same question as above.
>
>Ah - I think I see where you're getting confused here.
No I am not getting confused.
>You're talking
>about the frequency of detection of photons.
No I am not talking about the frequency of detecting the photons. I am
talking about the more photons detected per second the higher is the
frequency (oscillation per second).
>This is NOT what most people
>mean when they talk about the frequency of light, and is not the
>equivalent of the classical frequency (ie the frequency of oscillation of
>the EM field, determining the colour of light).
The intensity of light is related to the distance r. The higher the
intensity of light detected the higher the frequency detected. Don't
you agree?
> Photons also have an
>associated intrinsic frequency, which is in fact given by their energy,
>which is the equivalent of the classical frequency of light.
Therefore the more photons detected per second the higher is the
frequency detected.
>
>The 1/R^2 law is nothing to do with frequency - it describes the intensity
>of the light,
What about the fact that the higher the intensity the higher the
frequency?
Ken Seto
Phil Cowans
> Giving me an SR equation is not a proof. It is likely that relative
> motion have no effect on measured frequency unless the relative
> motion is the difference in absolute motions between the source and
> the observer.
This makes absolutly no sense in any way whatsoever. Of course relative
motion is the difference in absolute motions of the source and observer,
by definition.
Which part of the derivation of the doppler shift formula do you disagree
with? Are you now trying to tell me that special relativity isn't valid?
> I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
> distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
> relative motion with the observer.
The problem of course being that there aren't any astronomical objects
which are stationary relative to us - that's what Hubble's law is telling
us. I'm sure that the doppler shift has been confirmed in the laboratory
though. However, I have neither the time and inclination to do a
literature search just to convince you that basic physics is indeed
correct. Anyway, as it is you who is claiming that conventional wisdom
is wrong, surely you should be providing me with evidence that there exist
objects which show a red/blue shift when they are stationary relative to
the observer.
> BTW, how do you determine that a
> distant light source is stationary relative to the observer since we
> know that the earth lab is moving continuously?
What!!! The Earth's motion has no effect on the RELATIVE velocity of
sources. That's the whole point.
However, you do have a point in the fact that we cannot generally
determine the velocity of distant object other than by the redshift. Hence
the need to do laboratory experiments and extrapolate to astronomical
distances.
> >> > Conversly, two objects with the
> >> >same velocity at different distances will have the same redshift.
> >>
> >> Same velocity? Are you saying that the observer and the source have
> >> the same velocity? Same velocity relative to what? The ether?
> >
> >The observer actually. Surely that was obvious?
>
> No. In relativity the observer consider himself at rest. So 'same
> velocity' has no meaning.
Yes. The observer is rest. A moves at velocity V relative to the
observer. B also moves at velocity V relative to the observer. Hence A and
B have the same velocity relative to the observer.
> >
> >> >> >The
> >> >> >frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
> >> >> >anyone?),
> >> >>
> >> >> So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
> >> >
> >> >That tends to depend on the length of time that you count for :-)
> >>
> >> So are you saying that a photon have no set number of oscillations?
> >
> >Well, yes.
> >
> >> If that's the case why the detection of two photons per second not
> >> have a higher frequency than the detection of 1 photon per second?
> >>
> >> > not the number received per unit time. Thel latter is
> >> >the intensity of the radiation.
> >>
> >> Same question as above.
> >
> >Ah - I think I see where you're getting confused here.
>
> No I am not getting confused.
>
> >You're talking
> >about the frequency of detection of photons.
>
> No I am not talking about the frequency of detecting the photons. I am
> talking about the more photons detected per second the higher is the
> frequency (oscillation per second).
NO - THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
If this was correct, then you couldn't explain the existance of white
light, as that would require several different rates of photon detection
at the same time.
>
> >This is NOT what most people
> >mean when they talk about the frequency of light, and is not the
> >equivalent of the classical frequency (ie the frequency of oscillation of
> >the EM field, determining the colour of light).
>
> The intensity of light is related to the distance r. The higher the
> intensity of light detected the higher the frequency detected. Don't
> you agree?
No I don't agree.
>
> > Photons also have an
> >associated intrinsic frequency, which is in fact given by their energy,
> >which is the equivalent of the classical frequency of light.
>
> Therefore the more photons detected per second the higher is the
> frequency detected.
No
> >
> >The 1/R^2 law is nothing to do with frequency - it describes the intensity
> >of the light,
>
> What about the fact that the higher the intensity the higher the
> frequency?
This is not a fact. This is complete rubbish. Do you not agree that it is
possible to have two light sources of the same colour but of different
intensities?
For the last time, The intensity is proportional to the number of photons
detected per unit time, say n. n is NOT the frequency in the conventional
sense of the word. The conventional frequency is proportional to the
energy carried by each photon.
Phil
Aladar
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Stolmar Aladar <sto...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8aivfc$s11$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Because the CMBR curve is a result of Hubble redshift from distant
> > stars, Olbers' paradox. This is the underlying dirty reason why
> > cosmognomia does not want to hear about the possibility that the
> > Infrared and Microwave backgrounds are perfectly fit to a distance
> > caused Hubble redshift from infinite Universe.
>
> But the CMBR is a perfect blackbody fit. Stars are not perfect black
bodies.
When you get one wavelength from a large number of stars at different
distances you get the intensity from the numbers and the radiation
curve becomes smooth, like a black body. The increase of the radiating
area and the subsequent decrease due to the blocking gives a shape,
similar to the Plank curve, or alleged black body fit. I have shown
earlier on my firas page the simple possibility of graph generation on
this basis. Currently I'm working on a correct representation of the
Plank curves of sources of radiation, stars and their blocking effect
as areas of crossections.
> How do you account for this ?
This is how it should be from a Hubble - distance function - redshift
of Olbers' paradox when you add the radiators and take into the
consideration of blocking by the same but closer to us in the range of
z=10000 to a million.
>
> > If you would superimpose two Doppler effects you would have one
effect,
>
> only if you do it in 1 D .
>
There is only one relation in velocities.
Jackie & Barry
Phil Cowans wrote:
> This makes absolutly no sense in any way whatsoever. Of course relative
> motion is the difference in absolute motions of the source and observer,
> by definition.
Mr Seto is always being told that there is no such thing as absolute
motion. At least you agree with him that there is such a thing - you
have some common ground.
> The problem of course being that there aren't any astronomical objects
> which are stationary relative to us - that's what Hubble's law is telling
> us.
Of course, Hubble's law could be wrong.
> However, you do have a point in the fact that we cannot generally
> determine the velocity of distant object other than by the redshift. Hence
> the need to do laboratory experiments and extrapolate to astronomical
> distances.
So we postulate a law that red shift is proportional to distance, we
then measure red shift to calculate distance and then (surprise,
surprise) find the "measured" distances agree with Hubble's law.
Barry
theresa knott
theresa knott <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ao38d$2hc$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Now the
> volume is 4 pi R^2,
Whoops I meant 4 pi R^2 dR (that is, surface area multiplied by depth )
>
>
Stephen Holland
> So we postulate a law that red shift is proportional to distance, we
> then measure red shift to calculate distance and then (surprise,
> surprise) find the "measured" distances agree with Hubble's law.
No, we observe some galaxies with known distances and find
that their redshifts are proportional to their distances. We then use
that information to predict what the redshifts of other galaxies (with
known distances) should be. Some astronomer goes out and measures
those redshifts and finds that they agree with the predictions. This
is repeated many times until we are reasonable confident that Hubble's
redshift--distance relation is real. It's not until then that it is
used to determine distances.
=====================================================================
http://www.ifa.au.dk/~holland/index.html
Hypochondriacs get sick too.
=====================================================================
Phil Cowans
>
> > This makes absolutly no sense in any way whatsoever. Of course relative
> > motion is the difference in absolute motions of the source and observer,
> > by definition.
>
> Mr Seto is always being told that there is no such thing as absolute
> motion. At least you agree with him that there is such a thing - you
> have some common ground.
I'm well aware that there is no such thing as absolute motion. I was using
the term loosly to describe motion relative to an arbitary reference
frame.
Phil
Jim Carr
... note followups ...
Ken H. Seto wrote:
}
} Giving me an SR equation is not a proof. It is likely that relative
} motion have no effect on measured frequency unless the relative
} motion is the difference in absolute motions between the source and
} the observer.
In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.00031...@chrysoberyl.chu.cam.ac.uk>
Phil Cowans <pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>This makes absolutly no sense in any way whatsoever. Of course relative
>motion is the difference in absolute motions of the source and observer,
>by definition.
>
>Which part of the derivation of the doppler shift formula do you disagree
>with? Are you now trying to tell me that special relativity isn't valid?
Ken Seto thinks many things are not valid.
You have only to read sci.physics.relativity to discover that.
However, since what Ken Seto thinks should be patently obvious to
anyone, I am not posting this to make that observation but rather
to point out that this thread is an excellent example of the sort
of thing that led to discussions in sci.physics and sci.astro about
creating a newsgroup for such discussions that would include the
recommendation that cross-postings like this one be discouraged.
The sci.physics.relativity newsgroup resulted.
Please keep such discussions there. Thanks.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Andy Buckley
>
> On 14 Mar 2000 04:47:41 GMT, Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote:
>
> >In sci.astro Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >:> Red shift is the reduction in
> >:>the observed frequency of a source moving away from the observer.
> >
> >: the source and the observer.
> >
> >side and blue shifted on the other. In both cases, the distance is
> >identical.
>
> The red shifted side is in an receding absolute motion and thus it is
> increasing in distance of separation and thus red shifted. The blue
> shifted side is in an approaching motion and thus the distant of
> separation is decreasing and thus blue shifted.
So what you're saying is that the correlation is between the
red/blue-shift and the RATE OF CHANGE of distance? Well, I'll accept
that, but it's completely at odds with what you've been claiming in
previous posts.
There are two kinds of frequency involved here:
1) Number of photons arriving per unit time. This is directly correlated
with the intensity of the light...it's the total energy of all the
incident photons. This has nothing to do with percieved colour of the
light..you can have differing intensities of monochromatic light, for
instance.
2) Oscillation frequency of the electric and magnetic fields associated
with the photon (yes, it's also a wave). This determines the energy of
the photon and is what correllates with observed "colour".
If you don't understand this then I advise you try and new-fangled
theory called quantum mechanics which has been banging round in the
physics underground for the last...ooh, 80 years. It's a pretty dodgy
theory though, it's only got almost complete acceptance in the
scientific community and only predicts the form of all atomic-scale
effects to within almost perfect accuracy...
Andy
--
http://purity.ucam.org
Mountaineering - Music - Radio - Hyperactivity
James Hunter
Andy Buckley wrote:
It is a pretty dodgy -and- crappy theory, since the goobers who
developed it apparently knew -squat- about logic.
Andy Buckley
>
> Andy Buckley wrote:
> > If you don't understand this then I advise you try and new-fangled
> > theory called quantum mechanics which has been banging round in the
> > physics underground for the last...ooh, 80 years. It's a pretty dodgy
> > theory though, it's only got almost complete acceptance in the
> > scientific community and only predicts the form of all atomic-scale
> > effects to within almost perfect accuracy...
>
> It is a pretty dodgy -and- crappy theory, since the goobers who
> developed it apparently knew -squat- about logic.
And then a lot of very good people who'd been given a head start by the
"goobers" resolved it into a very self-consistent framework, most of
which is extremely firmly established in mathematical theory. There are
basic postulates, but they have all been justified unpteen times and
matched with a great deal of experimental evidence, which is how all
physics has to be eventually judged.
It works fine for me anyway...this is the only place I've ever met
people who fundamentally agree with QM without justifying it rigorously.
Andy
PS. It's Planck's total inability to do statistical mechanics you want
to be really worried about.. :)
James Hunter
Andy Buckley wrote:
> James Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Andy Buckley wrote:
>
> > > If you don't understand this then I advise you try and new-fangled
> > > theory called quantum mechanics which has been banging round in the
> > > physics underground for the last...ooh, 80 years. It's a pretty dodgy
> > > theory though, it's only got almost complete acceptance in the
> > > scientific community and only predicts the form of all atomic-scale
> > > effects to within almost perfect accuracy...
> >
> > It is a pretty dodgy -and- crappy theory, since the goobers who
> > developed it apparently knew -squat- about logic.
>
> And then a lot of very good people who'd been given a head start by the
> "goobers" resolved it into a very self-consistent framework, most of
> which is extremely firmly established in mathematical theory. There are
> basic postulates, but they have all been justified unpteen times and
> matched with a great deal of experimental evidence, which is how all
> physics has to be eventually judged.
Oh yes let me thank the mathematical "genius'" for my head start in life.
The goobers can resolve anything they want to into their "self-consistent"
circle jerk as far I am concerned, I'm really just here for the Fig
Newtons,
and to give technical logical advice to the mentally deficient.
Aladar
> proportional to the number of stars within each shell; which in turn
is
> proportional to the volume of the shell (assuming constant density).
> volume is 4 pi R^2*dr, so this means that each shell contributes an
equal
> amount of light. Integrating from 0 to infinity then implies an
infinite
> amount of light. However stars are not points, they have a volume
which will
> block out light from stars that are farther away, so this implies that
> instead of an infinite amount of light, you would instead expect each
point
> in the sky to *only*!! be as bright as the surface of a star.
>
> This is Olbers' paradox, and as you can see from the above an inverse
square
> law of light intensity is not enough to solve it. Instead one or more
of the
> above assumptions must be thrown away.
>
> Theresa Knott
> >
> > Ken Seto
> > >
>
>
Dear Theresa,
You just add the radiation intensity of stars and the Hubble redshift
versus distance law and get what I'm talking about. The CMBR "Plank
curve, alleged black body" curve as the observed intensity. The motion
of the observer is superimposed as the peak's position like a Doppler
effect from the motion of the Earth.
> 1) The Universe is not expanding,
> 2) the universe has always existed
> 3) the universe is infinite.
There is a funny thing with conservation laws: something is conserved
but not the energy, not the mass not even the energy and the mass
together.
Chris1
> Oh yes let me thank the mathematical "genius'" for my head start in life.
>
> The goobers can resolve anything they want to into their "self-consistent"
>
> circle jerk as far I am concerned, I'm really just here for the Fig
>Newtons,
> and to give technical logical advice to the mentally deficient.
Great! Thanks for the info. *plonk*
Martin Hardcastle
Because the perfect black-body spectrum of the CMB cannot be produced
by a superposition of highly redshifted galactic spectra without
unphysical assumptions and fine-tuning; and because it's simple to
show, as I have done, that any simple steady-state model would predict
vastly different flux densities in the CMB and the mid-infrared than
those that are observed.
If you believe otherwise, prove it by producing a model which predicts
the flux density of the CMB as a function of frequency and tell us
what it predicts for each of the frequency channels observed in the
FIRAS experiment, so that we can test your model against the data.
If you can't prove it, stop wasting our time. If your next posting is
just more prevarication, I'm going to save my own time by adding you
to my killfile, though I'll continue to point out your errors if I see
that anyone has made the mistake of taking your groundless assertions
seriously.
James Hunter
Chris1 wrote:
Don't you really mean: "Hey everybody, watch me kiss *plank's* ass.
I'm expanding into Black Holes of KNOWLEDGE!!!"
Aladar
Martin Hardcastle <M.Hard...@xxx.xxx.xxx> wrote:
> In article <8ao4bg$jia$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Aladar <alist...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Why do you have to interrupt the electromagnetic spectrum?
>
> Because the perfect black-body spectrum of the CMB cannot be produced
> by a superposition of highly redshifted galactic spectra without
> unphysical assumptions and fine-tuning; and because it's simple to
> show, as I have done, that any simple steady-state model would predict
> vastly different flux densities in the CMB and the mid-infrared than
> those that are observed.
>
You sound like you already attempted "a superposition of highly
redshifted galactic spectra" and failed. Would you please share with us
your method and results?
So far I see one "unphysical assumption" that the electromagnetic
spectra is cut off at wavelengths longer than infrared.
You did not accepted my model and you don't want to accept it, so no
wonder you can't immagine the correct results. You did not show
anything related to my model, Theresa did.
> If you believe otherwise, prove it by producing a model which predicts
> the flux density of the CMB as a function of frequency and tell us
> what it predicts for each of the frequency channels observed in the
> FIRAS experiment, so that we can test your model against the data.
>
I'm working on it. But dear Martin, how many years and how many
cosmognomists it required to screw this thing? Let me fix this in my
pace, please. If it takes only ten years for me, I'm still much faster
then any of you were! Even if forget that I'm taking up billion times
billion light year distances and you limited yourself to -- what?
I'm "producing a model which predicts the flux density of the CMB as a
function of frequency" and I will "tell [us] what it predicts for each
of the frequency channels observed in the FIRAS experiment", also I
wellcome that you will compare it to the data.
> If you can't prove it, stop wasting our time. If your next posting is
> just more prevarication, I'm going to save my own time by adding you
> to my killfile, though I'll continue to point out your errors if I see
> that anyone has made the mistake of taking your groundless assertions
> seriously.
>
> Martin
Don't be so affraid of me! Theresa just wrote down a nice understanding
of it. You can do it, try harder!
theresa knott
Aladar <alist...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8aok0t$gl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dear Theresa,
> You just add the radiation intensity of stars and the Hubble redshift
> versus distance law and get what I'm talking about. The CMBR "Plank
> curve, alleged black body" curve as the observed intensity. The motion
> of the observer is superimposed as the peak's position like a Doppler
> effect from the motion of the Earth.
Oh yeah I realise that. I just spelled it all out to explain to ken sato
why an inverse square law alone can't solve Olbers' Paradox.
You, however have yet to convince me that the cause of the Hubble law is
redshifted starlight.
> > 1) The Universe is not expanding,
> > 2) the universe has always existed
> > 3) the universe is infinite.
>
> There is a funny thing with conservation laws: something is conserved
> but not the energy, not the mass not even the energy and the mass
> together.
Do you have any experimental evidence to support this claim ?
Theresa
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
>> Giving me an SR equation is not a proof. It is likely that relative
>> motion have no effect on measured frequency unless the relative
>> motion is the difference in absolute motions between the source and
>> the observer.
>
>This makes absolutly no sense in any way whatsoever. Of course relative
>motion is the difference in absolute motions of the source and observer,
>by definition.
Ah so you accept that absolute motions exist. :-) However, relative
motion is not always the difference in absolute motions. For example:
In a gravity environment the relative motion between two bodies is not
equal to the difference of their absolute motions. BTW that's why the
SR equations are not valid in a gravitational field. In a
gravitational field the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT) equations must
be used.
>
>Which part of the derivation of the doppler shift formula do you disagree
>with? Are you now trying to tell me that special relativity isn't valid?
You said that a distant object with no relative motion will show no
red shift. So I asked you to show me experimentally. For example how
do you deternine that the distant object is stationary relative to the
observer?
>
>> I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
>> distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
>> relative motion with the observer.
>
>The problem of course being that there aren't any astronomical objects
>which are stationary relative to us - that's what Hubble's law is telling
>us.
I thought so.:-)
>I'm sure that the doppler shift has been confirmed in the laboratory
>though.
So have the inverse square law.
> However, I have neither the time and inclination to do a
>literature search just to convince you that basic physics is indeed
>correct. Anyway, as it is you who is claiming that conventional wisdom
>is wrong,
I claim that the inverse square law is the cause of Doppler shift.
>surely you should be providing me with evidence that there exist
>objects which show a red/blue shift when they are stationary relative to
>the observer.
The inverse square law is distance dependent. This means that it
includes the effect of motion (relative or absolute) Therefore the
red or blue shift is caused by the inverse square law.
>
>> BTW, how do you determine that a
>> distant light source is stationary relative to the observer since we
>> know that the earth lab is moving continuously?
>
>What!!! The Earth's motion has no effect on the RELATIVE velocity of
>sources. That's the whole point.
It doesn't? I thought you agree that relative motion is the result of
the difference in absolute moiton between the observed frame and the
observer.
>> No. In relativity the observer consider himself at rest. So 'same
>> velocity' has no meaning.
>
>Yes. The observer is rest. A moves at velocity V relative to the
>observer. B also moves at velocity V relative to the observer. Hence A and
>B have the same velocity relative to the observer.
I thought we were dealing with one source and one observer.
>> No I am not talking about the frequency of detecting the photons. I am
>> talking about the more photons detected per second the higher is the
>> frequency (oscillation per second).
>
>NO - THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
Yes it is correct.
>
>If this was correct, then you couldn't explain the existance of white
>light, as that would require several different rates of photon detection
>at the same time.
No it does not. You determine the frequency then you determine the
color of the light.
>>
>> >This is NOT what most people
>> >mean when they talk about the frequency of light, and is not the
>> >equivalent of the classical frequency (ie the frequency of oscillation of
>> >the EM field, determining the colour of light).
>>
>> The intensity of light is related to the distance r. The higher the
>> intensity of light detected the higher the frequency detected. Don't
>> you agree?
>
>No I don't agree.
So? Does that mean you are right?
>
>>
>> > Photons also have an
>> >associated intrinsic frequency, which is in fact given by their energy,
>> >which is the equivalent of the classical frequency of light.
>>
>> Therefore the more photons detected per second the higher is the
>> frequency detected.
>
>No
Yes.
>
>> >
>> >The 1/R^2 law is nothing to do with frequency - it describes the intensity
>> >of the light,
>>
>> What about the fact that the higher the intensity the higher the
>> frequency?
>
>This is not a fact. This is complete rubbish. Do you not agree that it is
>possible to have two light sources of the same colour but of different
>intensities?
Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
>For the last time, The intensity is proportional to the number of photons
>detected per unit time,
No it's per unit area.
> say n. n is NOT the frequency in the conventional
>sense of the word. The conventional frequency is proportional to the
>energy carried by each photon.
Sorry your naive understanding of nature is just doesn't cut it.
Ken Seto
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Randy Poe
wrote:
>The detected frequency (oscillation per observer's clock second) is
>related to the number of the number of photons detected per observer's
>second..
As near as I can tell, the misconception here is that a photon
consists of m wiggles of an electromagnetic field (where m is an
unspecified universal constant), and when you count a frequency of f,
you are counting f/m photons.
>So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
This question confirms my suspicion.
- Randy
Phil Cowans
> Ah so you accept that absolute motions exist. :-)
No - see my later post.
> However, relative
> motion is not always the difference in absolute motions. For example:
> In a gravity environment the relative motion between two bodies is not
> equal to the difference of their absolute motions. BTW that's why the
> SR equations are not valid in a gravitational field. In a
> gravitational field the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT) equations must
> be used.
I'm well aware of the fact that a correction for General relativity is
required in gravitational fields. However, general relativity does not
make your claims correct.
> >
> >Which part of the derivation of the doppler shift formula do you disagree
> >with? Are you now trying to tell me that special relativity isn't valid?
>
> You said that a distant object with no relative motion will show no
> red shift. So I asked you to show me experimentally. For example how
> do you deternine that the distant object is stationary relative to the
> observer?
I'm saying that you could test it experimentally using distances of a few
kilometers on earth and extrapolate to astronomical distances. You can
also use parallax methods to establish the distances of nearby stars.
> >
> >> I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
> >> distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
> >> relative motion with the observer.
> >
> >The problem of course being that there aren't any astronomical objects
> >which are stationary relative to us - that's what Hubble's law is telling
> >us.
>
> I thought so.:-)
That doesn't mean that such an object would be redshifted were it to
exist.
> >I'm sure that the doppler shift has been confirmed in the laboratory
> >though.
>
> So have the inverse square law.
Yes, for intensity, which IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREQUENCY OF THE
LIGHT.
> > However, I have neither the time and inclination to do a
> >literature search just to convince you that basic physics is indeed
> >correct. Anyway, as it is you who is claiming that conventional wisdom
> >is wrong,
>
> I claim that the inverse square law is the cause of Doppler shift.
Think of it this way:
Take a sodium discharge lamp, of the sort used in streetlamps. This is
effectively a monochromatic source so we can ignore the failings of your
theory when it comes to dealing with non monochromatic
light. Anyway, suppose that I look at it from 10cm away. The light looks
orange and has a frequency in the order of ~5e14 Hz. Now, suppose I go
1km away from the same lamp and look at it again. We have moved 10000
times as far away from the lamp, so according to the inverse square law
the intensity has dropped by a factor of 1/(10000)^2 = 10e-8. Now, if your
theory is correct, and the frequency is proportional to the intensity,
this means that the frequency should also have been reduced by a factor of
10e-8 to approximately 5e6 Hz. In other words, your theory predicts that
in order to 'see' the light from the lamp at this distance, I can't use my
eye, and instead have to use an FM radio. This is clearly complete crap.
> >surely you should be providing me with evidence that there exist
> >objects which show a red/blue shift when they are stationary relative to
> >the observer.
>
> The inverse square law is distance dependent. This means that it
> includes the effect of motion (relative or absolute) Therefore the
> red or blue shift is caused by the inverse square law.
Why? Are you now trying to tell me that there is some correlation between
distance and velocity for ALL objects (ie not just Hubble's law for
astronomical objects)
> >> No I am not talking about the frequency of detecting the photons. I am
> >> talking about the more photons detected per second the higher is the
> >> frequency (oscillation per second).
> >
> >NO - THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
>
> Yes it is correct.
> >
> >If this was correct, then you couldn't explain the existance of white
> >light, as that would require several different rates of photon detection
> >at the same time.
>
> No it does not. You determine the frequency then you determine the
> color of the light.
But what is white light in your theory - in my theory it consists of
photons with various different energies and therefore various different
wavelengths. However, in your world the frequency isn't a property of the
individual photons, but a collectivbe property of all photons from the
source, so I find it hard to see how you can have white light which must
comprise of several different frequencies.
> >>
> >> >This is NOT what most people
> >> >mean when they talk about the frequency of light, and is not the
> >> >equivalent of the classical frequency (ie the frequency of oscillation of
> >> >the EM field, determining the colour of light).
> >>
> >> The intensity of light is related to the distance r. The higher the
> >> intensity of light detected the higher the frequency detected. Don't
> >> you agree?
> >
> >No I don't agree.
>
> So? Does that mean you are right?
Well, not necessarily, but it means I believe I'm right and I'm not
convinced by your arguments.
> >> > Photons also have an
> >> >associated intrinsic frequency, which is in fact given by their energy,
> >> >which is the equivalent of the classical frequency of light.
> >>
> >> Therefore the more photons detected per second the higher is the
> >> frequency detected.
> >
> >No
>
> Yes.
> >
> >> >
> >> >The 1/R^2 law is nothing to do with frequency - it describes the intensity
> >> >of the light,
> >>
> >> What about the fact that the higher the intensity the higher the
> >> frequency?
> >
> >This is not a fact. This is complete rubbish. Do you not agree that it is
> >possible to have two light sources of the same colour but of different
> >intensities?
>
> Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
You haven't answered my question. I'm saying that you must have seen light
sources of different intensities which have the same colour?
Frequency is the number of light WAVES arriving per unit time, but you're
still stuck with the misconception that a photon carries a finite number
of wavefronts.
> >For the last time, The intensity is proportional to the number of photons
> >detected per unit time,
>
> No it's per unit area.
Well, actually it's per unit area per unit time.
> > say n. n is NOT the frequency in the conventional
> >sense of the word. The conventional frequency is proportional to the
> >energy carried by each photon.
>
> Sorry your naive understanding of nature is just doesn't cut it.
Sorry, it's you who's got the wrong end of the stick here. I've shown that
your theory leads to meaningless results at least three times now:
1. You'd get ridiculous doppler shifts at distances which can easily be
tested on Earth (ie the shifting of visible light into the radio spectrum
over a distance of 1km)
2. There is no way that your theory can explain polychromatic light.
3. Your theory cannot explain the fact that sources exist of different
brightnesses but with the same colour.
As far as I'm aware you haven't shown one thing which cannot be explained
by my theory (which is that doppler shift is caused by the velocity, not
the distance of an object and that the frequency of light is proprotional
to the energy of each photon, not the number of photons detected per unit
time). Now come up with some sensible arguments or go away.
Phil
Martin Hardcastle
Aladar <alist...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>You sound like you already attempted "a superposition of highly
>redshifted galactic spectra" and failed. Would you please share with us
>your method and results?
I already posted a simple calculation which shows that you're wrong by
many orders of magnitude. I've already explained why the complex spectral
shapes of galaxies are never going to magically combine to give you a
perfect black-body spectrum with a well-defined temperature. Other
people have explained this to you as well. It's all in Dejanews.
>Don't be so affraid of me! Theresa just wrote down a nice understanding
>of it. You can do it, try harder!
Just as I feared, more prevarication. Goodbye, Ali. *plonk*
Andy Buckley
Now why didn't I think of that? Very nice... :)
Accept it, Ken, there are two frequencies involved: 'photon detection
rate' and 'intrinsic photon frequency'. You're assuming they're the same
thing because they are both referred to as frequency and one derives
from treatment of the light as particles and the other as waves. This is
not true: In addition to Phil's other statements, since you're keen on
experimental evidence:
1b. Why does Doppler shifting with an inverse square law as predicted by
your theory not match at all with the observed relation (which you've
been zealous enough to try and extrapolate up to the GR format, which
comprises minute corrections in earthbound Doppler phenomena (this is a
restatement of Phil's example above)
2. How come the literature on the photoelectric effect ALWAYS points out
that the cutoff frequency is independant of the light intensity? If your
interpretation is correct, then that sentence is gibberish.
This is very basic physics - we've tried multiple times to explain it
but you've declared it all wrong to the extent of saying that all
physics teaching and research is part of a plot to misinform the masses.
If you're that skeptical, go off and do your own experiments on this
stuff: it shouldn't be too hard to set up. If you're going to say that
nature itself has got the wrong end of the stick then can you please let
us know what you define physics as? An arbitrary system of concepts,
defined without recourse to rationale or reality, perhaps?
Andy
Bill Nelson
:> red shift. So I asked you to show me experimentally. For example how
:> do you deternine that the distant object is stationary relative to the
:> observer?
It cannot be absolutely proven. However: 1) find a galaxy that shows
blue shift on one limb and red shift on the other. You will find that
the center shows little or no shift. This is pretty good evidence
that the shift is due to motion only - and not distance.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Andy Buckley
>
> :> You said that a distant object with no relative motion will show no
> :> red shift. So I asked you to show me experimentally. For example how
> :> do you deternine that the distant object is stationary relative to the
> :> observer?
>
> blue shift on one limb and red shift on the other. You will find that
> the center shows little or no shift. This is pretty good evidence
> that the shift is due to motion only - and not distance.
Hubble redshifting is also an application of one of the universal
precepts of physics: that the same laws hold everywhere. The Doppler
effects seen in controlled experiments on Earth are assumed to obey the
same laws as the Hubble redshift...this is not an absolute, but it's an
assumption on which we rely. And so far it hasn't failed us.
Aladar
"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Aladar <alist...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8aok0t$gl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Dear Theresa,
> > You just add the radiation intensity of stars and the Hubble
redshift
> > versus distance law and get what I'm talking about. The CMBR "Plank
> > curve, alleged black body" curve as the observed intensity. The
motion
> > of the observer is superimposed as the peak's position like a
Doppler
> > effect from the motion of the Earth.
>
> Oh yeah I realise that. I just spelled it all out to explain to ken
sato
> why an inverse square law alone can't solve Olbers' Paradox.
>
> You, however have yet to convince me that the cause of the Hubble law
is
> redshifted starlight.
Dear Theresa,
If I got it correctly your question is about the cause of Hubble law.
[The Hubble law is that the redshift of a star's light is a function of
the distance of the star from us.]
I believe that Hubble discovered a new fundamental property of matter:
the photon increases it's wavelength as it passes through time and
space.
>
> > > 1) The Universe is not expanding,
> > > 2) the universe has always existed
> > > 3) the universe is infinite.
> >
> > There is a funny thing with conservation laws: something is
conserved
> > but not the energy, not the mass not even the energy and the mass
> > together.
>
> Do you have any experimental evidence to support this claim ?
First of all the history of conservation laws. They hold only up to a
point, and have to be broadened step by step. The ultimate
conservation, what I think correct is that the whole is conserved or
the Universe is infinite, "always and everywhere".
>
> Theresa
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
>
>> Ah so you accept that absolute motions exist. :-)
>
>No - see my later post.
>
>> However, relative
>> motion is not always the difference in absolute motions. For example:
>> In a gravity environment the relative motion between two bodies is not
>> equal to the difference of their absolute motions. BTW that's why the
>> SR equations are not valid in a gravitational field. In a
>> gravitational field the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT) equations must
>> be used.
>
>I'm well aware of the fact that a correction for General relativity is
>required in gravitational fields. However, general relativity does not
>make your claims correct.
I never said it does.
>
>> >
>> >Which part of the derivation of the doppler shift formula do you disagree
>> >with? Are you now trying to tell me that special relativity isn't valid?
>>
>> You said that a distant object with no relative motion will show no
>> red shift. So I asked you to show me experimentally. For example how
>> do you deternine that the distant object is stationary relative to the
>> observer?
>
>I'm saying that you could test it experimentally using distances of a few
>kilometers on earth and extrapolate to astronomical distances.
This is not the same as a distant source that is not connected
physically to the detector. The reason is that a distance of a few km
on the earth surface is pretty much the same frame.
>You can
>also use parallax methods to establish the distances of nearby stars.
But this procedure is not very accurate.
>
>> >
>> >> I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
>> >> distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
>> >> relative motion with the observer.
>> >
>> >The problem of course being that there aren't any astronomical objects
>> >which are stationary relative to us - that's what Hubble's law is telling
>> >us.
>>
>> I thought so.:-)
>
>That doesn't mean that such an object would be redshifted were it to
>exist.
Also, that doesn't mean that if such an object exists it would not be
red or blue shifted.
>
>> >I'm sure that the doppler shift has been confirmed in the laboratory
>> >though.
>>
>> So have the inverse square law.
>
>Yes, for intensity, which IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREQUENCY OF THE
>LIGHT.
You are wrong and shouting won't help. Intensity is distant dependent.
Distance between the source and the detector varies with time and is
dependent on the difference of their state of absolute motions
(approaching or receding). This means that frequency is dependent
on distance and thus dependent on the inverse square law.
>
>> > However, I have neither the time and inclination to do a
>> >literature search just to convince you that basic physics is indeed
>> >correct. Anyway, as it is you who is claiming that conventional wisdom
>> >is wrong,
>>
>> I claim that the inverse square law is the cause of Doppler shift.
>
>Think of it this way:
>
>Take a sodium discharge lamp, of the sort used in streetlamps. This is
>effectively a monochromatic source so we can ignore the failings of your
>theory when it comes to dealing with non monochromatic
>light. Anyway, suppose that I look at it from 10cm away. The light looks
>orange and has a frequency in the order of ~5e14 Hz. Now, suppose I go
>1km away from the same lamp and look at it again. We have moved 10000
>times as far away from the lamp, so according to the inverse square law
>the intensity has dropped by a factor of 1/(10000)^2 = 10e-8. Now, if your
>theory is correct, and the frequency is proportional to the intensity,
This is your misinterpretation of my theory. You are testing the
frequency of a source that is in the same frame. Therefore you get the
same frequency whether you are 10 cm or 10,000 cm away. With a source
in a different frame, the distance between it and the detector is
changing continuously and the frequency is proportional to the rate of
change of distance. If the rate of change of distance is constant the
detected frequency is constant.
>this means that the frequency should also have been reduced by a factor of
>10e-8 to approximately 5e6 Hz. In other words, your theory predicts that
>in order to 'see' the light from the lamp at this distance, I can't use my
>eye, and instead have to use an FM radio. This is clearly complete crap.
It is your interpretation that is completely crap.
>
>> >surely you should be providing me with evidence that there exist
>> >objects which show a red/blue shift when they are stationary relative to
>> >the observer.
>>
>> The inverse square law is distance dependent. This means that it
>> includes the effect of motion (relative or absolute) Therefore the
>> red or blue shift is caused by the inverse square law.
>
>Why? Are you now trying to tell me that there is some correlation between
>distance and velocity for ALL objects (ie not just Hubble's law for
>astronomical objects)
Because the distantce between the source and the detector does not
remain constant with time. If the rate of changing distance is
constant then the detected frequency is constant.
>> No it does not. You determine the frequency then you determine the
>> color of the light.
>
>But what is white light in your theory - in my theory it consists of
>photons with various different energies and therefore various different
>wavelengths.
Your theory is wrong. The different colors of white light is due to
the different distance traveled by the white light in the prism.
>However, in your world the frequency isn't a property of the
>individual photons,
I don't know where you get this. In my theory a photon is a wave
packet. The arrival of waves to the detector per one second is the
frequancy.
>but a collectivbe property of all photons from the
>source, so I find it hard to see how you can have white light which must
>comprise of several different frequencies.
As I said above, it is due to the different distance traveled by the
white light.
>> So? Does that mean you are right?
>
>Well, not necessarily, but it means I believe I'm right and I'm not
>convinced by your arguments.
vice versa.
>> Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
>> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
>> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
>> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
>> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
>> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
>
>You haven't answered my question. I'm saying that you must have seen light
>sources of different intensities which have the same colour?
Yes in the same frame.
>
>Frequency is the number of light WAVES arriving per unit time, but you're
>still stuck with the misconception that a photon carries a finite number
>of wavefronts.
I explained this before.
>> Sorry your naive understanding of nature is just doesn't cut it.
>
>Sorry, it's you who's got the wrong end of the stick here. I've shown that
>your theory leads to meaningless results at least three times now:
No what you have shown me is based on your erroneous understanding of
nature.
>
>1. You'd get ridiculous doppler shifts at distances which can easily be
>tested on Earth (ie the shifting of visible light into the radio spectrum
>over a distance of 1km)
No you can't easily test this on earth.
>
>2. There is no way that your theory can explain polychromatic light.
Wrong again.
>
>3. Your theory cannot explain the fact that sources exist of different
>brightnesses but with the same colour.
So? Same color light with no change in distance with time will hav
ethe same frequency. What is your problem?
>
>As far as I'm aware you haven't shown one thing which cannot be explained
>by my theory (which is that doppler shift is caused by the velocity, not
>the distance of an object and that the frequency of light is proprotional
>to the energy of each photon, not the number of photons detected per unit
>time). Now come up with some sensible arguments or go away.
You have shown me nothing but your naive understanding of nature.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
>
>> Ah so you accept that absolute motions exist. :-)
>
>No - see my later post.
>
>> However, relative
>> motion is not always the difference in absolute motions. For example:
>> In a gravity environment the relative motion between two bodies is not
>> equal to the difference of their absolute motions. BTW that's why the
>> SR equations are not valid in a gravitational field. In a
>> gravitational field the Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT) equations must
>> be used.
>
>I'm well aware of the fact that a correction for General relativity is
>required in gravitational fields. However, general relativity does not
>make your claims correct.
I never said it does.
>
>> >
>> >Which part of the derivation of the doppler shift formula do you disagree
>> >with? Are you now trying to tell me that special relativity isn't valid?
>>
>> You said that a distant object with no relative motion will show no
>> red shift. So I asked you to show me experimentally. For example how
>> do you deternine that the distant object is stationary relative to the
>> observer?
>
>I'm saying that you could test it experimentally using distances of a few
>kilometers on earth and extrapolate to astronomical distances.
This is not the same as a distant source that is not connected
physically to the detector. The reason is that a distance of a few km
on the earth surface is pretty much the same frame.
>You can
>also use parallax methods to establish the distances of nearby stars.
But this procedure is not very accurate.
>
>> >
>> >> I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
>> >> distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
>> >> relative motion with the observer.
>> >
>> >The problem of course being that there aren't any astronomical objects
>> >which are stationary relative to us - that's what Hubble's law is telling
>> >us.
>>
>> I thought so.:-)
>
>That doesn't mean that such an object would be redshifted were it to
>exist.
Also, that doesn't mean that if such an object exists it would not be
red or blue shifted.
>
>> >I'm sure that the doppler shift has been confirmed in the laboratory
>> >though.
>>
>> So have the inverse square law.
>
>Yes, for intensity, which IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREQUENCY OF THE
>LIGHT.
You are wrong and shouting won't help. Intensity is distant dependent.
Distance between the source and the detector varies with time and is
dependent on the difference of their state of absolute motions
(approaching or receding). This means that frequency is dependent
on distance and thus dependent on the inverse square law.
>
>> > However, I have neither the time and inclination to do a
>> >literature search just to convince you that basic physics is indeed
>> >correct. Anyway, as it is you who is claiming that conventional wisdom
>> >is wrong,
>>
>> I claim that the inverse square law is the cause of Doppler shift.
>
>Think of it this way:
>
>Take a sodium discharge lamp, of the sort used in streetlamps. This is
>effectively a monochromatic source so we can ignore the failings of your
>theory when it comes to dealing with non monochromatic
>light. Anyway, suppose that I look at it from 10cm away. The light looks
>orange and has a frequency in the order of ~5e14 Hz. Now, suppose I go
>1km away from the same lamp and look at it again. We have moved 10000
>times as far away from the lamp, so according to the inverse square law
>the intensity has dropped by a factor of 1/(10000)^2 = 10e-8. Now, if your
>theory is correct, and the frequency is proportional to the intensity,
This is your misinterpretation of my theory. You are testing the
frequency of a source that is in the same frame. Therefore you get the
same frequency whether you are 10 cm or 10,000 cm away. With a source
in a different frame, the distance between it and the detector is
changing continuously and the frequency is proportional to the rate of
change of distance. If the rate of change of distance is constant the
detected frequency is constant.
>this means that the frequency should also have been reduced by a factor of
>10e-8 to approximately 5e6 Hz. In other words, your theory predicts that
>in order to 'see' the light from the lamp at this distance, I can't use my
>eye, and instead have to use an FM radio. This is clearly complete crap.
It is your interpretation that is completely crap.
>
>> >surely you should be providing me with evidence that there exist
>> >objects which show a red/blue shift when they are stationary relative to
>> >the observer.
>>
>> The inverse square law is distance dependent. This means that it
>> includes the effect of motion (relative or absolute) Therefore the
>> red or blue shift is caused by the inverse square law.
>
>Why? Are you now trying to tell me that there is some correlation between
>distance and velocity for ALL objects (ie not just Hubble's law for
>astronomical objects)
Because the distantce between the source and the detector does not
remain constant with time. If the rate of changing distance is
constant then the detected frequency is constant.
>> No it does not. You determine the frequency then you determine the
>> color of the light.
>
>But what is white light in your theory - in my theory it consists of
>photons with various different energies and therefore various different
>wavelengths.
Your theory is wrong. The different colors of white light is due to
the different distance traveled by the white light in the prism.
>However, in your world the frequency isn't a property of the
>individual photons,
I don't know where you get this. In my theory a photon is a wave
packet. The arrival of waves to the detector per one second is the
frequancy.
>but a collectivbe property of all photons from the
>source, so I find it hard to see how you can have white light which must
>comprise of several different frequencies.
As I said above, it is due to the different distance traveled by the
white light.
>> So? Does that mean you are right?
>
>Well, not necessarily, but it means I believe I'm right and I'm not
>convinced by your arguments.
vice versa.
>> Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
>> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
>> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
>> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
>> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
>> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
>
>You haven't answered my question. I'm saying that you must have seen light
>sources of different intensities which have the same colour?
Yes in the same frame.
>
>Frequency is the number of light WAVES arriving per unit time, but you're
>still stuck with the misconception that a photon carries a finite number
>of wavefronts.
I explained this before.
>> Sorry your naive understanding of nature is just doesn't cut it.
>
>Sorry, it's you who's got the wrong end of the stick here. I've shown that
>your theory leads to meaningless results at least three times now:
No what you have shown me is based on your erroneous understanding of
nature.
>
>1. You'd get ridiculous doppler shifts at distances which can easily be
>tested on Earth (ie the shifting of visible light into the radio spectrum
>over a distance of 1km)
No you can't easily test this on earth.
>
>2. There is no way that your theory can explain polychromatic light.
Wrong again.
>
>3. Your theory cannot explain the fact that sources exist of different
>brightnesses but with the same colour.
So? Same color light with no change in distance with time will hav
ethe same frequency. What is your problem?
>
>As far as I'm aware you haven't shown one thing which cannot be explained
>by my theory (which is that doppler shift is caused by the velocity, not
>the distance of an object and that the frequency of light is proprotional
>to the energy of each photon, not the number of photons detected per unit
>time). Now come up with some sensible arguments or go away.
You have shown me nothing but your naive understanding of nature.
Ken Seto
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>In article <8aq293$48o$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>"theresa knott" <the...@knott16.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>. . . .
>. . . .
>> Do you have any experimental evidence to support this claim ?
>First of all the history of conservation laws. They hold only up to a
>point, and have to be broadened step by step. The ultimate
>conservation, what I think correct is that the whole is conserved or
>the Universe is infinite, "always and everywhere".
You see, Stolmar, this is why we don't take you seriously. There is a
clear distinction between :theory" and "experiment." And before a
theory is accepted as accurate, it has to jibe with the observations.
You aren't giving that to us.
Dan, ad nauseam
Jonathan Silverlight
<ken...@erinet.com> writes
>>But what is white light in your theory - in my theory it consists of
>>photons with various different energies and therefore various different
>>wavelengths.
>
>Your theory is wrong. The different colors of white light is due to
>the different distance traveled by the white light in the prism.
>
Err.. didn't Newton disprove that a few centuries ago? Hey, people,
_Newton is wrong_ !! How do you explain the production of a spectrum by
a diffraction grating?
>>However, in your world the frequency isn't a property of the
>>individual photons,
>
>I don't know where you get this. In my theory a photon is a wave
>packet. The arrival of waves to the detector per one second is the
>frequancy.
No, the number of waves per second is the intensity. And it's
"frequency".
Ken H. Seto
<pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
>
>> >If this was correct, then you couldn't explain the existance of white
>> >light, as that would require several different rates of photon detection
>> >at the same time.
>>
>> No it does not. You determine the frequency then you determine the
>> color of the light.
>
>But what is white light in your theory - in my theory it consists of
>photons with various different energies and therefore various different
>wavelengths. However, in your world the frequency isn't a property of the
>individual photons, but a collectivbe property of all photons from the
>source, so I find it hard to see how you can have white light which must
>comprise of several different frequencies.
You are right and I was wrong. White light is composed of different
monochromatic lights from the source. However, this does not deviate
from the fact that frequency of light is distant dependent and thus
obeys the inverse square law. If the distant remains constant there is
no change in frequency. If the distance is changing at a constant rate
with time (absolute motion) the frequency of the traveling source is
different compared to an identical source in the rest frame of the
observer --- red or blue shifted. If the distance is changing at an
increasing or decreasing rate with time (acceleration or changing of
the state of absoltue motion) then the detected frequency rate will be
changing with time.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
<jsi...@merseia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <38d2f865$0$40...@news.voyager.net>, Ken H. Seto
><ken...@erinet.com> writes
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:46:46 +0000, Phil Cowans
>><pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>But what is white light in your theory - in my theory it consists of
>>>photons with various different energies and therefore various different
>>>wavelengths.
>>
>>Your theory is wrong. The different colors of white light is due to
>>the different distance traveled by the white light in the prism.
>>
>
>Err.. didn't Newton disprove that a few centuries ago? Hey, people,
>_Newton is wrong_ !! How do you explain the production of a spectrum by
>a diffraction grating?
You are right and I was wrong. White light is composed of different
Jeff Gauch
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:10:38 +0000, Phil Cowans
> <pj...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
> >
> >> The other possibility is that you were regurgitating the stuff that
> >> they fed you.
> >
> >There must be a fair conspiracy going on here then - all those text books
> >and peer reviewed journals just to make people like me believe the lies!
>
> Don't be so hard on yourself. They too believe the stuff they fed you.
>
Might have something to do with it describing the universe we live in rather well...
>
> >> > There would be no red shift from a stationary
> >> >object, no matter how far away it was.
> >>
> >> Proof it.
> >
> >OK, but I fear it would be lost on you:
> >
> >(apologies for the problems of writing equations in ascii)
> >
> >Let S' be the frame of the source, moving at velocity V away from the
> >observer in the observer's frame, S. T' is the period between the emission
> >of successive wavefronts in S'
> >
> >We therefore have in the obeservers frame
> >
> >T = gamma * T' + gamma * T' * V/c
> >
> >where the first term is the time dilation of the emission of wavefronts
> >and the second term represents the extra distance travelled by subsequent
> >wavefronts. Gamma is the standard SR gamma factor. Re-arranging this
> >
> >T = gamma * (1 + V/c) * T'
> >
> >T = ( (1 + V/c) / sqrt(1 - (V/c)^2) ) * T'
> >
> >T = sqrt( (1 + V/c) / (1 - V/c) ) T'
> >
> >f = sqrt( (1 - V/c) / (1 + V/c) ) f' (as f = 1/T etc)
> >
> >Where f is the frequency in S and f' is the frequency in S'
> >
> >This is the standard doppler shift formula. Setting V=0 (ie making the
> >source stationary in the observers frame), you get f = f' - ie the
> >frequency is the same in both frames, ie NO REDSHIFT.
> >
> >Note that that distance DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS FORMULA AT ALL ANYWHERE.
>
> Giving me an SR equation is not a proof. It is likely that relative
> motion have no effect on measured frequency unless the relative
> motion is the difference in absolute motions between the source and
> the observer.
> I want experimental proof. I want you to provide me with data that a
> distant light source is not red or blue shifted due to its zero
> relative motion with the observer. BTW, how do you determine that a
> distant light source is stationary relative to the observer since we
> know that the earth lab is moving continuously?
>
If you want experimental proof, get it yourself. That's the beauty of science, if
you don't agree with the current theory you can run experiments to disprove it.
I'll even give you a couple of hints for your experiment: 1) Mossbauer effect and 2)
keep the setup horizontal. There, you take it from there, scrounge up some money,
shouldn't take much, and run the experiment, if you find what you're looking for
submit it to a peer reviewed journal (and if you put it up here I'm sure there are
plenty of people who would critique your work) and buy a ticket to Oslo. Oh, don't
forget to wash your hands, you don't want to meet royalty with dirt under your
nails.
> <snip>
> >
> >> > Conversly, two objects with the
> >> >same velocity at different distances will have the same redshift.
> >>
> >> Same velocity? Are you saying that the observer and the source have
> >> the same velocity? Same velocity relative to what? The ether?
> >
> >The observer actually. Surely that was obvious?
>
> No. In relativity the observer consider himself at rest. So 'same
> velocity' has no meaning.
>
when I'm driving on the highway I really don't care about how fast I'm going (unless
there's a speed trap :) ) but I do care about how long until my bumper hits the
other cars around me, i.e. my relative velocity.
>
> >
> >> >> >The
> >> >> >frequency of light is proportional to the energy per photon and the (E=hf
> >> >> >anyone?),
> >> >>
> >> >> So how many oscillations (frequency) per photon?
> >> >
> >> >That tends to depend on the length of time that you count for :-)
> >>
> >> So are you saying that a photon have no set number of oscillations?
> >
> >Well, yes.
> >
> >> If that's the case why the detection of two photons per second not
> >> have a higher frequency than the detection of 1 photon per second?
> >>
> >> > not the number received per unit time. Thel latter is
> >> >the intensity of the radiation.
> >>
> >> Same question as above.
> >
> >Ah - I think I see where you're getting confused here.
>
> No I am not getting confused.
>
you're right, you're not getting confused, you're already there.
>
> >You're talking
> >about the frequency of detection of photons.
>
> No I am not talking about the frequency of detecting the photons. I am
> talking about the more photons detected per second the higher is the
> frequency (oscillation per second).
>
Photons per second are not the same as oscillations per second. each photon
"oscillates" a certain number of times per second, but it's still just one photon.
>
> >This is NOT what most people
> >mean when they talk about the frequency of light, and is not the
> >equivalent of the classical frequency (ie the frequency of oscillation of
> >the EM field, determining the colour of light).
>
> The intensity of light is related to the distance r. The higher the
> intensity of light detected the higher the frequency detected. Don't
> you agree?
>
uh, no. LED's don't get bluer the more voltage you put across them, the just get
brighter.
>
> > Photons also have an
> >associated intrinsic frequency, which is in fact given by their energy,
> >which is the equivalent of the classical frequency of light.
>
> Therefore the more photons detected per second the higher is the
> frequency detected.
>
of PHOTONS, yes, but that has nothing to do with the "color" of the photons, just
the intensity.
> >
> >The 1/R^2 law is nothing to do with frequency - it describes the intensity
> >of the light,
>
> What about the fact that the higher the intensity the higher the
> frequency?
>
Well, it suffers from just one tiny little flaw, it's just not true.
Do some experiments on your own, if you find the results you're looking for, submit
them to a journal, and if they don't get published, put up a web site telling
exactly what you did and how. There's no conspiracy, but the truth is out there.
--
"Did I remember to feed my cat?"
-Erwin Schrodinger
Paul Alan Cardinale
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
>
Which would of course mean that if I change the intensity of light in
the room (such as by adjusting the blinds), I should observe a change in
frequency (i.e. color).
I try that right now.
. . .
Ok. I've just finished the experiment (hey ken, even you could do it).
I adjusted the blinds to vary, over a wide range) the intensity of
sunlight coming into the room.
The color did not change.
From this, I conclude that there was no change in frequency.
Paul Cardinale
Paul B. Andersen
>
> In article <38d2f865$0$40...@news.voyager.net>, Ken H. Seto
> <ken...@erinet.com> writes
> >the different distance traveled by the white light in the prism.
> >
>
> _Newton is wrong_ !! How do you explain the production of a spectrum by
> a diffraction grating?
Of course Ken is wrong. He always is. :-)
But actually, Newton _was_ wrong about refraction. According to him,
it would be impossible to make a refracting telescope without chromatic
aberration. The only way to minimize the problem was to use long
focal lengths, which led to ridiculously long and hard to handle
telescopes at the time.
So he had to invent the reflecting telescope.
His theory of refraction probably delayed the evolution of
the refracting telescope considerably.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> You are right and I was wrong. White light is composed of different
> monochromatic lights from the source. However, this does not deviate
> from the fact that frequency of light is distant dependent and thus
> obeys the inverse square law. If the distant remains constant there is
> no change in frequency. If the distance is changing at a constant rate
> with time (absolute motion) the frequency of the traveling source is
> different compared to an identical source in the rest frame of the
> observer --- red or blue shifted. If the distance is changing at an
> increasing or decreasing rate with time (acceleration or changing of
> the state of absoltue motion) then the detected frequency rate will be
> changing with time.
>
> Ken Seto
Another breathtaking display of Setologic! :-)
Paul
Ken Cox
> And you wonder why I call you the runt of the SR experts? Apparently
> you don't know the simple fact that red shift means less frequency per
> second compared to the frequency of an identical light source in the
> observer's frame. Also it is apparent that you don't know that the
> detected frequency rate is related directly to the number of photons
> detected per second.
He was pointing out that you were confusing two uses of the word
"frequency". You still are, for that matter.
The first use of frequency is for the number of oscillations per
second of the photons. This value is related to the wavelength
and color of the photon.
The second use of frequency is for the number of photons registered
by a detector in any given period. This value is related to the
number of photons detected.
Your second sentence above (containing "red shift means less
frequency") is referring to the first use of frequency. The red
shift changes the detected number of oscillations per second, or
the color -- hence the name, red shift.
Your last sentence above (containing "detected frequency rate")
is referring to the second use of frequency. The inverse square
law changes this frequency, by reducing the number of photons
that are detected.
The red shift does not change frequency in the second, total-number-
of-photons, sense. The inverse square relation does not change
frequency in the first, color-of-the-photon, sense.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> In sci.astro Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
> : Red shift is the reduction in frequency due to the distance between
> : the source and the observer.
>
> side and blue shifted on the other. In both cases, the distance is
> identical.
Or for that matter the galaxies that are all blue-shifted. There
aren't many, obviously, but Andromeda is one (it's moving toward
our galaxy).
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken H. Seto
<pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
>> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
>> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
>> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
>> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
>> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
>>
>
>Which would of course mean that if I change the intensity of light in
>the room (such as by adjusting the blinds), I should observe a change in
>frequency (i.e. color).
As usual Paul just blindly charge ahead with his shallow logic. When
you adjust the intensity of light you did not adjust the distance and
thus the frequency remains the same. If you adjust the intensity by
adjusting the distance at a constant rate (absolute motion ) then you
are also adjusting the frequency rate. This leads to the conclusion
that both intensity and frequency rate obeys the inverse square law.
>I try that right now.
How stupid!!!!
>
>Ok. I've just finished the experiment (hey ken, even you could do it).
>I adjusted the blinds to vary, over a wide range) the intensity of
>sunlight coming into the room.
Hey Paul did you adjust the intensity by adjusting the distance at a
constant rate? The answer is "NO". :-) Better luck next time.
Ken Seto
David Evens
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:17:43 -0800, Paul Alan Cardinale
><pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
>>> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
>>> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
>>> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
>>> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
>>>
>>
>>the room (such as by adjusting the blinds), I should observe a change in
>>frequency (i.e. color).
>
>As usual Paul just blindly charge ahead with his shallow logic. When
>you adjust the intensity of light you did not adjust the distance and
>thus the frequency remains the same.
That is to say, your previous claim tha there is some inherent relationship
between intensiy and wavelength was stupidly wrong, and you have decided to
replace it with another stupid error.
>If you adjust the intensity by
>adjusting the distance at a constant rate (absolute motion ) then you
>are also adjusting the frequency rate. This leads to the conclusion
>that both intensity and frequency rate obeys the inverse square law.
And the fact that the spectral lines of distant stars show no frequency
relationship to the aparent stellar magnitude you explain by...?
>>I try that right now.
>
>How stupid!!!!
Indeed your claim is stupid. It is, however, your claim.
>>Ok. I've just finished the experiment (hey ken, even you could do it).
>>I adjusted the blinds to vary, over a wide range) the intensity of
>>sunlight coming into the room.
>
>Hey Paul did you adjust the intensity by adjusting the distance at a
>constant rate? The answer is "NO". :-) Better luck next time.
So you admit that you already KNEW that your claim that the intensity and
frequency were linked was stupidly wrong.
Paul B. Andersen
> >> Intensity is related to the number of light waves arriving to the
> >> detector per unit area. Frequency is the number of light waves
> >> arriving to the detector per unit time (second). Therefore, the higher
> >> the intensity the more light waves are arriving to the detector. This
> >> means that more light waves are arriving per second. This also mean
> >> that the higher is the intensity the higher is the frequency.
Ken Seto say frequency depend on intensity.
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> As usual Paul just blindly charge ahead with his shallow logic. When
> you adjust the intensity of light you did not adjust the distance and
> thus the frequency remains the same.
Ken Seto say that frequency does not depend on intensity.
So everything is as it use to be. :-)
Paul
G=EMC^2 Glazier
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Bill Bonde
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
>
> The most interesting time for the universe,was a billionth of a
> billionth of a trillionth of a second That was the time needed by
> nature to figure things out,so they would come out right .Expansion
> was
> needed to cool thing off.Expansion is good at that.
>
Then why does expansion get the economy so hot?
SMARTER
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Michael Varney
SMARTER <smarter12345...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:060fa003...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com...
> I READ SOMEWHERE THE MASS OF SPACE IS FRACTAL WITHIN AND WITHOUT.
>
I read somewhere that some people know what a Caps Lock key is for.
--
Michael Varney
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Boulder, Colorado.
SMARTER
I THINK WE SHOULD ALL EVOLVE TO SIMPLER WAYS.
SMARTER THAN HELL AND VERY VERY CLEVER BUT ALSO VERY VERY
LOGICAL. WHAT GOOD IS UPPER AND LOWER CASE UNLESS REQUIRED?