Big Bang analogy

I have returned from studying wave theory from a sailboat off both Florida coasts. East and West.

Waves are much larger (more amplitude) about 30 miles off Miami when a NNE wind is blowing. However the apparent frequency stays the same. On the boat, not necessarily on the beach.

TCR--- Fred Hoyles "tired light" hypothesis has also been observed in radio transmissions from NASA's "Voyager" and has been mentioned in the tech reviews to point out one place where the effect can be observed. As Voyager travels farther from us the radio waves are red shifted (or otherwise weakened) past the limits of our ability to get information from them.

Problem is that nowhere can I find the arithmetic that would predict how fast light would get tired. Without that little piece of information then the claim (belief?) that the universe is expanding is baseless. ie. religious.
Perhaps a radio techie would know this

Since there are several effects that cause light to lose energy ie "red shift". They are, but not limited to, gravitational effects, (climbing out of a gravity well, speed of time, mechanical effects (space dust) Doppler effects (actual relative motion) dispersion and probably others including perhaps inertial losses---- And since the red shift is so far off when massive objects are concerned (particularly around quasars and you mentioned neutron stars) then I wonder why hasn't this effect been quantified. At least to us peons.

Why is the radiation from an accretion disc not important? As far as I know gravity is directional but unfocussed. From our point of view anything in the neighborhood of the quasar would be affected by its gravity fields. Including EMR of whatever length.

Damn I'm suspicious Or perhaps I should not try to understand God's mysterious ways

Gunga,

I will give you a my "flywheel analogy" vis a vis black holes or creation events.

A flywheel is an energy storing device! A given flywheel can store a given amount of energy. Exceed this amount and you will no longer have a flywheel. That's just simple mechanics

A black hole is an energy storing device. A given black hole can store a given amount of energy. Exceed this amount and you will no longer have a black hole. That's just simple mechanics.

When the flywheel breaks up you will have bits and pieces all over the place. We call it salvage or junk.

When the black hole breaks up you will have bits and pieces all over the place. We call it a galaxy or a universe. Depending on your personal proclivities of course :wink: And your mathematician

Of course this makes any creation event merely one of a long series. You may note that this progression may require the transformation of matter and energies into the state known as quantum mechanics. But it will be natural, orderly, repeating, and predictable.

It does beg the question of a beginning though.

TCR,

You may also notice that the CMBR probes gave the same result as would be expected in the "tired light" explanation.

Light red shifted to the microwave spectrum.

I also suspect that the temperatures published have something to do with the "state" of elemental hydrogen more than any "left over heat" from the BB.

Remember we didn't take a rectal thermometer out there. What we did was find some hydrogen atoms vibrating at a rate that would indicate a temperature of 3.8K. Slower than that we couldn't see simply due to the discreet nature of energy levels. Paul Dirac (I think?) showed that 50-60 years ago.

To make a universe work we have to put it ALL together

i also thought of the big bang as 2 giant entities gettin it on.

Hey Ogionik,

Works about as well as any other! Your hypothesis doesn't break down until you attempt to describe the entities.

Some other theories of origination worked pretty well until somebody had the idea to look for the turtles, read the mind of God, or find evidence of a Designer.

Evidence is a nasty thing to require