12

# The Red Shift without Expansion

InfraBlue

1
Fri 20 Jan, 2017 10:06 am
@Olli S,
All redshift is is an increase in frequency of electromagnetic radiation. In regard to the expanding universe theory, certain observations of distant cosmic objects conform to the Doppler Effect, the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave (or other periodic event) relative movement between its source and an observer, which lead to idea that the universe is expanding. The theoretical expansion of the universe is not the cause of redshift. Redshift would occur regardless of expansion, e.g. light increases in frequency the longer it travels through space. So, assuming that there was no motion between cosmic objects light from, say, NGC 3109 would still have a much greater frequency than light from NGC 6822.
maxdancona

4
Fri 20 Jan, 2017 06:13 pm
@InfraBlue,
This is wrong in several ways.

1. Red shift represents a decrease in frequency, not an increase.

2. Red shift depends only on the difference in velocity between the two objects. It has nothing to do with how far apart they are.

3. The last sentence is nonsense. If light from one object is red shifted when observed from another object, the light from the second will also be red shifted when observed from the first.

4. The last sentence also implies that the distance matters even if there is "no motion" between the objects. This is nonsense.

You can see the math for yourself. The wikipedia page on redshift is fairly decent. A fair warning, it is mathematical (as any decent article on physics is).

I wish people here would stop making up science.
InfraBlue

0
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 01:21 am
@maxdancona,
Thanks for the correction about frequency and redshift. Redshift is an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. As wavelength increases frequency decreases.

Your wrong about redshift depending on the difference in velocity between two objects. Redshift is about the distance a light source travels to an observer. In regard to cosmological redshift, the Wikipedia article that you reference states that, it is due "to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth." Velocity isn't mentioned at all.

Clearly, you misunderstood the last sentence I wrote. The light recieved from NGC 3109 on Earth has a greater wavelength than the light recieved from NGC 6822 on Earth because of the greater distance the former traveled to Earth as compared to the latter.
centrox

1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 03:08 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
2. Red shift depends only on the difference in velocity between the two objects. It has nothing to do with how far apart they are.
I wish people here would stop making up science.

Yup.
0 Replies

maxdancona

2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 06:18 am
@InfraBlue,
You are wrong Infrablue. I think I see what your error is. I think you are gettig two different concepts confused.

1) The mathematical function for redshift has nothing to do with the distance between the object being measured and the observer. The only thing that matters is the relative velocity. The faster object A is moving from object B, the more it will be redshifted when seen from object B (no matter how far apart they are).

2) Hubble understood point #1 and he noticed something strange. Most (but not all) galaxies that are the farthest from us are redshifted the most. He used this observation to deduce that at one time these galaxies were at the same place.

Not all galaxies fallow this correlation. There are some galaxies that are moving faster away from us even though they are closer (and thus they display a greater redshift). And there are a couple galaxies that are moving towards us and display a blue shift; The Andromeda galaxy is the most famous example.

The first point is a Physical law. The red shift measured is a function of the velocity between a light source and its observer..

The second point is an observation that points to the fact that there was a Big Bang.

The second point comes from the first. You are apparently confusing the two.

layman

1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 06:35 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

2) Hubble understood point #1 and he noticed something strange. Most (but not all) galaxies that are the farthest from us are redshifted the most.

And this observation caused Einstein to renounce what he then called his "biggest mistake." i.e., the ad hoc positing of a "cosmological constant" which was a bogus "anti-gravitational" force.

Funny thing is, physicists have now once again resorted to this bogus construct, calling it "dark energy."

Such is your hallowed "mainstream science," eh, Max?

Ptolemy, with his "epicycles," was no match for current "cosmologists" when it comes to inventing ridiculous explanations in order to save their cherished theories, eh?
layman

0
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 06:53 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

And this observation caused Einstein to renounce what he then called his "biggest mistake." i.e., the ad hoc positing of a "cosmological constant" which was a bogus "anti-gravitational" force.

You can't blame poor Al, though. After all, he had to make the "math" work out somehow, and still create a "static universe." And, by God, once he tinkered with the math to suit his needs, it was all perfectly consistent!

What's that tell ya about math vs. physics, I wonder?

Anything, Max?
Olli S

-2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:26 am
@maxdancona,
Well, but thinking of mathematics, why not develop the mathematics of a limitless space?

Put the philosophical thoughts of an infinite space to an exact, sophisticated, modern, high level mathematical model that you love so much. A space where there is no edge and all is there, no outside, no time, just the space where all is.

Then from the astronomy, from the physics, put the galaxies to move and develop, in their space- time, there in the everlasting universe of this space. It is possible when you estimate a radius for it.

The movements of the galaxies have no effect to this space. They can move as they move, and for their movements we find from astronomy the empirical explanations that we don't yet exactly know.

So you see the axioms have meaning for the interpretations of the evidence. The mathematics is not enough, and it, in high level, is only necessarily needed for practicing astronomers.
0 Replies

Olli S

-2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:29 am
@layman,
Einstein loved more his equations than the eternal universe.
maxdancona

0
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 09:57 am
@Olli S,
Thank you Olli. That is exactly right. Scientists including Einstein have always had to choose mathematics over religious beliefs (such as an eternal Universe).

The conflict between religion and science is what this thread is really about. Splitting physics from mathematics is an attempt to paper over the ways science contradicts religious ideas.
layman

1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:00 am
@Olli S,
Olli S wrote:

Einstein loved more his equations than the eternal universe.

Naw. Al loved his equations, I'm sure, but he knew better than to think that his equations dictated reality, as opposed to reality dictating what his equations should be.

He had a lot of integrity in this respect and was ultimately only concerned was discovering and understanding the underlying physical reality. Unlike some others, he was not enamored by the 'beauty" of some mathematical equations, standing alone.

-1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:01 am
The only question that the OP reminds me of is the thing about light speed being 'constant'. It's said (erroneously?) that it is independent of relative velocity of the source.

Should there be such a thing as red shift then? But obviously there is.
Red shift implies that we are seeing 'slowed down light'? And does that mean red shifted stars are actually further away than we thought?

Just a pesky random thought
0 Replies

layman

2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:03 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Thank you Olli. That is exactly right. Scientists including Einstein have always had to choose mathematics over religious beliefs (such as an eternal Universe).

The conflict between religion and science is what this thread is really about. Splitting physics from mathematics is an attempt to paper over the ways science contradicts religious ideas.

Max, I'm sure you have no idea how misguided, condescending, and presumptuous this is. Not to even mention how WRONG it is, eh?
0 Replies

1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 10:09 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
the ways science contradicts religious ideas.

You are generalizing way too much there. What exactly are the contradictions you speak of? I hope you aren't just taking cheap shots at the 'young earth/universe' idiots. They are so self contradicting that they don't qualify as a religion in my view (FWTW)
0 Replies

Olli S

-1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 12:39 pm
@maxdancona,
The hypothesis of an eternal universe is not religious. Most religions wrongly say that there is a beginning of the universe, when God created it.

Eternal universe is rational thinking. How could it be otherwise? It is the most probable alternative in something not easily understandable. In fact it is also very difficult to understand what the eternity of the universe really means. In science it is not an axiom of belief but part of a possible theory.

Why you insist it is something religious here? Every happening has its theological, social, psychological, biological and physical reasons. If you believe. If you don't believe, the theological reasons drop out. These are the two ways to understand reality scientifically, and all philosophers do not drop the theology out when some scientists do. In the developments and happenings in the universe I don't see God very much even when he works with our planets developments. It is materialistic and naturalistic thinking that the universe is eternal. The beginning is religious and BB- dogmatic.
0 Replies

Brandon9000

2
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 02:23 am
Max, I salute your stamina as displayed in this thread. I don't think I have that kind of patience anymore.

Now, I think I'll go make up a bunch of nonsense about medicine and start treating myself.
0 Replies

1
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 07:37 am
@Olli S,
Quote:
Einstein loved more his equations than the eternal universe.

That's right, it took awhile, he threw temper tantrums and called the physics of the guy that proved him wrong "abominable". But Einstein finally gave up on his eternal universe when shown the empirical and logical proof that the universe was finite.

I'm not saying you might not have thought it out even deeper than Albert, but you have shown no evidence or logic other than saying 'A finite universe just can't be that way'. You follow the same illogical track as those that say 'abiogenesis is possible by natural causes because it happened."

Don't just deny logical conundrums, Embrace them. Find a logical framework in which they all fit.
InfraBlue

1
Sun 22 Jan, 2017 11:33 pm
@maxdancona,
Thank you for the clarification.
0 Replies

Olli S

1
Mon 23 Jan, 2017 09:34 am
Now we can say that the evidence fits also to the eternal universe. I know that I cannot prove this, but it is very much possible. In Einsteins time this was not visible, and because he loved his equations more than the eternal universe he was indoctrinated as his followers even today.

If the evidence fits also with an eternal universe, this model should be preferred as Einstein too first did, because this kind of model is rationally more sound.

You think that the expanding is empirical fact. It is not. Only the redshift is empirical fact, the expansion is not, expansion follows from the interpretation of the redshift, and its interpretation in the context of the prevailing theories.
Olli S

1
Mon 23 Jan, 2017 09:46 am
@layman,
He had some thoughts of the reality that are only hypothesis. He thought that the space- time was for the whole universe, also for the space of the whole universe. In the level of the galaxies we cannot separate space, time and particles, they are always together, but it is not a fact of the reality that the space has a time at all.

The wrong axiom is to put the space- time for the whole universe. The space- time is only for the parts of the universe.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King