Lets discuss Big Bang Theory
Sanny
its correct.
Lets examine it from each angle.
First what Big Bang says
There was an Explosion 13 Billion years back that created our Universe
and the Universe will keep expanding till it ends into nothing.
Its like I take a Jug of water and throw it on a big table. The water
will float on table till all water occupy all area of table and slowly
vaporise and after 2 days it will be all dry.
Simmilarly this Big Bang is throwing all stars and galaxies and slowly
it is expanding and after a few billion years it will be so big that
everything will be spread out and nothing will remain each electron
will be seperated by a distance of light years.
I feel that may be correct But there are a few points.
1. Say Big Bang happened 13 Billion years ago. And we spot that place
and we find the light that comes from that place. The Question is
whether our Earth is really travelling at speed of light from the
place where big bang occured?
2. Is earth running away from Big Bang with speed of light. If not
then How can we see the light that occured during Big Bang. That Light
would have already travelled faster than earth.
3. Third Question is How we know at what point the Big Bang happened?
In which direction East/ West/ North/ South does Big Bang happened?
4. Fourth Question What was there before the Big Bang took place. If
the space was empty then how a Universe can be created from empty
space Does Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy not violated?
5. Incase Big Bang can happen from a empty space there are Billions of
empty places why this Big Bang only ocured once and that too once in
13 Billion years?
Can there be multiple Universes being created every seconds in other
worlds?
Bye
Sanny
Be Intelligent: http://www.GetClub.com
Sam Wormley
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that
> its correct.
>
> Lets examine it from each angle.
>
> First what Big Bang says
>
> There was an Explosion 13 Billion years back that created our Universe
> and the Universe will keep expanding till it ends into nothing.
>
The big bang theory really says... the observable universe was
smaller, denser and hotter in the past.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Benj
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that
> its correct.
Well that settles it then! 99% of scientists (and those who play them
on TV) agree that the Big Bang is correct! We can use this principle
in MANY ways. For example We can just take a poll about Global
warming. There. The issues is settled!
Why stop there. How about the Flat earth or even the hollow earth?
Everybody knows that the way science settles issues is the same way
politics does it...with a VOTE!
I feel better already.
Both you and Unc. Al. = idiots.
Jack
> On Jan 7, 11:10 am, Sanny <softtank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99%
>> scientist agree that its correct.
>
> Well that settles it then! 99% of scientists (and those
> who play them on TV) agree that the Big Bang is correct!
I don't think anyone said that is what "settles it." Problem is, no one can
be an expert on everything so we do have to accept other people's research,
if we want to have opinions and discussions about various topics.
> We can use this principle in MANY ways. For example We
> can just take a poll about Global warming. There. The
> issues is settled!
>
> Why stop there. How about the Flat earth or even the
> hollow earth? Everybody knows that the way science
> settles issues is the same way politics does it...with a
> VOTE!
>
> I feel better already.
>
> Both you and Unc. Al. = idiots.
I see so many people on usenet who are so quick to call someone an idiot.
Most of the time it translates to "I want to believe I'm better than you."
Don H
news:1f19cdb6-d80b-4eee...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
# Cynics will note that Big Bang fits in neatly with Creationism, and
acceptance lets scientists get on with a quiet life, free of religious
hassles - apart from Evolution.
That our universe seems (optical illusion?) to be expanding outwards,
does this justify us deducing backwards to some supposed origin? What was
there, before the Big Bang?
We humans assume everything has a beginning and an end, whereas this
arbitrary distinction conceals the fact of a continuous causal chain.
Does the Universe have a beginning and an end, and is it finite in space
and time? Or is it infinite and eternal?
If multiple, or parallel, universes exist, where is the proof?
If you have a God, trot him out.
ah
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that
> its correct.
>
99 44/100% of scientists agree that it is a Theory.
hth
--
ah
ken...@erinet.com
Please read the paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as
Interpreted by Model Mechanics" in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008universe.pdf
Also visit my website for more papers on Model Mechanics:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
John Jones
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that
> its correct.
>
> Lets examine it from each angle.
>
> First what Big Bang says
>
> There was an Explosion
No scientist in the know said there was an explosion.
Uncle Al
>
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that
> its correct.
>
> Lets examine it from each angle.
1) Read the recent "Physics Today" comparing baryon density, light
element univeral abundance, and WMAP peak results.
2) Shut up until you do.
3) Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.
4) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
dlzc
On Jan 7, 9:10 am, Sanny <softtank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory.
> And 99% scientist agree that its correct.
No. Scientists agree that it is a theory, and that theories need
testing.
> Lets examine it from each angle.
>
> First what Big Bang says
>
> There was an Explosion 13 Billion years
> back that created our Universe
No. There was no explosion. There was no matter, and not even light
(as none of the forces expressed yet) "in the beginning". These
things only "congealed" with "cooling / expansion".
> and the Universe will keep expanding till
> it ends into nothing.
No. It is expected, based on the history displayed, to continue
expanding until the matter and energy are infinitely diffused.
> Its like I take a Jug of water and throw
> it on a big table. The water will float
> on table till all water occupy all area
> of table and slowly vaporise and after 2
> days it will be all dry.
>
> Simmilarly this Big Bang is throwing all
> stars and galaxies and slowly it is
> expanding and after a few billion years
~125 Gy.
> it will be so big that everything will be
> spread out and nothing will remain each
> electron will be seperated by a distance
> of light years.
No. Infinite distance, since not even light will encounter another
particle.
> I feel that may be correct But there
> are a few points.
>
> 1. Say Big Bang happened 13 Billion years
> ago.
Current estimations indicated 14.5 Gy might be closer.
> And we spot that place
That place is "here". There was no explosion from a central point.
> and we find the light that comes from
> that place.
The medium that created what we call the CMBR absorbed all light from
previous emissions. It had an extinction coefficient of something
like 3 parsecs, so there is nothing of intereeste visible "beyond /
before" it.
> The Question is whether our Earth is
> really travelling at speed of light from
> the place where big bang occured?
No one (that is a scientist) believes it is. Most believe that each
bit of matter is moving about as fast as it was back then.
> 2. Is earth running away from Big Bang
> with speed of light.
No, the speed of time.
> If not then How can we see the light that
> occured during Big Bang.
No, that light is all absorbed. All we have lift is the CMBR, which
is believed to have ceased emission 270,000 years after the Big Bang.
> That Light would have already travelled
> faster than earth.
We are still getting light from the CMBR...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
> 3. Third Question is How we know at what
> point the Big Bang happened?
The theory provides that all points were the point at which the Big
Bang happened.
> In which direction East/ West/ North/
> South does Big Bang happened?
We are kinetically moving away from "Virgo" with a speed of ~300 km/
sec. No "Center" is visible in that direction.
> 4. Fourth Question What was there before
> the Big Bang took place.
No "What". We have no rules or relations in effect today that will
allow us to extrapolate back beyond the Big Bang. Just like you
cannot hear "sounds" across a shock wave, no "structures" can survive
the transition.
> If the space was empty then how a Universe
> can be created from empty space Does Law of
> Conservation of Mass & Energy not violated?
In the context of Big Bang Theory, there was no pre-existing space.
My expectation is that time is issue from "Net Production of Entropy",
and space is issue from time, multiple bodies, and "Conservation of
Momentum".
> 5. Incase Big Bang can happen from a empty
> space there are Billions of empty places why
> this Big Bang only ocured once and that too
> once in 13 Billion years?
Since that is not what the theory says, we don't have to worry about
that.
> Can there be multiple Universes being
> created every seconds in other worlds?
We cannot know.
David A. Smith
BradGuth
These silly robo-posted infomercials are getting sad and tired.
Why not robo-post topics of recent history, of current events and of
whatever humanity can either do something positive/constructive about
or at least indirectly benefit from?
~ BG
PD
The problem with making analogies (as you have done) is that, while
trying to emphasize the features that they have in common, you also
drag in features where nothing is in common. The big bang is NOT like
a bag of dropped water and it is NOT like an exploding stick of
dynamite.
Areas of difference:
- The Big Bang was not an explosion, even though it may be described
that way in Popular Mechanics.
- There is no evaporation going on.
- There is no point of origin of the Big Bang
- We see today none of the light that was emitted at the time of the
Big Bang. The earliest light we see was emitted about 300,000 years
after the Big Bang.
- The Earth is not traveling at the speed of light from the Big Bang.
- There is no "time before" the Big Bang in the sense that we
understand time. You incorrectly assume that time extends infinitely
backwards and forwards, and this is an erroneous assumption.
- It is incorrect to say that there was "nothing" or a vacuum before
the Big Bang.
mlut...@orange.fr
And 99% scientist agree that its correct?
See http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/Big%20Bang%20epicycles.htm
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@orange.fr
See also
http://www.geocentricity.com/conference/Frank/epicycle_conference_bible_1_final.pdf
Excerpt:
By the way, Fred Hoyle was no friend of the Bible,
“The passionate frenzy with which the Big Bang cosmology is
clutched to the corporate scientific bosom evidently from a deep-
rooted attachment to the first page of Genesis, religious
fundamentalism at its strongest.”
Marcel Luttgens
Benj
> I see so many people on usenet who are so quick to call someone an idiot.
> Most of the time it translates to "I want to believe I'm better than you."
But this time translates into "anyone who thinks that the validity of
a hypothesis is determined by "how many" scientists believe it or the
"authority and standing" of those that do, knows absolutely nothing
about the foundations of science!
Here's the big "hint", big Jack: EVERY, yes, every, new idea that
ends up revolutionizing science thinking always starts with ONE PERSON
(OK, or maybe sometimes 2 or 3) making a discovery and formulating a
theory. Hence when one takes a "poll" at that point to see how
"valid" the new theory is, one will ALWAYS find that 99.9% (or more)
of scientists will all feel the old theory is correct. In politics we
call that "inertia". Thus, anyone making a statement that 99% of
scientists agree that Crest gives a much "whiter white" is talking
about a "proof" as valid as a toothpaste ad on TV. If that makes me
better than them, it is because I understand the philosophical
underpinnings of science and they are idiots! OK? [anyway, Uncle Al
made me do it!]
PD
>
> Excerpt:
>
> By the way, Fred Hoyle was no friend of the Bible,
> “The passionate frenzy with which the Big Bang cosmology is
> clutched to the corporate scientific bosom evidently from a deep-
> rooted attachment to the first page of Genesis, religious
> fundamentalism at its strongest.”
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Well, here the fallacy is that common elements implies guilt by
association. As though being named Adolf means you hate Jews.
The claim that, because the Big Bang involves a beginning to our known
universe, this implies somehow that it endorses a creation deity, is
simply foolishness. And Hoyle should have known better.
PD
Jonathan Doolin
> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that
> its correct.
>
> Lets examine it from each angle.
>
> First what Big Bang says
>
> There was an Explosion 13 Billion years back that created our Universe
> and the Universe will keep expanding till it ends into nothing.
Consider this possibility, though.
Let's construct a Minkowski space-time diagram where the Big Bang
occurred at event A.
Then the galaxy was hurtled out at very nearly the speed of light
until it came to event B. (Realizing that the actual space-time-
interval from A to B is such that an object traveling inertially
between the two events would not age, nor would it perceive the
universe as aging, if it had such capability to age.)
\ C / /
\ | / /
\ | / /
\ | / /
\ | / /
\ | / /
\|/ /
B\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
A
As for Event B, it is a sudden acceleration to the right. Let us
assume then that 13.7 billion years pass between event B and event C.
Then the actual age of the universe is measured from point A, but the
age of our galaxy is measured from point B.
If this is an accurate representation, then the events E and D would
be visible from our vantage point at event C. I think that the event
D would be somewhat hotter than event E since it occurred earlier in
the universe. This would give rise to the CBR aniostropy.
\ C /
\ /|\ /
\ / | \ /
\/ | \ /
E\ | \ /
\ | \ /
\| \ /
B\ D
\ /
\ /
\/
A
The only other effect suggested in the Milne model would be that Milne
calculated that after the event at B, the dislodged galaxy would
(because of the total gravitational force of the entire universe)
accelerate toward the center.
Of course as it accelerated toward the center, that would cause the
center to continue to move away, just as the event at B caused the
center to move away. (If you're not familiar with this, consider that
the Lorentz transformation into the new reference frame would move the
event at A away, and thus the center of the universe away.)
The end effect would be that the far side of the universe would appear
to be expanding away from us at greater than the speed of light, while
the nearer side would appear to be contracted. Milne spoke quite a
bit of faster-than light motion, which as near as I could tell was
because of this expanding far side of the universe.
Unfortunately, the book is from early 1930's and when I wanted to do
my Masters thesis based on it, my professors all presumed all the
physics within it was obsolete. Which is especially curious since
Milne's work is still quite contemporary in computational differential
analysis. (I also got the sense they felt that it was safer for their
career to stay far away from cosmology.)
ZerkonXXXX
> And 99% scientist agree that its correct.
=============
Bloodletting (or blood-letting) is the withdrawal of often considerable
quantities of blood from a patient in the belief that this would cure or
prevent a great many illnesses and diseases. It was a tremendously
popular medical practice from antiquity up to the late 19th century, a
time span of almost 2,000 years.
WIKI
===============
dlzc
The human body is prone to a number of diseases. It can have
difficulties getting rid of certain elements / compounds once they
have been absorbed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemochromatosis
... which common treatment for absorption of too much iron, is to
regularly donate blood.
"Abstract: Effect of Leeches Therapy in Periarticular Symptoms of
Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis"
by I. G. Salikhov, S. A. Lapshina1, D. I. Salikhova1, R. G. Mukhina,
R. A. Khabirov1, R. Z. Abdrakipov, F. H. Latfullina
June 24, 2002
"Witch doctors" are not always full of sh*t. The problem was that
most of them were, and / or they had very poor diagnotic methods,
and / or they had no other tool to apply to the entire range of
maladies we are prone to.
And your point is well taken, just because 99% of people jump off a
cliff, does not mean you should think that means it is the thing to
do.
David A. Smith
Painius
news:3YSdnfRFN425dPnU...@posted.echolabs...
Interesting how this appears to apply most distinctly to
Uncle Al. He seems to like that word, "idiot" very much.
And he's been around long enough to know that readers
of UseNet apply such descriptions to the poster who says
them, not to the poster who hears them. A fascinating
UseNet puzzle!
That's why i would rather call someone a "globally
recognized genius" and a "magnificent science writer"! <g>
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "Not only is the universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
> Sir Arthur Eddington
P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net
Sam Wormley
>
> Interesting how this appears to apply most distinctly to
> Uncle Al. He seems to like that word, "idiot" very much.
> And he's been around long enough to know that readers
> of UseNet apply such descriptions to the poster who says
> them, not to the poster who hears them. A fascinating
> UseNet puzzle!
>
What's interesting, is that Uncle Al tends to be right!
kenseto
A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008universe.pdf
Also visit my website for more papers on my theory:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
He didn't say that he believed that himself, he was saying that others
believed it.
Bruce
Sam Wormley
We have yet to see "Model Mechanics" be tested by an observation.
Michael Gordge
Not half as silly as after 4,000 years there are human beings and who
still fall for all that god mumbojumbo, but why do I get a feeling
that you are trying to excuse your own state of the uncertain state
your mind is in of your uncertain certainly unsound mind state?
MG
ken...@erinet.com
In 1995 Model Mechanics predicted that the far reached regions of the
universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. This prediction was
confirmed by astronomers in 1998.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
> >> Bye
> >> Sanny
>
> >> Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
Are the equations of that 1995 prediction available as well as the
text that stated the that the universe was in a state of accelerated
expansion? And what did "Model Mechanics" say is the "force" that
causes this expansion.... i.e., where is the term in your equations?
Thanks!
-Sam
ken...@erinet.com
Read the paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by
Model Mechanics"
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008universe.pdf
Ken Seto
>
> -Sam
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> >>>> Bye
> >>>> Sanny
> >>>> Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com-Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
Where is the 'model mechanics' prediction of the CMBR power spectrum?
[...]
John J
> universe is in a state of accelerated expansion.
Help me in this one. I'm clueless. Would the observation be the same if
our local part of the universe were slowing down and the far reached
regions unchanging?
kenseto
Hey idiot read the paper....specifically the DTG equation that show
why the far reached regions of the universe is in a sate of
accelerated expansion.
Ken Seto
>
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
No...according to Model Mechanics gravity at the far reached regions
of the universe is repulsive and that's why those far reached regions
are in a state of accelerated expansion.
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
That is not what I asked, Ken. I asked for a specific thing: the
predicted power spectrum of the background radiation.
If you don't know what I'm asking for, let us ponder that for a few
minutes.
mahip...@gmail.com
> "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:3YSdnfRFN425dPnU...@posted.echolabs...
>
> > Benj wrote:
> >> On Jan 7, 11:10 am, Sanny <softtank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99%
> >>> scientist agree that its correct.
Its correct what?! Don't leave me hanging. Its correct address?
Interpretation?! I'm tired of guessing here, now. Complete the
frucking sentence. I don't have an eternity hear.
> >> Well that settles it then! 99% of scientists (and those
> >> who play them on TV) agree that the Big Bang is correct!
>
> > I don't think anyone said that is what "settles it." Problem is, no one
> > can be an expert on everything so we do have to accept other people's
> > research, if we want to have opinions and discussions about various
> > topics.
>
> >> We can use this principle in MANY ways. For example We
> >> can just take a poll about Global warming. There. The
> >> issues is settled!
>
> >> Why stop there. How about the Flat earth or even the
> >> hollow earth? Everybody knows that the way science
> >> settles issues is the same way politics does it...with a
> >> VOTE!
>
> >> I feel better already.
>
> >> Both you and Unc. Al. = idiots.
>
> > I see so many people on usenet who are so quick to call someone an idiot.
> > Most of the time it translates to "I want to believe I'm better than you."
They fail to understand that being better than one idiot or 6Billion
of them, falsely accused or otherwise, only makes you better than an
idiot. Not much of an accomplishment.
> Interesting how this appears to apply most distinctly to
> Uncle Al. He seems to like that word, "idiot" very much.
> And he's been around long enough to know that readers
> of UseNet apply such descriptions to the poster who says
> them, not to the poster who hears them. A fascinating
> UseNet puzzle!
Crying Wolf Syndrome. Them/We should therefore all jump in and start
calling everyone idiots, if for no other reason, than to save the
keystrokes on Al's keyboard. A respectful goal as any, it appears.
What? Al has a macro. Never mind then.
It's not a UseNet puzzle, it's merely abuse by those pretending they
must be on the non-idiotic-side of Science Physics. Then the echoing
Shadow Insulters make quiet a noise behind Al's coattails. At least I
like Al better in that way.
> That's why i would rather call someone a "globally
> recognized genius" and a "magnificent science writer"! <g>
Ever notice how Sanny never actually engages in a discussion? Never, a
thank you to anyone. Never a O that makes sense. If Sanny wants a
education, his mother robot -- to paraphrase BradGuth -- failed to
inform him about going to School. There's no University of Usenet.
Many are willing to set as many up to scam you however.
Seems Sanny likes throwing out topics he scanned off of others.
Somehow ends up exposing his link to hits for computers to count. In
the meanwhile, others, like me, are left wondering what on Earth 99%
of scientists agree on the Big Bang's correctness/ism ... even is?!
The two bad aspects about Artificial Intelligence is that it's
artificial and is probably better company than humans who are too
idiotic to even be polite. Beats drinking alone...
Fine, we don't have to be nice to robots. They have no feelings chip
or revenge seeking algorithms. Do robots? O s h i t. I have to run for
safety again.
> happy days and...
> starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S.: "Not only is the universe stranger than we
> imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
> > Sir Arthur Eddington
How does he know how strange I can imagine? HOW DOES Sir Arthur
KNOW!?
> P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
> http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
> http://painellsworth.net
Enjo(y).
--
Mahipal "CPUs, don't fail to crawl my link too!" Virdy
``We search our Earth
and her limitless skies
all the while discovering
in our hearts and minds
is where heaven lies''
http://mysite.verizon.net/mahipalvirdy/ .
kenseto
I don't give a shit what you ask for. Why? Because you haven't read my
paper.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John J
> On Jan 25, 9:46 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>> "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>
>> news:3YSdnfRFN425dPnU...@posted.echolabs...
>>
>>> Benj wrote:
>>>> On Jan 7, 11:10 am, Sanny <softtank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99%
>>>>> scientist agree that its correct.
>
> Its correct what?! Don't leave me hanging. Its correct address?
> Interpretation?! I'm tired of guessing here, now. Complete the
> frucking sentence. I don't have an eternity hear.
Here! Here!
John J
> I don't give a shit what you ask for. Why? Because you haven't read my
> paper.
I have. It is well written and well considered. I am struggling with
only a few points so far. I will probably have more as I think more.
I realize the absolutes are established, but I still have difficulty
with the idea of clockwise, counter-clockwise motion - I cannot imagine
a reference from which to judge the direction.
RustyJames
here are some naturally occuring counter-clockwise movements in space
A sequence of images of NRAO 150 obtained with the VLBA at 43 GHz
(7mm) at a resolution of 0.16 milliarcseconds from 1997 to 2007. NRAO
150 is a compact and bright object at radio and millimeter wavelengths
that was identified in 2005 with a quasar at redshift z = 1.52 through
a near-IR spectral observation. The figure shows the time evolution of
the parsec-scale millimeter-wave source, which displays (after 2000)
the typical jet-like structure observed in quasars. Such jets,
composed of plasma at high relativistic energies and speeds, point in
directions that make very small angles to our line of sight. For these
reasons we have a distorted view of jets in quasars, which can display
*apparent* speeds higher than the speed of light, as projected on the
plane of the sky. These images have for the first time allowed study
of the kinematics of the NRAO 150 jet on the smallest accessible
scales and to compute the first estimates of the basic physical
properties of such a jet. The kinematic study shows a pronounced
projected counter-clockwise jet position angle swing at an angular
rate of up to ~11 deg./yr within the inner ~30 parsecs of the jet.
This phenomenon is associated with an extremely bent (i.e. non-
ballistic) trajectory of superluminal motion in the jet, which makes
NRAO 150 a source of great interest. These results, together with
independent computations of the magnetic field intensity in the jet of
NRAO 150, suggest that the magnetic field could play an important role
in the dynamics of this jet.
Sam Wormley
Of course that is contradicted by observation which shows that
"far reach regions of the universe" actually had a slower expansion
rate, therefore you "Model Mechanics" is wrong and must either be
modified or abandoned.
RustyJames
so whats the truth is their a difference in the acceleration speed
speedong up at the edges or not I was under the understanding that
this acelleration was uniformly reaching outwards in all directions
and was increasing with time.
Sam Wormley
I'm a little foggy on that sentence structure, meaning and so on, but
I think you should know that as we look out in distance, we look back
in time.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Eric Gisse
Actually, I have, and I found it severely wanting because you don't
actually make any predictions. Plus, quite frankly, you are an idiot.
[...]
kenseto
Wormy....you are an idiot. observations show that the far reach
regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. You
are so stupid.
Ken Seto
kenseto
wrote:
Locally the universe is observed to be expanding at a lower RATE THAN
THE FAR REACH REGIONS. That's why the accelerated expansion only
observed at the far reached regions. Wormy is an idiot he doesn't know
what he is talking about. The following link describes the accelerated
expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Ken Seto
kenseto
Idiot.
Sam Wormley
The *accelerated* expansion is a more recent phenomena not
observered in the earlier universe.
Wormy is an idiot he doesn't know
> what he is talking about. The following link describes the accelerated
> expansion:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Ken's reference (especially the references in the reference) are excellent.
However they contradict what he is saying....
It appears to me that Ken is confusing "acceleration" and "velocity",
but we've seen that before with Ken.
>
> Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
[...]
Have you managed to make a prediction about Mercury's perihelion
precession yet, Ken?
kenseto
Once you specify one direction as clockwise motion the other direction
automatically become counterclockwise direction. However the
interaction between a clockwise particle and a counterclockwise
particle remains unchange no matter how you specify the individual
motion of each particle.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
kenseto
You are probably the stupidest runt of the SRians in these NG. What I
said agree with what is observed.
Ken Seto
>
> It appears to me that Ken is confusing "acceleration" and "velocity",
> but we've seen that before with Ken.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
Sue...
That comment is totally unwarranted.
Sam is preaching emitter theory today. ;-)
Henri must have hit a soft spot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory
Sue...
Sam Wormley
Hardly Dennis Sue-- What is observed is that c is the same
for all inertial observer independent of the relative motion
between source and observer.
John J
Sam Wormley
> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
What we "know" is based on observation and experiment. Reality is what
we measure. Einstein assumed that the speed of light was the same for
all [inertial observers]. Observation supports that notion. Time and
space are malleable. Observation supports that notion.
Sue...
Sam,
Have your theorists confused or something.
That is a variation of emitter theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory
Give credit where credit is due.
<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Sam Wormley
> On Jan 28, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> John J wrote:
>>> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
>> What we "know" is based on observation and experiment. Reality is what
>> we measure. Einstein assumed that the speed of light was the same for
>> all [inertial observers]. Observation supports that notion. Time and
>> space are malleable. Observation supports that notion.
>
> Sam,
> Have your theorists confused or something.
> That is a variation of emitter theory.
Dennis Sue--You were planning to kill-file/plonk me -- I have no
idea why you are not getting on with it. However, since that hasn't
yet happened, I would like to call your attention to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory#Problems_with_emission_theory
Also: Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
Eric Gisse
> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
Spectroscopy.
John J
You refer to the shifting of frequency, correct? Have the scientists
absolutely ruled out Dark Matter as causing it?
Would not varying time account for the same observation?
Gotta love Dark Matter/Energy. It's the new Ether or some similar
unscheduled fudge factor.
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 11:35 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> >> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
>
> > Spectroscopy.
>
> You refer to the shifting of frequency, correct? Have the scientists
> absolutely ruled out Dark Matter as causing it?
No there's still doubt as to whether matter that does not
electromagnetically interact could maybe electromagnetically interact.
>
> Would not varying time account for the same observation?
>
> Gotta love Dark Matter/Energy. It's the new Ether or some similar
> unscheduled fudge factor.
How much effort have you put into studying the subject?
John J
Why none at all, of course! It would entirely discourage me from making
smart-ass remarks like that one. (bait, bait)
Eric Gisse
Stupid statement, stupid response.
Again, how much about modern cosmology have *you* studied? Name the
last piece of literature you read.
Ken S. Tucker
Where Gisse is concerned, I'm afraid you only
caught a minnow. Occasionally he plagurizes
something relevent, but not very often, he's
not too bright.
He's our group's pet Village imbecile, so be
kind to it, per SPCA guidelines ;-).
Has anyone discussed the Cosmological Constant
yet. I find it physically *necessary*.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
> Hi John.
>
> On Jan 28, 4:55 pm, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 11:35 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > >> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
>
> > > Spectroscopy.
>
> > You refer to the shifting of frequency, correct? Have the scientists
> > absolutely ruled out Dark Matter as causing it?
>
> > Would not varying time account for the same observation?
>
> > Gotta love Dark Matter/Energy. It's the new Ether or some similar
> > unscheduled fudge factor.
>
> Where Gisse is concerned, I'm afraid you only
> caught a minnow. Occasionally he plagurizes
> something relevent, but not very often, he's
> not too bright.
Here comes the fucking liar, Ken Tucker. When not lying about his PhD,
he is lying about the intellectual honesty of other people. When asked
simple claims like "Where did you get your PhD, Ken?" or "Can you name
even one example of plagirism?", he runs like the coward he is.
Put up or shut up, Ken. Posting under your real name and establishing
a history of defamation is not smart. Do it again and the fun begins.
[snip rest]
Ken S. Tucker
> Has anyone discussed the Cosmological Constant
> yet. I find it physically *necessary*.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Let me explain, (IMHO).
The so-called "Cosmological Red-Shift" of light
can be seated upon universal density by this
mechcanism.
Let a photon pass between two free particles o and o,
Input Reaction Output
o \|/
o
~~~~~~> then ~ ~ ~ >
o
o /|\
the particles are weakly gravitationally displaced
(moved, retaining kinetic energy) toward each as
the photon reacts, and the photon surrenders
energy to the particles, by sublty heating them.
The induced relative kinetic energy of the particles
appears as a Cosmological Background Radiation CMB,
when the absorbed energy from the photon is emitted,
while the photon is red-shifted.
Applying mathematical logic, we can convert the
simple two particle system reaction (above) to a
reaction with a density of particles corresponding
to the density of the universe, and in turn that
provides the physical reason for the cosmological
constant "/\" , governing cosmological red-shift.
In view of the above, cognicient that retardation
of light intensity and gravitational potential
are proportional, in order to maintain the Law
of Conservation Energy, the constant "/\" appears
in the Einstein Field Equations (EFE's).
In historical retroview, there was no trick or
blunder by AE including "/\" in the EFE's, IMV it
was required.
A surprising result is that we may regard the
universe as infinite in time and space, with
the boundary's currently regarded as 14 billion
LYr's distance as asymptomically extrapolated,
and completely eliminate the Big Bang conjecture,
based entirely on the density of universe, IOW's
"/\".
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt9
John J
My gosh! A guy can't even admit incompetence without someone demanding
that he prove it! You will simply have to take my word for it.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
Start with the sci.physics FAQs,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/constants.html
For a much more detailed review, see Uzan,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
You should be able to find a number of other reviews fairly easily, for
example at Spires (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/) or with
Google scholar or ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html).
Most of the references focus on variation in time rather than position,
but the astronomical observations limit variation in space equally well.
The recent paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503434 talks directly
about spatial variation.
As Eric Gisse said, the most straightforward test is spectroscopy. The
detailed structure of an atomic spectrum depends on the speed of light
(through the fine structure constant), and different types of line
splittings have different dependences on c. So by studying the spectrum
of light from a distant galaxy, we can extract the value of c at the place
and time the light was emitted. The results very strongly limit any
variation, although there is continued debate over whether changes
have been seen at the very edge of observational precision.
Other tests come from the cosmological microwave background -- varying
"constants" would leave a distinct imprint on the spectrum -- and from
big bang nucleosynthesis. There are also very good laboratory tests of
variation within the Solar System (the Earth moves, after all). And
geophysical tests -- look up the "Oklo phenomenon" -- give limits of
variation over a period of about two billion years, and therefore over
the region of space the Earth has moved through in that time.
Steve Carlip
RustyJames
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
kenseto
here's a theory the expansion of dark energy is increasing at the
edges of the particle horizon due to a lower concentration of energy
density allowing for faster rates of expansion, that’s why quasars,
which can display*apparent* speeds higher than the speed of light, as
projected on the Plane of the sky do have light that is super luminal
or FTL because the hydrogen and helium that is difficult to escape in
this universe can function as such a fluid, working as a linear
dielectric to conduct transverse forces like light; working as a
coherent dielectric to conduct longitudinal forces like gravity and
Van der Waals manipulate the surrounding energy density fields of the
space time continuum allowing the dielectric average of 377 ohms
within the vacuum to drop below 377 allowing for FTL velocities of the
light. same principal of a lower dielectric average within the vacuum
of the of the space time fabric the further you travel outward to the
edges of the particle horizon at the furthest reaches of the universe
energy expansion can reach faster velocities.
John J
> here's a theory the expansion of dark energy is increasing at the
> edges of the particle horizon due to a lower concentration of energy
> density allowing for faster rates of expansion, that’s why quasars,
> which can display*apparent* speeds higher than the speed of light, as
> projected on the Plane of the sky do have light that is super luminal
> or FTL because the hydrogen and helium that is difficult to escape in
> this universe can function as such a fluid, working as a linear
> dielectric to conduct transverse forces like light; working as a
> coherent dielectric to conduct longitudinal forces like gravity and
> Van der Waals manipulate the surrounding energy density fields of the
> space time continuum allowing the dielectric average of 377 ohms
> within the vacuum to drop below 377 allowing for FTL velocities of the
> light. same principal of a lower dielectric average within the vacuum
> of the of the space time fabric the further you travel outward to the
> edges of the particle horizon at the furthest reaches of the universe
> energy expansion can reach faster velocities.
Your penance for such an unnecessarily long sentence is to read it aloud
without breathing.
Sam Wormley
>
> here's a theory the expansion of dark energy is increasing at the
> edges of the particle horizon due to a lower concentration of energy
> density ....
Contradicted by observation!
Sam Wormley
Thanks for this post!
-Sam
RustyJames
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your penance for such an unnecessarily long sentence is to read it
aloud
without breathing.
only slow minds need peoriods to gather their thoughts.
Ken S. Tucker
On Jan 29, 8:52 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> In sci.physics John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
>
> Start with the sci.physics FAQs,http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/constants.html
>
> For a much more detailed review, see Uzan,http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
>
> You should be able to find a number of other reviews fairly easily, for
> example at Spires (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/) or with
> Google scholar or ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html).
>
> Most of the references focus on variation in time rather than position,
> but the astronomical observations limit variation in space equally well.
> The recent paperhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503434talks directly
> about spatial variation.
>
> As Eric Gisse said, the most straightforward test is spectroscopy. The
> detailed structure of an atomic spectrum depends on the speed of light
> (through the fine structure constant), and different types of line
> splittings have different dependences on c. So by studying the spectrum
> of light from a distant galaxy, we can extract the value of c at the place
> and time the light was emitted. The results very strongly limit any
> variation, although there is continued debate over whether changes
> have been seen at the very edge of observational precision.
Not sure.
Sub-atomically "c" is wildly variable, that's
what refractive index is about, and same with
time "t". Even Doppler and gravitational red
shift skewer local "t" and "c", respectively.
The relative spectra, provide evidence of the
invariance of "h" and the electronic charge e,
throughout the universe's spacetime, which
places those invariant's distinct from "c"
which carries the condition of a vacuum.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
glird
> Sanny wrote:
><< I have heard a lot about Big Bang theory. And 99% scientist agree that its correct. Lets examine it from each angle.
First what the Big Bang says;
There was an Explosion 13 Billion years back that created our
Universe and the Universe will keep expanding till it ends into
nothing. >>
>
>< The big bang theory really says... the observable universe was smaller, denser and hotter in the past.> No Center
The big bungle theory really says that the entire universe initiated
about 13 billion years ago at a singularity. A "singularity" denotes
a point.
Where was this point? The bunglers' reply is: Space didn't exist
until that moment. When did that happen?
The bunglers' answer is: Time didn't exist either, before the big bang
happened.
No center? Of course not. A point in nowhere at a time that didn't
exist has no center for a very simple reason: There never was such a
thing.
Even if we allow that the singularity was infinitesimally small,
rather than a zero volume point, there is no way that all the matter
and energy in the universe could have been inside it nor is there any
way that matter or energy could have spontaneously come into existence
at all, let alone in an infinitesimally small volume with "no center".
glird
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Sub-atomically "c" is wildly variable,
No, it's not.
> that's what refractive index is about,
No, not even remotely.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
On Jan 30, 2:31 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> In sci.physics Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Sub-atomically "c" is wildly variable,
>
> No, it's not.
>
> > that's what refractive index is about,
>
> No, not even remotely.
>
> Steve Carlip
I think you come from an institution background,
wherein the details of light propagation in a
medium is that the refractive index is "just a
number" as an average property, and is sufficient
to enable you to understand how two different
pieces of glass, of different refractive index
can very nearly cancel chromatic aberration.
I come from a commercial/industrial background,
such as fiber optic transmission, (yes I work
for a living), and teachers don't need to know
the details, is true.
Steve cuz you don't know it, does not mean it
does not exist.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Hi Steve.
> On Jan 30, 2:31 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > In sci.physics Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Sub-atomically "c" is wildly variable,
> > No, it's not.
> > > that's what refractive index is about,
> > No, not even remotely.
> I think you come from an institution background,
> wherein the details of light propagation in a
> medium is that the refractive index is "just a
> number" as an average property, and is sufficient
> to enable you to understand how two different
> pieces of glass, of different refractive index
> can very nearly cancel chromatic aberration.
> I come from a commercial/industrial background,
> such as fiber optic transmission, (yes I work
> for a living), and teachers don't need to know
> the details, is true.
Sigh. Look at Born and Wolf, _Principles of Optics_, section 2.4.2
for a careful microscopic treatment of refraction.
Basically, when light enters a medium, it excites atoms, which in turn
emit light. The newly emitted light has two components. One is exactly
out of phase with the incoming beam, and destructively interferes with
it, essentially eliminating it. The second looks like the incoming wave,
but has a slightly different phase. The overall effect of this phase
shift is to ``delay'' the propagation, reducing the phase velocity. The
same process continues as the new wave propagates through the medium,
giving a larger and larger phase shift/propagation delay. The existence
of this effect is called the Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem, and can be
used to quantitatively compute propagation speed, at least in a somewhat
idealized medium.
"Sub-atomically," the speed of light is unchanged. At the atomic
or molecular level, the material causes a phase shift, which is not
the same as a change in the fundamental propagation speed.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, for brevity, I think your post is correct
using the wave theory of light, an average of
billions of photons, which itself can spawn an
interesting discussion, but I think that's a
lateral slide.
How about we agree ds=0 (ds2=g_uv dx^u dx^v)
is everywhere true for EMR and photons.
Allow me C = sqrt(g_00/g_11) for the Coordinate
speed of light, in a g-field, wherein C =/=c,
that is true near any heavily gravitating body,
suppose near a hypothetical event horizon, where
the speed of light C is highly retarded.
I really do NOT see how it can be claimed, using
spectroscopy, that the speed of light c is a
constant (and rate of time "t" is known) at that
location.
Do you see what I mean? The best I can accomplish
is to find "h" and "e" as global invariants and
ds=0, but NOT C.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
zzbu...@netscape.net
It carries even more extreme assumptions than that,
it's a Steady State Vacuum, not a Vacuum. Which
is why even Einstein was so non-plussed by the
cosmological constant. And it's also why the people
who know how rockets actually work, built GPS,
rather than more telephones. And it's also why
the people who how know neutrons work invented
Drones, rather than more Princeton Tenures.
And it's also why the people who know how stastical dynamics works
invented Holograms, On-Line Publishing, and Post GM Robotics.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -
glird
>On Jan 30 carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > In sci.physics Ken S. Tucker wrote:
<<< Sub-atomically "c" is wildly variable,
<< No, it's not.
<<< that's what refractive index is about,
<< No, not even remotely.
I think you come from an institution background, wherein the details
of light propagation in a medium is that the refractive index is "just
a number" as an average property, and is sufficient to enable you to
understand how two different pieces of glass, of different refractive
index can very nearly cancel chromatic aberration.
I come from a commercial/industrial background, such as fiber optic
>>
><> Sigh. Look at Born and Wolf, _Principles of Optics_, section 2.4.2 for a careful microscopic treatment of refraction.
Basically, when light enters a medium, it excites atoms, which in
turn emit light. The newly emitted light has two components. One is
exactly out of phase with the incoming beam, and destructively
interferes with it, essentially eliminating it. The second looks like
the incoming wave, but has a slightly different phase. The overall
effect of this phase shift is to "delay" the propagation, reducing the
phase velocity. The same process continues as the new wave propagates
through the medium, giving a larger and larger phase shift/propagation
delay. The existence of this effect is called the Ewald-Oseen
extinction theorem, and can be
used to quantitatively compute propagation speed, at least in a
somewhat idealized medium. <>>
Yes, in an "idealized medium"; i.e. one that doesn't exist.
In reality, the continuous compressible material that fills space
conducts light. The local speed of these wave systems wrt an outside
observer, is a function of the density of this material, independently
of whether or not particles are present.
><> "Sub-atomically," the speed of light is unchanged. At the atomic or molecular level, the material causes a phase shift, which is not the same as a change in the fundamental propagation speed.
Steve Carlip <>>
If particles ARE present and the light enters one of them - say a
drop of water, then the waves will automatically traverse the least
dense material fastest, thus travel between the atoms and/or molecules
of H2O. Any of the light that actually traverses an atom along the way
will undergo a quantum reaction such that a quantum of energy [hf =
(2pirmc')f, in which f is the frequency of the wave system relative to
the reactive atom; r is the average radius of an atom; m is the weight
of an electron; and c' is the speed of light in its orbital path
inside the atom) is absorbed and the rest of that wave continues on
(at c) with a bit less energy in it. Since the wave length is a
function of e, the greater the energy per wave the bluer the light
will be, and the less e per wave the redder it is, this means that
whenever a light wave traverses and interact with an atom the redder
the ongoing wave will be. [THAT is the cause of the "red shift" of
light coming from distant sources; not a mythical expansion of the
entire universe - or of the non-existing "empty space" "between the
particles" - from the zero-volume point called a "singularity" - a
point - where the Big Bank - a HUGE BUNGLE - never happened.)
>< Ok, for brevity, I think your post is correct using the wave theory of light, an average of billions of photons, which itself can spawn an interesting discussion, but I think that's a lateral slide.
How about we agree ds=0 (ds2=g_uv dx^u dx^v)is everywhere true for
EMR and photons.>
Planck named hf a quantum of energy. Einstein called it a photon. By
any name at all, it only exists, as such, at the instant it is
released or absorbed by an atom.
>< Allow me C = sqrt(g_00/g_11) for the Coordinate speed of light, in a g-field, wherein C =/=c, that is true near any heavily gravitating body, suppose near a hypothetical event horizon, where the speed of light C is highly retarded. >
A "black hole" is a region whose gravitational field is so "strong"
that even light can't escape from inside it. A g-field, though, is a
density gradient in the space-filling material itself. THAT's why
light (which physics says has zero mass)doesn't escape. It is
REFRACTED, and the zone where any beams' paths have curved to
parallelism with the outer boundary of the hole is called "the event
horizon". (Since the paths of waves passing close to the hole will be
similarly refracted, once they get inside that boundary they too will
be trapped inside.)
>< I really do NOT see how it can be claimed, using
spectroscopy, that the speed of light c is a constant (and rate of
time "t" is known) at that location.
Do you see what I mean? The best I can accomplish is to find "h" and
"e" as global invariants and ds=0, but NOT C.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker >
The speed of light IS a constant when measured in quantity of matter
traversed per unit time. (If the density changes, the light will still
traverse a given
quantity per second. If measuring rods and rates of events change by
appropriate amounts, and we esynch our clocks to measure the one way
speed as a constant in all directions, then the speed of light will be
c as measured in ALL systems regardless of their individual speeds. If
not, then the speed of light- in feet/second - will be variable AS
MEASURED by them even though it is constant in densa/second.
glird
Ken S. Tucker
My problem is very simple.
Where we are here in space, our "c" is about
186,282 mps (vacuum speed). We have a retardation
here in the neighbourhood of Earth due to gravitation
so we are really measuring coordinate speed C.
Suppose we're observing a region in the Andromeda
galaxy where the vacuum speed c' there is 175,000 mps,
IOW's different.
How would spectroscopy detect c differs from c'?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
Calculate g_uv U^u U^v, where U^a is the four-velocity.
Or just stop posting, as you seem to be both unwilling and unable to
learn.
max...@optusnet.com.au
All of the "evidence" you have put forward is dependent on the
big bang theory (or any such expansion theory) being true. If
it's not true, your evidence is worthless.
As you should know by now, the big bang theory fails the CMBR
test, MISERABLY.
Updated:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
The true universe has no such problems. If the universe is not
expanding, but is evolving, the redshifted state of everything
in the early universe was exactly as we see it now. It was in a
lesser evolved state, where interaction rates and the speed of
light were very much slower than they are now.
It's really quite simple.
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 30, 3:52 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> > In sci.physics John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> >> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
>
> > Start with the sci.physics FAQs,
> >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/constants.html
>
> > For a much more detailed review, see Uzan,
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
>
> > You should be able to find a number of other reviews fairly easily, for
> > example at Spires (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/) or with
> > Google scholar or ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html).
>
> > Most of the references focus on variation in time rather than position,
> > but the astronomical observations limit variation in space equally well.
> > about spatial variation.
>
> > As Eric Gisse said, the most straightforward test is spectroscopy. The
> > detailed structure of an atomic spectrum depends on the speed of light
> > (through the fine structure constant), and different types of line
> > splittings have different dependences on c. So by studying the spectrum
> > of light from a distant galaxy, we can extract the value of c at the place
> > and time the light was emitted. The results very strongly limit any
> > variation, although there is continued debate over whether changes
> > have been seen at the very edge of observational precision.
>
> > Other tests come from the cosmological microwave background -- varying
> > "constants" would leave a distinct imprint on the spectrum -- and from
> > big bang nucleosynthesis. There are also very good laboratory tests of
> > variation within the Solar System (the Earth moves, after all). And
> > geophysical tests -- look up the "Oklo phenomenon" -- give limits of
> > variation over a period of about two billion years, and therefore over
> > the region of space the Earth has moved through in that time.
>
> All of the "evidence" you have put forward is dependent on the
> big bang theory (or any such expansion theory) being true. If
> it's not true, your evidence is worthless.
>
> As you should know by now, the big bang theory fails the CMBR
> test, MISERABLY.
Nobody agrees.
[snip rest]
Sue...
> Nobody agrees.
Dearest Eric,
<< Pseudoscience displays an indifference
to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works
or investigating directly, its advocates simply
spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions
are often central to the pseudoscientist's
argument and conclusions. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Maxk wrote:
<< As you should know by now, the big bang
theory fails the CMBR test, MISERABLY. >>
Known and plausible sources of CMBR have not
been eliminated.
Emergent gravity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
<< Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are
identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London
Sue...
>
Painius
news:99aa0bd9-1d0d-40fb...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 29, 10:24 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>> RustyJames wrote:
>> >
>> > here's a theory the expansion of dark energy is increasing at the
>> > edges of the particle horizon due to a lower concentration of energy
>> > density allowing for faster rates of expansion, that’s why quasars,
>> > which can display*apparent* speeds higher than the speed of light, as
>> > projected on the Plane of the sky do have light that is super luminal
>> > or FTL because the hydrogen and helium that is difficult to escape in
>> > this universe can function as such a fluid, working as a linear
>> > dielectric to conduct transverse forces like light; working as a
>> > coherent dielectric to conduct longitudinal forces like gravity and
>> > Van der Waals manipulate the surrounding energy density fields of the
>> > space time continuum allowing the dielectric average of 377 ohms
>> > within the vacuum to drop below 377 allowing for FTL velocities of the
>> > light. same principal of a lower dielectric average within the vacuum
>> > of the of the space time fabric the further you travel outward to the
>> > edges of the particle horizon at the furthest reaches of the universe
>> > energy expansion can reach faster velocities.
>>
>> Your penance for such an unnecessarily long sentence is to read it aloud
>
> only slow minds need peoriods to gather their thoughts.
Yeah, but Rusty...
Even quick minds need to realize that those of us who
aren't so quick need such things as periods in order to
understand. If you don't care about people understanding
your writing, then by all means, continue as you are.
Two things...
1) UseNet is not "belly-to-belly". It's not a talking and
body-language discussion. All we have are words and the
correct organization of those words. It's too easy to be
misunderstood on UseNet even when you do it right. So
why make it worse by making it harder for everyone to
understand you?
2) This is a big problem with science. Too many great
men and women of science don't seem to give a damn if
anybody else understands them. Science needs more
people like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, who were able
to help lay-people to understand their writings. It would
be a good thing if more scientists would at least try to
emulate those two, Sagan and Asimov!
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "The current best fit model which has an accelerating
expansion gives a maximum distance we can see of
47 billion light years." > Ned Wright
P.P.S.: http://astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Hi Steve.
> On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
[...]
> Ok, for brevity, I think your post is correct
> using the wave theory of light, an average of
> billions of photons,
It's also correct for coherent states in QED.
> How about we agree ds=0 (ds2=g_uv dx^u dx^v)
> is everywhere true for EMR and photons.
That's the geometric optics limit. It's correct as long as the
wavelength is small compared to the typical length scale for
a change in the amplitude, and also small compared to the
typical radius of curvature of spacetime. Otherwise you need
to use the full Maxwell's equations.
> Allow me C = sqrt(g_00/g_11) for the Coordinate
> speed of light, in a g-field, wherein C =/=c,
> that is true near any heavily gravitating body,
> suppose near a hypothetical event horizon, where
> the speed of light C is highly retarded.
Why should I "allow" you that? You've written down an
expression that can be made equal to any number whatsoever
through a choice of coordinates.
The term "speed of light" has a definite meaning when used by
physicists: it is the speed as measured in a local inertial frame.
If you go to such a frame, your C is equal to the usual c, as a
simple consequence of the principle of equivalence. If you don't
want to use a local inertial frame, then you shouldn't call the
quantity you're talking about the "speed of light" -- unless, of
course, you are not interested in actually communicating, in
which case you're free to call anything you want the "speed of
light."
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Jan 30, 3:52 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > In sci.physics John J <no...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> >> How do we know that time and c are the same throughout the universe?
> > As Eric Gisse said, the most straightforward test is spectroscopy. The
> > detailed structure of an atomic spectrum depends on the speed of light
> > (through the fine structure constant), and different types of line
> > splittings have different dependences on c. So by studying the spectrum
> > of light from a distant galaxy, we can extract the value of c at the place
> > and time the light was emitted. The results very strongly limit any
> > variation, although there is continued debate over whether changes
> > have been seen at the very edge of observational precision.
> All of the "evidence" you have put forward is dependent on the
> big bang theory (or any such expansion theory) being true.
No. The spectroscopic measurements require no such assumption at all.
Steve Carlip
Ken S. Tucker
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> In sci.physics Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve.
> > On Jan 30, 3:54 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Ok, for brevity, I think your post is correct
> > using the wave theory of light, an average of
> > billions of photons,
>
> It's also correct for coherent states in QED.
Maybe, but it can't be proven in the lab,
so much for that!
We fired a laser pulse into a fiber optic
and after a kilometer or so the pulse spreads.
> > How about we agree ds=0 (ds2=g_uv dx^u dx^v)
> > is everywhere true for EMR and photons.
>
> That's the geometric optics limit. It's correct as long as the
> wavelength is small compared to the typical length scale for
> a change in the amplitude, and also small compared to the
> typical radius of curvature of spacetime. Otherwise you need
> to use the full Maxwell's equations.
No because ds2=0 is locally compatible with
the Lorentz Transform which is consistent
with Maxwell.
> > Allow me C = sqrt(g_00/g_11) for the Coordinate
> > speed of light, in a g-field, wherein C =/=c,
> > that is true near any heavily gravitating body,
> > suppose near a hypothetical event horizon, where
> > the speed of light C is highly retarded.
>
> Why should I "allow" you that? You've written down an
> expression that can be made equal to any number whatsoever
> through a choice of coordinates.
Ok, simplify to
C(vertical) = g_00, C(v)
C(horizontal) = sqrt(g_00), C(h).
> The term "speed of light" has a definite meaning when used by
> physicists: it is the speed as measured in a local inertial frame.
> If you go to such a frame, your C is equal to the usual c, as a
> simple consequence of the principle of equivalence. If you don't
> want to use a local inertial frame,
Where you sit (chair applying force to ass)
is NOT a local inertial frame yet the PoE
still applies, correct?
> then you shouldn't call the
> quantity you're talking about the "speed of light" -- unless, of
> course, you are not interested in actually communicating, in
> which case you're free to call anything you want the "speed of
> light."
Excuse me Steve, I'm the one who is working
to IMPROVE the precision of the discussion,
especially by using C(v) and C(h) that you
are having a problem understanding.
Fact is, a light ray going from one side of
your desk to the other deflects, regarded to
be continuous in a GToR g-field, that in turn
requires C(v) =/= C(h) =/= c.
Deeper, that effect is due to the curvature R
departing from zero due to the density T from
Earth's proximity.
Steve it's important you understand this, and
I definitely respect you, so I'll help.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
[snip all[
> Steve it's important you understand this, and
> I definitely respect you, so I'll help.
> Best Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
The hubris is impresive.
Might as well aim high, eh?
max...@optusnet.com.au
> In sci.physics max...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
This sentence taken from your above paragraph demonstrates very
clearly that your spectroscopic measurements are _entirely_
dependent on an expanding universe:
-So by studying the spectrum of light from a distant galaxy, we
-can extract the value of c at the place and time the light was
-emitted.
You see redshifted frequencies and presume them to be a
consequence of expanding space, while I see the same thing, _and
knowing well that expansion theories have been proven false,_
I'm left with only one possible explanation. The universe that
we see in the past is exactly as it was at the time.
The evolving zero origin universe may be difficult for us to
comprehend from our plane of existence, but why wouldn't it be.
We don't dictate the laws of nature, we can only try to
understand them.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 3, 6:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> > In sci.physics maxk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> >> On Jan 30, 3:52am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Nobody else agrees with you. Nobody.
What does it tell you when not one other person agrees with you?
Sue...
The clock at the bottom of Harvard tower was slow. (Pound-Rebka)
Clock on the surface of massive star would be subject
to even greater slowing.
Eric can see a celestial object "from his house"
so let's ask him.
Dear Caribou Eric,
Can Astronomical distance ladder calibrate
slow clocks on the surfave of distant massive emitters?
Pound, R. V.; Snider J. L. (November 2, 1964)
"Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
(abstract). Physical Review Letters 13 (18): 539–540. doi:10.1103/
PhysRevLett.13.539.
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/p539.
Retrieved on 27 September 2006.
>
========
> Nobody else agrees with you. Nobody.
Eric can you add one plus one ?
<<Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference
works or investigating directly, its advocates
simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's
argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists
rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience
book is almost always the last, even though the
book remains in print for decades or even centuries.
Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and
misprints on every page may be reprinted as is,
over and over. Compare this to science textbooks
that see a new edition every few years because of
the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.>>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> What does it tell you when not one other person agrees with you?
It tells us:
Eric posts too much and studies too little
and makes up fairy tales almost as well as PD.
His governor does the same. But someday they
may hit the books and earn GEDs together.
<<The classical phenomenon of the redshift of
light in a static gravitational potential,
usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in
two ways: on the one hand the phenomenon is
explained through the behaviour of clocks which
run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the
propagating photon do not change with height. The
light thus appears to be redshifted relative
to the frequency of the clock. On the other
hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
--> (even in some authoritative texts) <--
in terms of an energy loss of a photon as it
overcomes the gravitational attraction of the
massive body. This second approach operates with
notions such as the "gravitational mass" or the
"potential energy" of a photon and we assert that
it is misleading. We do not claim to present any
original ideas or to give a comprehensive review
of the subject, our goal being essentially a
pedagogical one. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
----- Eric's nemesis -----
Classical Electromagnetism:
An intermediate level course
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Visualizing Electricity and Magnetism at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
Sue...
>
> > The evolving zero origin universe may be difficult for us to
> > comprehend from our plane of existence, but why wouldn't it be.
> > We don't dictate the laws of nature, we can only try to
John J
> On Feb 3, 5:25 pm, maxk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 6:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>>
>> You see redshifted frequencies and presume them to be a
>> consequence of expanding space, while I see the same thing, _and
>> knowing well that expansion theories have been proven false,_
>> I'm left with only one possible explanation. The universe that
>> we see in the past is exactly as it was at the time.
It would help to point to at least one theory that has proven it false.
> Nobody else agrees with you. Nobody.
>
> What does it tell you when not one other person agrees with you?
Speaking for myself, it reminds me that the typical group has those who
espouse innuendo such as your demand for conformity as well as outliers
such as Gisse. Gisse's suggestion has more intellectual interest than
innuendo. So we move on.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
No. The relevant phrase is "different types of line splittings have
different dependences on c."
> You see redshifted frequencies and presume them to be a
> consequence of expanding space,
This is not relevant to the argument. The overall redshift -- whether
it's due to expansion of space or anything else -- affects all spectral
lines equally. This makes it just a distraction; if that were all we had,
there would be no way to differentiate the effects of changing c, the
effects of expansion, or whatever other explanation for redshift you
have in mind.
A change in c, on the other hand, has a *different* effect on different
spectral lines. For example, molecular transitions and hyperfine
splittings of spectral lines depend on different powers of c. This allows
us to remove the overall redshift, and extract any possible changes
in c by *comparing* different types of line splittings.
Steve Carlip
Eric Gisse
All you see is me telling him to fuck off.
What you do not see is the several year history of me carefully
documenting why he is wrong. I only repeat myself so much.
glird
> On Feb 3, 6:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> >>> The detailed structure of an atomic spectrum depends on the speed of light (through the fine structure constant), and different types of line splittings have different dependences on c. < <<<
I can derive the fine structure constant by a six step process done
on a hand calculator; starting with any number whatsoever. So how
does the spectrum of hydrogen depend on that; and why is c different
in H compared to Neon?
> >>> So by studying the spectrum of light from a distant galaxy, we can extract the value of c at the place and time the light was emitted. The results very strongly limit any variation, although there is continued debate over whether changes have been seen at the very edge of observational precision. > >>>
How come the speed of light is constant if it is variable inside
every atom along its path?
> >> All of the "evidence" you have put forward is dependent on the big bang theory (or any such expansion theory) being true. >
> > No. The spectroscopic measurements require no such assumption at all.
>
> This sentence taken from your above paragraph demonstrates very clearly that your spectroscopic measurements are _entirely_
dependent on an expanding universe: So by studying the spectrum of
light from a distant galaxy, we can extract the value of c at the
place and time the light was emitted.
You see red-shifted frequencies and presume them to be a consequence
of expanding space, while I see the same thing, and knowing well that
expansion theories have been proven false, I'm left with only one
possible explanation. The universe that we see in the past is exactly
as it was at the time. >
Hold on a second, Max. Here is another explanation: the Compton
Effect proves that whenever light interacts with an atom, all or SOME
of its energy is absorbed. If a tiny bit is absorbedf by each h atom
along its path, a ray will lose increasing amounts of its energy as it
travels; thus its color will shift to the red. The amount of that
redshift will be a function of the distance the ray travels.
Also, the amount of energy a given H atom can hold pr shell-layer
has a maximum. If a bit more e is absorbed, there will be a quantum
jump in the size of the shell-layer, with a quantum of energy
emitted. THAT is why there is a cmbr everywhere, independent of the
direction of incoming beams.
< The evolving zero origin universe may be difficult for us to
comprehend from our plane of existence, but why wouldn't it be. We
don't dictate the laws of nature, we can only try to
understand them. Max Keon >
Step one: Anyth theory that contradicts common sense is false.
(BTW, "common sense" is one of the rarest commodities that exists on
the planet Earth.)
glird
John Joseph
> On Feb 4, 4:35 am, John J <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 5:25 pm, maxk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>>> On Feb 3, 6:47 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>>>> You see redshifted frequencies and presume them to be a
>>>> consequence of expanding space, while I see the same thing, _and
>>>> knowing well that expansion theories have been proven false,_
>>>> I'm left with only one possible explanation. The universe that
>>>> we see in the past is exactly as it was at the time.
>> It would help to point to at least one theory that has proven it false.
>>
>>> Nobody else agrees with you. Nobody.
>>> What does it tell you when not one other person agrees with you?
>> Speaking for myself, it reminds me that the typical group has those who
>> espouse innuendo such as your demand for conformity as well as outliers
>> such as Gisse. Gisse's suggestion has more intellectual interest than
>> innuendo. So we move on.
>
> All you see is me telling him to fuck off.
Gawd! I missed that part! Let me join in!
Fuck off, Maxk!
> What you do not see is the several year history of me carefully
> documenting why he is wrong. I only repeat myself so much.
OK, it's not been a fruitful exchange. Time for the killfile thing. No?
max...@optusnet.com.au
> In sci.physics max...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
And why do assume that those different effects are not going to
be common for all stages of evolution in the evolving universe.
You are making some fairly wild assumptions regarding how a true
change in the speed of light will affect molecular transitions.
You can't change the speed of light locally, so how do you know
what effect such a change will have in the distant past?
You can't possibly know that.
> For example, molecular transitions
> and hyperfine splittings of spectral lines depend on different
> powers of c. This allows us to remove the overall redshift,
> and extract any possible changes in c by *comparing* different
> types of line splittings.
These are a set of spectral line wavelengths generated in today's
environment.
[ l l l
0 1 2 3 wavelength
And this is the same line spectrum as seen at around 6.7 billion
light years in the past.
[ l l l
0 2 4 6 wavelength
The latter spectrum has naturally expanded apart. And whether
or not the universe is expanding, the same will apply. The
molecular transitions and hyperfine line splitting you refer to
as being dependent on different powers of c (whatever that means)
will also be directly proportional to the speed of light.
There is no way to differentiate between the effects of a
changing speed of light. Don't embarrass yourself by trying to
postulate that there is.
While this has all been an interesting diversion, you have yet
to address the clear cut evidence which falsifies all expansion
theories. The evidence is far beyond being hyperfine, it's more
sledge hammerish.
The CMBR has falsified ALL expansion theories.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
Show me where I'm wrong.
-----
Max Keon
max...@optusnet.com.au
You know as well as I do that you've never provided one shed of
evidence which falsifies the zero origin concept. Put up or shut
up.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
That takes out your big bang theory.
Now let's see what you have.
-----
Max Keon
Sue...
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
--Lev Okun
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Would it be an oversimplification of your
critique to say:
Because the falling photon interpretation
violates causality, extrapolation from
that interpretation predicts a cause...
about 13 billion year ago.
Or did I read too fast?
Sue...
max...@optusnet.com.au
> On Feb 5, 11:00pm, maxk...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
>
> --Lev Okun
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
>
> Would it be an oversimplification of your
> critique to say:
>
> Because the falling photon interpretation
> violates causality, extrapolation from
> that interpretation predicts a cause...
> about 13 billion year ago.
If I follow what you're saying; yes, it certainly does. The
reverse of the falling photon applies for every photon in
existence at the cause, when the CMBR was released, and they
would be blueshifted as all gravity wells across the expanding
big bang universe weaken.
This is how it's described on the web page:
-The Sachs-Wolfe effect initially makes things worse for the big
-bang theory because the 4000 K blackbody spectrum from all
-gravity wells is redshifted. It's the integrated Sachs-Wolfe
-effect that is dispatched to save the big bang theory. Briefly;
-a photon passing through a well of gravitational potential will
-be blue shifted on the way in and redshifted on the way out, and
-will emerge exactly as it was before the encounter. But if the
-well deepens while the photon is passing through, the photon will
-emerge in a redshifted state.
-
-In the expanding big bang universe, on average, all potential
-wells across the universe are weakening because the total matter
-content is becoming more sparsely distributed. Photons traveling
-the universe from the time of the big bang could be blueshifted
-by as much as they were redshifted at the start, and would arrive
-here today as it was when it began its journey.
> Or did I read too fast?
No. But you've caused me to read it again. My last paragraph
above is very confusing. What I was trying to say is that the
blueshift applied to the photons would counteract the redshift
applied by the expansion. i.e. If the 4000 K spectrum in the
early universe was redshifted to that of a 2.73 K spectrum
today, it would arrive here today with the spectrum of a 2.73 K
radiator.
The whole concept is redundant though because photons are not
red or blue shifted as they climb from or fall to a gravity well.
A fact which has been well proven.
-----
Max Keon