PDA

View Full Version : red shift and the not expanding universe


MANTRAPHILTER
09-12-2017, 10:28 PM
Has red shift ever been measured during a solar eclipse? we can only look at stars in the night sky. This means the sun is behind us whenever red shift has been measured in a star or universe or whatever. My point is - red shift has only ever been measured while looking away from the gravitational field of our sun. Just as a stars position is changed due to the gravitational effect of the sun, so also should its red shift, when compared to its non solar eclipse measurement. My theory is that the starlight, traveling as a wave, expands as it enters the gravitational field of our sun, and compresses as it exits the gravitational field of the sun. since we can only see stars in the night sky, our perspective is limited by our position in the gravitational field of our sun and the planet closest to what ever telescope is observing it. In order to get a true measurement of the red shift, wouldn't we have to be able to compare both measurements? This might call into question weather or not red shift really means that our universe is expanding.

snfaulkner
09-12-2017, 10:33 PM
Yay! You're back!

friedo
09-12-2017, 10:51 PM
Has red shift ever been measured during a solar eclipse? we can only look at stars in the night sky.


With optical telescopes, yes. But radiotelescopes have no problem operating during the day.


This means the sun is behind us whenever red shift has been measured in a star or universe or whatever. My point is - red shift has only ever been measured while looking away from the gravitational field of our sun.

Nope. Redshift is a bit of a misnomer, because it implies that we're just talking about visible light, which is a very small piece of the electromagnetic spectrum. But the downshift of frequencies is observed across the entire spectrum.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-12-2017, 11:19 PM
so your saying the radio telescope that measures the red shift is pointing at the sun and measuring the red shift as the light travels past our sun and into the radio telescope along with the sunlight?

t-bonham@scc.net
09-12-2017, 11:31 PM
Has red shift ever been measured during a solar eclipse? we can only look at stars in the night sky. That's nonsense!

Astronauts on the way to the moon, or standing on the moons' surface could see stars during the daytime. The crew on the space station can see stars during the daytime. Heck, over 50 years ago, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin could see stars during the daytime.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-12-2017, 11:48 PM
if the entire spectrum of light down shifts, it could be explained by the expansion of all the frequencies as they enter the gravitational field of our sun and our perspective in it, giving the appearance that things are moving away, when actually, the frequencies are only expanding relative to the space they are entering. The same way audio frequencies appear higher as the car moves towards you, and lower as the car moves away from you. Our perspective of the light spectrum is not unique to the observer. It is owned by the largest mass that is effecting space in our relative position, the sun.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-12-2017, 11:55 PM
That's nonsense!

Astronauts on the way to the moon, or standing on the moons' surface could see stars during the daytime. The crew on the space station can see stars during the daytime. Heck, over 50 years ago, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin could see stars during the daytime.

Regardless of day or night relativity still applies, your statement suggests that they could see the stars moving away, and do not need any other evidence that the universe is expanding.

engineer_comp_geek
09-12-2017, 11:56 PM
I'll give you some points for creativity, but your theory doesn't work. According to your theory, the red shift is a result of our sun, which would provide the same red shift for all light being affected by its gravity. What we actually have observed is that more distant object are red shifted further.

Your theory needs some work.

Derleth
09-12-2017, 11:56 PM
Every time there's a news story based on a survey, people immediately pipe up with things the survey might not have controlled for, confounding factors they can think of in the five minutes it takes them to read the headline which they're certain are worthy of mention in the thread about the article because, hey, this might invalidate the whole thing! This could blow the idea wide open! This could change everything!

It's impossible to imagine the people who worked on the study could have thought of any of those things. It's utterly beyond the ken of mortal commentator that people who are familiar with a field might have some insight into it, and could potentially run a study without ignoring age or height or any of the other factors most adults have on a driver's license. No, what those experts lack is someone who learned everything they know about their field from what they noticed out of the corner of their eye as they raced from the article itself to the forum or comment section, heady with the confounding factor to undo months or years of work.

My point is, after you can explain why this comic is wrong (https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/54:_Science) you can tell us why every cosmologist who supports the Big Bang is incorrect and what predictions your model has made which are anywhere near as successful.

Darren Garrison
09-13-2017, 05:51 AM
It's impossible to imagine the people who worked on the study could have thought of any of those things. It's utterly beyond the ken of mortal commentator that people who are familiar with a field might have some insight into it, and could potentially run a study without ignoring age or height or any of the other factors most adults have on a driver's license. No, what those experts lack is someone who learned everything they know about their field from what they noticed out of the corner of their eye as they raced from the article itself to the forum or comment section, heady with the confounding factor to undo months or years of work.

The problem with all of those so called "experts" is that they rely on math, and math is a whole pile of worthless crap. To learn more about this, you might want to browse this previous thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823779) if you missed it.

Chronos
09-13-2017, 06:11 AM
If cosmological redshift really were due to the gravitational effects of the Sun, then during a solar eclipse would be the worst possible time to measure it, because that's when our lines of sight are passing most deeply through the Sun's gravity.

Fubaya
09-13-2017, 06:52 AM
I'm not familiar enough with astronomy to provide direct evidence, I think radio telescopes pretty much take care of that, however, there is such a thing as gravitational redshift and it was astronomers who discovered it. I can't imagine how they could have discovered the different types of redshift and spent 100 years studying it without realizing which type is which.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-13-2017, 07:23 AM
If cosmological redshift really were due to the gravitational effects of the Sun, then during a solar eclipse would be the worst possible time to measure it, because that's when our lines of sight are passing most deeply through the Sun's gravity.

the point is - the light wave, as it travels, in three dimensions, expands and contracts through the various gravitational fields it encounters. The gravitational field is representative of whatever mass is creating it, including density of the mass. Measuring red shift during a lunar eclipse, as the moon blocks the sun, would allow you to measure the star light wave as it is on its way past the sun, instead of approaching it. Then you would be able to compare it to the measurement of the same starlight as it approaches the sun, and get a more accurate idea of what is really going on.

Grey
09-13-2017, 07:51 AM
Well then you'd see periodic variation in the apparent shift of EM wavelengths at night as the bloody moon moves across the sky.

Hari Seldon
09-13-2017, 08:31 AM
One star that we can surely study during daytime is good old Sol and we know that there is no discernible shift from it since we can directly compare spectra from it with spectral lines on Terra. A good example is helium, but there are other lines we can see on the sun.

QuickSilver
09-13-2017, 08:48 AM
the point is - the light wave, as it travels, in three dimensions, expands and contracts through the various gravitational fields it encounters. The gravitational field is representative of whatever mass is creating it, including density of the mass. Measuring red shift during a lunar eclipse, as the moon blocks the sun, would allow you to measure the star light wave as it is on its way past the sun, instead of approaching it. Then you would be able to compare it to the measurement of the same starlight as it approaches the sun, and get a more accurate idea of what is really going on.

First things first: Lunar eclipse vs Solar eclipse (http://www.moonconnection.com/lunar_vs_solar.phtml).

A lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth passes between the Moon and the Sun, and the Earth's shadow obscures the moon or a portion of it. A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun, blocking all or a portion of the Sun.

Now that that's settled, are you suggesting that gravitational effect on light due to the sun varies during an eclipse?

We have to put a stop to all these light waves coming and going until we can find out what is really going on!

LSLGuy
09-13-2017, 09:01 AM
The hamsters ate my nice post. The one that began "I'm not sure why I'm bothering but ...".

Now I'm not bothering except to say that everything the OP has said is not only unphysical, it's anti-physical.

QuickSilver
09-13-2017, 09:06 AM
Fortunately for OP, pseudo-science explains everything science does not.

watchwolf49
09-13-2017, 09:34 AM
<drooling pseudo-snarkie>

The speed of light, c, is slowing down over time ... everything in the universe it stationary with respect to everything else in the universe ... these distant objects only appear to be moving away from us when in fact the light these objects emitted oh so long ago is actually moving faster ... dE/dt = c2 ∂m/∂t + 2mc ∂c/∂t ...

</drooling pseudo-snarkie>

I came across this theory in the editorial section of some science magazine about 20 years ago ... the author was bemoaning that the entire physics community was locked into just one view of the universe and that this was bad for the scientific method ... someone somewhere should be trying to falsify GR if for no other reason to show that GR can be falsified ... C'mon, the above (pseudo-)theory isn't any crazier than the expansion of the universe is still accelerating, talk about bozo ideas ...

The OP is just on a fishing expedition, whether he's right or wrong at least he's trying ... and someone should be trying ... if the experts aren't, then us lessers must ...

Francis Vaughan
09-13-2017, 09:47 AM
Light from a distant source is only coming towards the gravitational well of the sun if we are observing something straight up in the sky at midnight - or otherwise exactly opposite the sun. The night lasts an average of 12 hours - a little less for useful astronomical work, and during the night we see half the sky. The point being that we can easily observe objects that are quite close to 90 degrees from the direction of the sun. And we measure objects at all intermediate angles. Thoughout the year this angle changes over a large range as well. So if the angle made with the sun direction caused a difference we would see variations in the spectral shift all over the place. We don't.

And yes we do measure the spectra of objects with angles that point some of the way towards the sun - the HST is in space and whilst the target to sun angle is restricted to be greater than 50 degrees, that gives you a very large part of the sky that can be seen at any time - and again, as the year progresses it sees the entire sky as well, so you still expect to see a seasonal variation in spectral shift if the Sun affected the spectra. And again, no such variation is seen.

So, the idea has clear refutation from current observations.

scr4
09-13-2017, 09:48 AM
If the redshift was somehow caused by the Sun's gravitational field, then the redshift would change depending on the angular separation between the sun and the galaxy. It's pretty easy to observe the galaxy when it's 60 degrees away from the Sun (say, 40 degrees above the horizon when the Sun is 20 degrees below), and again, later in the same night, when it's 180 degrees away. We'd have known immediately if that was happening.

scr4
09-13-2017, 09:52 AM
Also, if the Sun's gravitational field was responsible for the redshift, why does it affect the most distant galaxies most, and not affect light from stars?

Blue Blistering Barnacle
09-13-2017, 09:54 AM
In addition to many points raised upthread;

If redshift were due to our sun's gravity, it should look different when looking directly away from the sun versus looking perpendicular to plane of the ecliptic (also in the directions with and opposite direction of travel).

Also, (and I don't know if this is fighting your hypothetical) relativity would predict (very minimal) blue shifting of light coming into a star's gravitational field. In what way does your theory predict that the wavelength should be stretched, rather than compressed?

Ninja'd.

Half Man Half Wit
09-13-2017, 11:35 AM
Moreover, not all galaxies we see are red-shifted. Some (like Andromeda) are blue-shifted, due to the fact that they're actually coming towards us. Also, the cosmic microwave background is blue-shifted in the direction of Earth's travel, and red-shifted in the other. So no, gravitation doesn't cause the redshift of light we observe, since we don't in fact observe all light to be red-shifted.

dtilque
09-13-2017, 01:48 PM
The OP seems to have his own ideosyncratic idea of how gravitational redshift works. It doesn't seem to correspond to how GR says it works, but here's my layman's understanding of the latter.

When light moves into a gravitational field, it blueshifts; when moving out of a field, it redshifts. So light coming from outside the solar system to the Earth is going to be blueshifted by a slight amount. It doesn't actually matter which way it's coming from, it'll have the same blueshifting. Even that perpendicullar to the Sun-Earth line will have the same blueshifting. Star light seen past an eclipsed sun will also have the same blueshifting, by the way. More about that anon.

As far as I know, astronomers ignore this Solar gravitational blueshifting. This is because it's mostly cancelled out. When light leaves a star, it gets redshifted and then gets blueshifted coming into the Solar system. These effects largely cancel each other out. Yes, a more massive star will redshift more than the Sun blueshifts, but the net effect is small. Besides which, it's generally overwhelmed by motion red/blueshifting, which is almost always of a greater magnitude. The same cancellation happens for light from other galaxies, it get's redshifted by the gravity of the other galaxy and then blueshifted by the gravity of ours.

But this is all gravitational redfshifting. The cosmological redshifting is not due to gravity, but rather motion. Things moving towards us get blueshifted, things moving away get redshifted. For stars in our galaxy, roughly equal numbers are red and blue shifted. For galaxies, that's not the case. There's a small number of nearby galaxies that are blueshifted, but the vast majority are redshifted. Because those more distant are redshifted more than those closer, plus some other evidence, they've concluded that the universe itself is expanding.

As far as the eclipse goes, as I said it makes no difference. Star light passing near the Sun will be blueshifted even more than that we would see on Earth at other times, but that extra blueshifting will be exactly cancelled out by the redshifting of the light moving away from the sun.

Asympotically fat
09-13-2017, 02:03 PM
the point is - the light wave, as it travels, in three dimensions, expands and contracts through the various gravitational fields it encounters. The gravitational field is representative of whatever mass is creating it, including density of the mass. Measuring red shift during a lunar eclipse, as the moon blocks the sun, would allow you to measure the star light wave as it is on its way past the sun, instead of approaching it. Then you would be able to compare it to the measurement of the same starlight as it approaches the sun, and get a more accurate idea of what is really going on.

Even as you describe it though cosmological red shift should depend on our local gravitational potential in the sun only, meaning we should not see the observed distance relationship and whether the cosmological source is being observed with the Sun "in-between" or behind us it should not make a difference.

Voyager
09-13-2017, 04:22 PM
so your saying the radio telescope that measures the red shift is pointing at the sun and measuring the red shift as the light travels past our sun and into the radio telescope along with the sunlight?

So, what size lens do you think a radio telescope has?

Fubaya
09-13-2017, 06:35 PM
One simple way to determine if this question has merit is to find out how much the sun would shift light and see if it's close to what astronomers measure from the stars. If the sun has enough mass to shift light by X but astronomers measure redshifts that are nowhere near X, then the notion that the sun is causing the redshift if wrong. If astronomers measure redshifts that are in the vicinity of X, the OP might be onto something. Of course, I'm ignoring blueshifts and variations in redshifts and assuming everything is redshifted by a set amount, because that's what the OP appears to do.

Well, I looked it up. The sun's mass produces a gravitational redshift of around 0.633 km/s.

The redshift of a distant galaxy is typically hundreds to tens of thousands of km/s. GNz11, the farthest galaxy we've discovered, has a red shift of 670,000km/s

MANTRAPHILTER
09-13-2017, 06:47 PM
In addition to many points raised upthread;

If redshift were due to our sun's gravity, it should look different when looking directly away from the sun versus looking perpendicular to plane of the ecliptic (also in the directions with and opposite direction of travel).

Also, (and I don't know if this is fighting your hypothetical) relativity would predict (very minimal) blue shifting of light coming into a star's gravitational field. In what way does your theory predict that the wavelength should be stretched, rather than compressed?

Ninja'd.

My theory predicts that the wave length should expand as it approaches the mass of the sun, the compress as it moves away from the sun. problem is - we only observe it as it approaches the sun, due to our position relative in the suns gravitational field. I looked on the web to find out if red shift has ever been measured during the solar eclipse and could only find articles concerned with defining positions of stars concerning proving Einstein's theory.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-13-2017, 06:54 PM
Even as you describe it though cosmological red shift should depend on our local gravitational potential in the sun only, meaning we should not see the observed distance relationship and whether the cosmological source is being observed with the Sun "in-between" or behind us it should not make a difference.

The red shift would also be dependent on every other mass relative to the observation. only the difference probably would not be noticeable. So, the most extreme difference that we might be able to observe should be during the solar eclipse, the same as position.

Grey
09-13-2017, 06:57 PM
My theory predicts that the wave length should expand as it approaches the mass of the sun, the compress as it moves away from the sun. problem is - we only observe it as it approaches the sun, due to our position relative in the suns gravitational field. I looked on the web to find out if red shift has ever been measured during the solar eclipse and could only find articles concerned with defining positions of stars concerning proving Einstein's theory.Actually the experiments are designed to disprove GR, they just happen to confirm it due to GR being fantastically correct.

As for your theory it completely fails to take into account the lack of variation due to the numerous points raised above. If you have specific objects to one of them, pick it, present why it confuses you and we'll get back to you.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-13-2017, 07:31 PM
One simple way to determine if this question has merit is to find out how much the sun would shift light and see if it's close to what astronomers measure from the stars. If the sun has enough mass to shift light by X but astronomers measure redshifts that are nowhere near X, then the notion that the sun is causing the redshift if wrong. If astronomers measure redshifts that are in the vicinity of X, the OP might be onto something. Of course, I'm ignoring blueshifts and variations in redshifts and assuming everything is redshifted by a set amount, because that's what the OP appears to do.

Well, I looked it up. The sun's mass produces a gravitational redshift of around 0.633 km/s.

The redshift of a distant galaxy is typically hundreds to tens of thousands of km/s. GNz11, the farthest galaxy we've discovered, has a red shift of 670,000km/s

I understand that there are varying degrees of red shift dependent on velocity, duh! I'm only saying that all light in the spectrum should shift in one direction when observed approaching the sun's mass, and shift in the other direction when moving away from the suns mass. but you would have to be able to observe the effect from both positions at the same time to compare the difference, if there is a difference at all. If there is no difference, my theory would be wrong.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-13-2017, 07:42 PM
Actually the experiments are designed to disprove GR, they just happen to confirm it due to GR being fantastically correct.

As for your theory it completely fails to take into account the lack of variation due to the numerous points raised above. If you have specific objects to one of them, pick it, present why it confuses you and we'll get back to you.

My theory does not require GR to be wrong. My theory takes GR further in showing how gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and magnetism, are all side effects of the effect that matter has as it occupies space.

Chronos
09-13-2017, 08:38 PM
There is a gravitational blueshift from light coming deeper into the Sun's gravitational field, but it's the same in all directions, because we're always the same distance from the Sun. You're trying to describe the Sun's gravitational field like one of those Escher drawings with people going around a rectangular staircase and always walking down steps.

Fubaya
09-13-2017, 08:49 PM
I understand that there are varying degrees of red shift dependent on velocity, duh! I'm only saying that all light in the spectrum should shift in one direction when observed approaching the sun's mass, and shift in the other direction when moving away from the suns mass. but you would have to be able to observe the effect from both positions at the same time to compare the difference, if there is a difference at all. If there is no difference, my theory would be wrong.

You must have missed the part of my post where I said that the sun does create a redshift. It shifts by .633 km/s. This is known. If they are looking at something with a redshift at 0.3 km/s, then you definitely have a point. The sun causes a redshift that's enough to completely screw up that measurement. Otherwise, it's negligible.

There are catalogues of thousands upon thousands of objects in the universe with their redshift listed. Practically none fall within that 0.6km/s range while. Here is just one section of a list of 3000 objects surveyed. These are the redshifts listed in "z." z is the the speed an object is redshifted relative to the speed of light (look up the redshift formula for more info). This is easily converted into km/s, but I'm too lazy. The numbers less than zero are actually blueshifts.

0.03002
2.247
0.116
0.01329
0.009
0.00584
2.6E-4
0.345
0.28401
0.05835
0.189
0.646
0.443
0.72802
0.01289
1.84043
1.9416
2.01004
1.85467
1.7703
2.10481

Ok, the sun's gravitational redshift of .633km/s equates to 0.000002 in "z." So, how does that effect any of these?

MANTRAPHILTER
09-13-2017, 11:52 PM
You must have missed the part of my post where I said that the sun does create a redshift. It shifts by .633 km/s. This is known. If they are looking at something with a redshift at 0.3 km/s, then you definitely have a point. The sun causes a redshift that's enough to completely screw up that measurement. Otherwise, it's negligible.

There are catalogues of thousands upon thousands of objects in the universe with their redshift listed. Practically none fall within that 0.6km/s range while. Here is just one section of a list of 3000 objects surveyed. These are the redshifts listed in "z." z is the the speed an object is redshifted relative to the speed of light (look up the redshift formula for more info). This is easily converted into km/s, but I'm too lazy. The numbers less than zero are actually blueshifts.

0.03002
2.247
0.116
0.01329
0.009
0.00584
2.6E-4
0.345
0.28401
0.05835
0.189
0.646
0.443
0.72802
0.01289
1.84043
1.9416
2.01004
1.85467
1.7703
2.10481

Ok, the sun's gravitational redshift of .633km/s equates to 0.000002 in "z." So, how does that effect any of these?

The effect would be miniscule. The only thing I am left wondering is, the location of the instrument that measured the suns redshift effect. Wouldn't the measurement of that effect also be relative to the position of the instrument in the gravitational field that it is measuring, or is this calculation based on only mathematical formulas. this whole argument frustrates me, every time you inject relativity in to it, it's like a snake eating its own tale.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-14-2017, 01:31 PM
The OP seems to have his own ideosyncratic idea of how gravitational redshift works. It doesn't seem to correspond to how GR says it works, but here's my layman's understanding of the latter.

When light moves into a gravitational field, it blueshifts; when moving out of a field, it redshifts. So light coming from outside the solar system to the Earth is going to be blueshifted by a slight amount. It doesn't actually matter which way it's coming from, it'll have the same blueshifting. Even that perpendicullar to the Sun-Earth line will have the same blueshifting. Star light seen past an eclipsed sun will also have the same blueshifting, by the way. More about that anon.

As far as I know, astronomers ignore this Solar gravitational blueshifting. This is because it's mostly cancelled out. When light leaves a star, it gets redshifted and then gets blueshifted coming into the Solar system. These effects largely cancel each other out. Yes, a more massive star will redshift more than the Sun blueshifts, but the net effect is small. Besides which, it's generally overwhelmed by motion red/blueshifting, which is almost always of a greater magnitude. The same cancellation happens for light from other galaxies, it get's redshifted by the gravity of the other galaxy and then blueshifted by the gravity of ours.

But this is all gravitational redfshifting. The cosmological redshifting is not due to gravity, but rather motion. Things moving towards us get blueshifted, things moving away get redshifted. For stars in our galaxy, roughly equal numbers are red and blue shifted. For galaxies, that's not the case. There's a small number of nearby galaxies that are blueshifted, but the vast majority are redshifted. Because those more distant are redshifted more than those closer, plus some other evidence, they've concluded that the universe itself is expanding.

As far as the eclipse goes, as I said it makes no difference. Star light passing near the Sun will be blueshifted even more than that we would see on Earth at other times, but that extra blueshifting will be exactly cancelled out by the redshifting of the light moving away from the sun.

You have an understanding of my theory but, you have it backwards. A mass distorts the space around it, that distortion is an opposite representation of the density of the mass. Any light moving through the distortion would expand, (red shift) as it approaches the mass, and then compress as it moves away from the mass, (blue shift). if a mass does not have changes in its density, such as a proton, the distortion of space would not be gradual. When the light wave enters the distortion, it has an abrupt expansion, and can not compress to escape the distortion. I think this is how protons get their charge. I also think the same process is going on in a black hole, and is the reason for the magnetic field around the black hole.

Lemur866
09-14-2017, 01:46 PM
Except there's no abrupt boundary to the gravitational field, it's a smooth curve and varies by well known physics explained by Newton.

You are correct that light can be red-shifted or blue-shifted to various observers based on their particular position within a gravity field. But as has been explained to you, the amount the sun will redshift photons is very small compared to the redshift we see from very distant galaxies.

And you still haven't acknowledged that the redshift we see in distant objects is proportional to their distance, which was discovered famously by Hubble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

If redshift was caused only by the sun, then light from every source outside the solar system would be shifted the same amount. And in fact it is, as was explained. But this redshift is very small compared to the actually observed redshift we see from distant sources.

The only explanation of Hubble's Law that makes sense is if these distant objects are moving away from us, and the simplest physical explanation of that is that the universe is expanding. You could explain it in other ways--the universe could stay the same size but everything in the universe is shrinking, for example. But that's a funny explanation, and it makes more sense to just say that the universe is expanding.

Ornery Bob
09-14-2017, 02:10 PM
I feel ripped off. I'm pretty sure the only photons I get to see are the ones entering my eyes. I never get to see these photons moving away from me.

Exapno Mapcase
09-14-2017, 02:15 PM
When the light wave enters the distortion, it has an abrupt expansion, and can not compress to escape the distortion. I think this is how protons get their charge. I also think the same process is going on in a black hole, and is the reason for the magnetic field around the black hole.

Light and all other electromagnetic radiation is composed of photons. Where are you getting protons from?

K364
09-14-2017, 02:35 PM
In the vicinity of the Earth, the Sun's gravitational field is the third most powerful. By far, the Earth's is the most powerful followed by the Moon.

Darren Garrison
09-14-2017, 03:04 PM
Light and all other electromagnetic radiation is composed of photons. Where are you getting protons from?

Look at the first post in his first thread here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823779). He thinks that a proton is a neutron that has absorbed a photon.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-14-2017, 03:35 PM
Except there's no abrupt boundary to the gravitational field, it's a smooth curve and varies by well known physics explained by Newton.

You are correct that light can be red-shifted or blue-shifted to various observers based on their particular position within a gravity field. But as has been explained to you, the amount the sun will redshift photons is very small compared to the redshift we see from very distant galaxies.

And you still haven't acknowledged that the redshift we see in distant objects is proportional to their distance, which was discovered famously by Hubble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

If redshift was caused only by the sun, then light from every source outside the solar system would be shifted the same amount. And in fact it is, as was explained. But this redshift is very small compared to the actually observed redshift we see from distant sources.

The only explanation of Hubble's Law that makes sense is if these distant objects are moving away from us, and the simplest physical explanation of that is that the universe is expanding. You could explain it in other ways--the universe could stay the same size but everything in the universe is shrinking, for example. But that's a funny explanation, and it makes more sense to just say that the universe is expanding.

1-I never said I think red shift is only caused by the suns gravity field. 2- distant galaxies that show redshift means that they are moving away from us. If you believe that it means the universe is expanding, that is your belief, (religion), NOT a proven fact. I am not saying that the universe is not expanding, just that I am not completely convinced by the evidence.

dtilque
09-14-2017, 03:39 PM
You have an understanding of my theory but, you have it backwards.

No I don't have an understanding of your "theory", neither foward nor backwards. What I said was what GR says. If your theory counterdicts GR on this, it's likely total bunk.

If your "theory" says that light coming into the solar system is heavily redshifted, then how do you account for the fact that half of all stars are blueshifted?

MANTRAPHILTER
09-14-2017, 03:41 PM
In the vicinity of the Earth, the Sun's gravitational field is the third most powerful. By far, the Earth's is the most powerful followed by the Moon.

exactly! all of the masses are held in place by each others gravitational field, So, how does this disprove my theory?

Dallas Jones
09-14-2017, 03:46 PM
You are my density.

Lemur866
09-14-2017, 03:50 PM
So, your theory is that distant galaxies are moving away from us, but the universe itself isn't expanding. OK.

What does that have to do with red shift? Your first post was about how maybe the apparent red-shift is really caused by the gravity of the sun, and that maybe if we observed stars in the direction of the sun (during an eclipse) rather than away from the sun (like at night) we wouldn't see a red shift.

Except it turns out not to be the case.

We see a red-shift for all distant objects, no matter where they are in the sky in relation to the sun. And we observe a wavelength shift due to the sun's gravity, but it is very small compared to the shift we see in distant galaxies.

All distant galaxies are red-shifted, which can only be explained if all those galaxies are moving away from us. And since the more distant a galaxy is, the greater the red shift the only explanation is that everything is moving away from everything else. That means an expanding universe.

Or do you deny Hubble's observations? It seems like you don't, right? But the problem is that you don't have an alternative explanation except, "maybe it's wrong".

MANTRAPHILTER
09-14-2017, 03:59 PM
No I don't have an understanding of your "theory", neither foward nor backwards. What I said was what GR says. If your theory counterdicts GR on this, it's likely total bunk.

If your "theory" says that light coming into the solar system is heavily redshifted, then how do you account for the fact that half of all stars are blueshifted?

I do not recall saying heavily redshifted.

A shift in the spectrum can occur without moving it into the red.

It sounds to me like you are repeating things you have learned. Memorizing is a form of knowledge. but I am not sure if you really understand the concept of GR. I do not mean this as an insult, although you will probably take it that way.

If distant galaxies show red shift and it means that the universe is expanding. Then by the same reasoning. the local stars that show blue shift means that our galaxy is imploding. ohhh nooo.

Voyager
09-14-2017, 04:07 PM
If distant galaxies show red shift and it means that the universe is expanding. Then by the same reasoning. the local stars that show blue shift means that our galaxy is imploding. ohhh nooo.

Local stars are in orbit around the center of our galaxy like the Sun. What was said was that some nearby galaxies were blue shifted. And my understanding is that they will collide with our galaxy in a few billion years or so.

Are you aware that the red shift is not constant, but increases with distance, just as predicted by an expanding universe?

Lemur866
09-14-2017, 04:17 PM
"Red-shifted" of course does not mean literally shifted into the portion of the visible light spectrum we hu-mons call "red". It just means shifted toward a longer wavelength, the same as blue-shifted just means shifted toward a shorter wavelength.

A gamma ray can be red-shifted to the x-ray band of the spectrum, or a radio wave can be blue-shifted to a microwave, or a blue visible light photon can be red-shifted to yellow.

The thing about our local galaxy is that when we look at all the local stars some are moving towards the sun and are blue-shifted, and some are moving away and are red-shifted and some aren't moving much at all relative to us. So there's no trend of contraction of expansion of our galaxy. And the same is true for near galaxies, as was stated Andromeda is moving towards us and we'll eventually merge with it billions of years in the future.

So in our galaxy everything is just orbiting around the center, some stars get closer or farther because each star is in its own individual orbit. And our local cluster of galaxies is also gravitationally bound to each other. It's only the distant galaxies that are all moving away from us, and the farther away they are the faster they are moving away from us, in a very regular relationship known as the Hubble constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Determining_the_Hubble_constant

Exapno Mapcase
09-14-2017, 05:08 PM
If distant galaxies show red shift and it means that the universe is expanding. Then by the same reasoning. the local stars that show blue shift means that our galaxy is imploding. ohhh nooo.

This makes as much sense as saying that because a pump moves water into your upstairs toilet, the notion that water flows downhill to sea level is therefore wrong.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-14-2017, 06:16 PM
Local stars are in orbit around the center of our galaxy like the Sun. What was said was that some nearby galaxies were blue shifted. And my understanding is that they will collide with our galaxy in a few billion years or so.

Are you aware that the red shift is not constant, but increases with distance, just as predicted by an expanding universe?

I am aware of that, but how do you know that the red shift in the distant galaxies definitely means that our universe is expanding? Could there not be another explanation? Maybe something else is happening to the light spectrum as it travels over a long distance that we just haven't figured out yet. Just accepting that the universe is expanding, is like closing your thought process and not allowing any other idea for an explanation to be explored and is closer to the blind faith of most religions.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-14-2017, 07:18 PM
When a wave encounters a buoy in the ocean, some of the waves energy is absorbed by the buoy, but the wave continues on. A wave of light in three dimensions has also encountered many different buoys as it travels. The longer the distance, the more buoys. Is the wave length effected by its encounters? I do not have all the answers, but, I want to be able to ask the question, and not just accept the answer that is popular for fear of being an outcast.

Voyager
09-14-2017, 08:46 PM
I am aware of that, but how do you know that the red shift in the distant galaxies definitely means that our universe is expanding? Could there not be another explanation? Maybe something else is happening to the light spectrum as it travels over a long distance that we just haven't figured out yet. Just accepting that the universe is expanding, is like closing your thought process and not allowing any other idea for an explanation to be explored and is closer to the blind faith of most religions.

The increased red shift means that things more distance are receding faster, which is pretty much the definition of the universe expanding. Plus, object with huge redshifts like quasars are more primitive than what we see locally, which is reasonable since we are seeing their light from 10 billion years ago or more.
You are free to come up with a hypothesis giving another reason for the red shift observed, but it should be testable. Until then the expanding universe is the best explanation so far, which is why it is provisionally accepted.
Plus we have to mention that another effect of an expanding universe is that in the past it was very small. That resulted in predictions of the cosmic microwave background radiation - and when that was found, and matched the predictions, the Big Bang and the expansion were supported.

If you think this is all a matter of blind faith, you have no clue about how science works. The reason there are few if any steady staters around is evidence, not the result of a holy war.

Exapno Mapcase
09-14-2017, 08:48 PM
I am aware of that, but how do you know that the red shift in the distant galaxies definitely means that our universe is expanding? Could there not be another explanation? Maybe something else is happening to the light spectrum as it travels over a long distance that we just haven't figured out yet. Just accepting that the universe is expanding, is like closing your thought process and not allowing any other idea for an explanation to be explored and is closer to the blind faith of most religions.

Actual physicists have proposed dozens, if not hundreds, of alternative explanations. Other actual physicists have examined the possibilities and decided that they were wrong, or did not account for other phenomena, or did not make predictions which worked out, or in some other way failed to live up to the strict standards of modern science.

Your implication that all the physicists in the world over decades of time simply accept a hypothesis blindly without testing it and evaluating all the other plausible possibilities is insulting to actual working physicists. It is true that they tend to immediately reject implausible alternatives that have no connection with reality. If your alternatives are being rejected that way, well, do the math, so to speak.

Riemann
09-15-2017, 12:31 AM
Actual physicists have proposed dozens, if not hundreds, of alternative explanations....

And it's not as though the Big Bang and the metric expansion of space is an obvious notion for a human living on the surface of the earth, staring up into the night sky! The fact that the model is still so widely misunderstood by the public shows what a bizarre and counterintuitive idea it really is. To accuse the great scientists who developed this model of lacking the imagination to consider other ideas is preposterous. The reason that this astonishing model prevailed is because it's the only one that fits all the evidence.

A starting point of not understanding the evidentiary support for a current theory never leads to overturning it with wild new ideas. It makes you an ignorant crank, nothing more.

Mangetout
09-15-2017, 01:44 AM
My theory predicts that the wave length should expand as it approaches the mass of the sun, the compress as it moves away from the sun. problem is - we only observe it as it approaches the sun, due to our position relative in the suns gravitational field. I looked on the web to find out if red shift has ever been measured during the solar eclipse and could only find articles concerned with defining positions of stars concerning proving Einstein's theory.

If your hypothesis were correct, we would see something different when we look away from the sun perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic vs various directions parallel with it.
We are not in the same place as the sun, therefore we can look at stars when the sun is directly behind us, and later in the season, look at the same stars when the sun is to the side of us - and in those two cases, the starlight reaching us is travelling a different length through the Sun's sphere of influence (in fact, this is the same experiment you propose to do with an eclipse, only using a different set of angles of observation.

Mangetout
09-15-2017, 01:47 AM
I am aware of that, but how do you know that the red shift in the distant galaxies definitely means that our universe is expanding? Could there not be another explanation? Maybe something else is happening to the light spectrum as it travels over a long distance that we just haven't figured out yet. Just accepting that the universe is expanding, is like closing your thought process and not allowing any other idea for an explanation to be explored and is closer to the blind faith of most religions.

Nobody is dismissing ideas out of hand. They are dismissing ideas that are measurably false.
In order to overturn the established view, you don't just need to persuade people to open their hearts to your idea. You need an idea that works.

Channing Idaho Banks
09-15-2017, 03:41 AM
A starting point of not understanding the evidentiary support for a current theory never leads to overturning it with wild new ideas. It makes you an ignorant crank, nothing more.
someone needs a special subtitle.

Mangetout
09-15-2017, 07:51 AM
When a wave encounters a buoy in the ocean, some of the waves energy is absorbed by the buoy, but the wave continues on. A wave of light in three dimensions has also encountered many different buoys as it travels. The longer the distance, the more buoys. Is the wave length effected by its encounters? I do not have all the answers, but, I want to be able to ask the question, and not just accept the answer that is popular for fear of being an outcast.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're missing an important point: the popular answer is only popular because it works

MANTRAPHILTER
09-15-2017, 09:24 AM
Look at the first post in his first thread here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=823779). He thinks that a proton is a neutron that has absorbed a photon.

Yes, I think a particle can either be charged or not charged. When electricity travels through a wire, it goes one direction, and is given a positive designation, when it goes the other direction, it is given a negative designation, but the electricity has not changed, only its direction. An electron is given a negative designation. So people believe that their is some kind of energy that is opposite of a charge, (dark Energy), I call bullshit on this and all the other dark theories that have arisen out of the misconception. These theories are quite imaginative, but they are closer to art, and religion. Modern physicist hold up there math equations the same way preachers do a bible.

Exapno Mapcase
09-15-2017, 09:53 AM
So people believe that their is some kind of energy that is opposite of a charge, (dark Energy)...

No physicist thinks this. None. That is no more dark energy than it is Alvin Dark, the baseball player.

As people keep saying, you have to thoroughly understand current science in order to overthrow it. Starting at the bottom of a pile of ignorance about current science will always leave you in the ... dark.

Francis Vaughan
09-15-2017, 09:54 AM
Ugh, seriously, this is so full of misconceptions about what the theory is as to invoke the "not even wrong" quote. You so badly misunderstand what it is that is in current theory that the claims that it is bullshit are meaningless. Up until now the questions about the nature and cause of red-shit have not been unreasonable. If you look at the history of how the current understanding was gained you will see (as described above) a very large number of competing possibilities suggested, analysed and finally dismissed. All carefully worked through, with their value living and dying on their ability to predict what was actually observed. That they didn't predict what was observed is a big clue.

But seriously, this characterisation of what electricity is the nature of - charge, and the nature of energy (dark or not) - is more akin to the babbling of someone who has heard a few odd terms, and made up their own personal internal stories about what those words mean. Charge is not energy. Not in any form. Nobody thinks there is an opposite energy to charge, because the idea makes exactly no sense. This is simple high school physics. Stuff you can do experiments in your own kitchen to verify.

74westy
09-15-2017, 10:02 AM
In my case the cause of "red-shit" was colitis but it could also be borsht.

Riemann
09-15-2017, 11:22 AM
Let's just underline this point.

There have certainly been times in the history of scientific knowledge where somebody has proposed a radical new theory that initially met with resistance, perhaps even scorn, from the establishment; but the new theory was later shown to be correct.

When this has happened, it has never been the case that the scientist proposing the radical new theory did not understand the old theory as well as anyone else alive.

scr4
09-15-2017, 01:04 PM
Let's just underline this point.

There have certainly been times in the history of scientific knowledge where somebody has proposed a radical new theory that initially met with resistance, perhaps even scorn, from the establishment; but the new theory was later shown to be correct.

When this has happened, it has never been the case that the scientist proposing the radical new theory did not understand the old theory as well as anyone else alive.

And the expanding universe was one of those radical new theories that initially met with significant resistance. It was reluctantly accepted and became a consensus because nobody could come up with another theory that fit all observations. It is highly ironic that some people now think of it as an orthodoxy that is blindly accepted.

Mangetout
09-15-2017, 01:26 PM
Yes, I think a particle can either be charged or not charged. When electricity travels through a wire, it goes one direction, and is given a positive designation, when it goes the other direction, it is given a negative designation, but the electricity has not changed, only its direction. An electron is given a negative designation.
Are you actually asserting that there are not three states of electric charge (positive, neutral, negative)?
Because if you are, it's really trivial to demonstrate that you are wrong.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-15-2017, 11:11 PM
If your hypothesis were correct, we would see something different when we look away from the sun perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic vs various directions parallel with it.
We are not in the same place as the sun, therefore we can look at stars when the sun is directly behind us, and later in the season, look at the same stars when the sun is to the side of us - and in those two cases, the starlight reaching us is travelling a different length through the Sun's sphere of influence (in fact, this is the same experiment you propose to do with an eclipse, only using a different set of angles of observation.
Yes, you would think there would have to be a very slight difference. I do not know if there are instruments delicate enough to detect it. This is why the most extreme difference would have to be measured from the opposite side of the sun from one satellite, (while the wave is expanding) and then from our side of the sun during a solar eclipse, (while the wave is compressing). But if the two satellites were an equal distance from the sun, the difference might still not be detectable due to relativity. Maybe, a solar eclipse is not required. If two satellites were on opposite sides of the sun, at different distances from the sun, and were pointed towards the same star. one pointed away from the sun at the star, and a second, pointed towards the sun but still able to see the star. This second satellite would have to be "far out man" (imagine Tommy Chong).

MANTRAPHILTER
09-15-2017, 11:49 PM
I took my boat out on lake Huron today, I was looking at a buoy in the water and watching the waves as they broke around the buoy. It looked to me like the wave almost stretched around the buoy and then filled the void from the buoy. As the peak of the wave passed, it left a slight bulge in the peak of the wave where the buoy had once been. The bulge was short lived and then disappeared as the momentum of the wave evened everything out again. But I cant help thinking that the wave had some how stretched just a little bit to encompass the buoy as it moved toward the shore. So I tried to imagine the same thing in three dimensions. This is why I have questions about the validity of red shift meaning that our universe is expanding. So if anybody is going to chime in with some fancy mathematical equation explaining wave velocity or angular momentum in defense of there crumbling understanding of the universe, save it. Plain common sense language will do just fine.

Lemur866
09-16-2017, 12:08 AM
Yes, you would think there would have to be a very slight difference. I do not know if there are instruments delicate enough to detect it.
There are, as was explained to you earlier. We can actually detect the amount that light gets distorted by the sun's gravity field, and this has been measured very precisely. However, this value is much smaller than the red shifts we detect in distant galaxies, so it is not the cause of that red shift.

We don't need your setup, we just need to measure the redshift of a star that is 180 degrees opposite the sun and one that is 90 degrees opposite the sun.

Also if we have a detector orbiting the earth, it's very easy to observe things in the direction of the sun, you just put up a little umbrella. That doesn't work on Earth during the day because the atmosphere here is so dense that the whole sky is lit up. But in space, no atmosphere, so a little umbrella is all you need.

As for your idea that the universe is filled with little buoys that disrupt light, well, there are such things, and it is called matter. So there are parts of our galaxy that we can't observe because dust is in the way. If a photon emitted by a distant galaxy smacks into an atom before it reaches Earth, then that photon will never be observed on Earth. When you look up at a star, your eyeball is absorbing photons from that star, and those photons will not continue their journey through interstellar space. They got absorbed by your eyeball.

But the earth is really small, and the universe is mostly empty space even in a galaxy, which is why we can see the stars at all. If there were lots of stuff in the way the galaxy would be opaque and we wouldn't see stars, we'd see diffuse nebulae.

Lots of times the atmosphere on Earth is opaque just like this, and we can't see the stars. Like when the night sky is cloudy, or during the daytime when the atmosphere is scattering so much light from the sun.

But interstellar space isn't transparent in the same way our atmosphere is mostly transparent. There just isn't anything there. No gas, no dust, no molecules, no particles. Even the hypothetical dark matter in galaxies is very diffuse. If you took our sun and scattered it over a couple cubic light years it would be a hard vacuum. Same thing with the amount of dark matter in interstellar space. There's a lot of it in our galaxy, which creates a lot of gravity, but there isn't very much of it per cubic meter of interstellar space.

LSLGuy
09-16-2017, 06:34 AM
...
So if anybody is going to chime in with some fancy mathematical equation explaining wave velocity or angular momentum in defense of there crumbling understanding of the universe, save it. Plain common sense language will do just fine.Gentlemen and ladies: this is the core right here. Our dear friend has repeatedly told us he refuses to listen or learn.

That being the case, I for one am going to go with some sound advice I learned right here on the 'Dope: When someone tells you who they truly are, it's to your advantage to listen then behave accordingly.

Riemann
09-16-2017, 07:53 AM
I took my boat out on lake Huron today...
So if anybody is going to chime in with some fancy mathematical equation explaining wave velocity or angular momentum in defense of there crumbling understanding of the universe, save it. Plain common sense language will do just fine.

How do you find GPS works for you while you're out on your boat? Were you aware that scientists with their crumbling understanding of the universe use the fancy mathematical equations of General Relativity in the GPS system; and that if they did not do so, position errors of the order of 10km would result?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity

Perhaps you should design a replacement GPS system based on your plain common sense ideas?

Exapno Mapcase
09-16-2017, 09:59 AM
I took my boat out on lake Huron today, I was looking at a buoy in the water and watching the waves as they broke around the buoy. It looked to me like the wave almost stretched around the buoy and then filled the void from the buoy. As the peak of the wave passed, it left a slight bulge in the peak of the wave where the buoy had once been. The bulge was short lived and then disappeared as the momentum of the wave evened everything out again. But I cant help thinking that the wave had some how stretched just a little bit to encompass the buoy as it moved toward the shore. So I tried to imagine the same thing in three dimensions. This is why I have questions about the validity of red shift meaning that our universe is expanding. So if anybody is going to chime in with some fancy mathematical equation explaining wave velocity or angular momentum in defense of there crumbling understanding of the universe, save it. Plain common sense language will do just fine.

Here's some plain common sense. Light "waves" (and all electromagnetic "waves"0 are not waves in the same way that water is. You cannot use water waves as an analogy for a stream of photons. Photons do not "bulge." They follow straight lines, i.e. geodesics, i.e. the shortest path between two points. The presence of matter changes the meaning of "straight" because it curves space, i.e. changes what the shortest path is. No bulging, compressing, or any other of your wrong language applies.

How do we know this? Math. Math, math., math, math, math.

Francis Vaughan
09-16-2017, 08:44 PM
This is really the point about reasoning about waves. The equations describing waves come last. Indeed the very basic equations describing periodic waves in water and light are the only thing the two have in common. Everything else is different. Which is why you can't use the behaviour of water to reason about the behaviour of light.

Indeed we only use a wave description to describe light in that it provides a way of predicting the probability that it will do something. Waves on the surface of water on the other hand require a limited set of circumstances, and even then the waves themselves and their behaviour is dependant upon a whole range of factors that light simply doesn't possess. Water waves require that the depth of the water be significantly greater than the wave length. Water is a fluid - it has density and viscosity. The wave motion depends upon both of these. The wave motion you see is a boundary effect - it is one of a number of different wave propagation modes water can sustain. It is not clear at all what sort of boundary effect you can use for light propagation. Water also supports waves in 3D, sound waves underwater for instance. Which behave totally differently to surface waves.
Most importantly, light propagation is described by QED - quantum electrodynamics. In addition to the propagation of the wave in a vacuum, QED tells us how light behaves when it interacts with other things. Like dust particles. And the rules are different. And we know this because we can measure what happens. QED contains a wave component. But it isn't an emergent property dependant upon density, viscosity, a boundary layer, the force of gravity, the depth of the water, all ultimately derived from the statistical mechanics of fluids.

Interstellar and intergalactic space does contain some dust. And the dust does cause the light we see from far away to redden slightly. But, and this is really really important - it does so by removing some of the blue energy from the light. The location of the spectral lines is not changed. The dust act as a simple reddening filter, in exactly the same manner as the light from the Sun is reddened during a sunset. This slight reddening matters if you are trying to use the colour (as opposed to spectral lines) of light from a galaxy to work out its distance. More interestingly, the dust inside a galaxy has a big effect on its colour, and the precise shape of the reddening effect gives clues to the make-up of the dust particles - and turns out to be linked to the age of nature of the galaxy.

QED tells us a great deal (all verified by experiment - and indeed initially driven by experimental results) about how light behaves when interacting with dust. It is all well and good to come up with criticisms of the lack of "common sense" in the descriptions of how this works. However there is nothing more common sense than taking the time to verify with experiments that your description actually works. This has been done, many many times, and QED has the distinction of being the most accurate description of experimental phenomena ever. The rules of science are also simple common sense. If you think you have a new, or better, way of describing the underlying understanding of how something works, you need to propose a way that it can be tested. Your test must be structured so that if your new idea is wrong, the test will fail. If your test works, you have validated you new idea, and the idea gains some chance of being right. If it fails, you are probably wrong. Over the last century we have subjected light to the most rigorous scrutiny imaginable. The rules we have that govern its behaviour are worse than not common sense, they are deeply counter-intuitive. But they pass the most critical common sense test of all. They work, and they have never been contradicted by any experiment. And scientists would love to find a chink in all of this. Find a flaw in QED and you will get a free trip to Stockholm and a nice gold medal for your efforts. Finding the flaw in classical descriptions of how light worked, and showing by experiment that nature of this flaw, was what got Einstein his trip to Stockholm. You can be sure that most scientists have secretly fantasised about repeating that effort.

Blue Blistering Barnacle
09-16-2017, 09:22 PM
In all fairness, the OP was proposing an experiment when he asked his question in the first place.

Colibri
09-17-2017, 12:20 AM
Plain common sense language will do just fine.

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

If common sense explanations were sufficient, the universe would have been explained by the ancient Greeks. They are not.

Exapno Mapcase
09-17-2017, 09:51 AM
Verified.
Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 298, first American edition

Riemann
09-17-2017, 11:25 AM
In all fairness, the OP was proposing an experiment when he asked his question in the first place.

But he has never showed any inclination to modify his crackpot beliefs based on the results of any experiment.

Blue Blistering Barnacle
09-17-2017, 02:10 PM
Well, I guess there's proposing experiments (for someone else to do) and doing experiments (which is harder). Between all that, who's got time to look at results, especially those you don't like.

Riemann
09-17-2017, 02:26 PM
Well, I guess there's proposing experiments (for someone else to do) and doing experiments (which is harder). Between all that, who's got time to look at results, especially those you don't like.

Well, the point is that everything he has proposed has already been done, a vast number of times, and the loophole/discrepancy that he proposed would have been spotted decades ago. Of course, interpreting the results requires math. Perhaps if we used "common sense" instead of fancy math, the truth (sorry the truth) would become clear.

Mangetout
09-18-2017, 07:22 AM
Yes, you would think there would have to be a very slight difference.
Surely your hypothesis should allow you to calculate what you think the difference should be. It needs to do something predictive and testable like that, if you want it to be science.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-19-2017, 05:17 PM
It is frustrating being relegated to the status of idiot just because you are not understood. Every astronomical measurement taken is only relative to the point in space at which it was taken. It is like looking through a pin hole in a piece of paper from ten feet away and describing the universe from what you observe. we have to be able to overcome our position of relativity in order to get a more accurate representation. If mass is distorting space, how do you measure that distortion? This is what my experiment is designed to do. By measuring wave frequencies at one distance as they approach a mass, and then measuring the same wave frequencies from a different distance as they move away from a mass, a formula could be derived that you could apply to your fancy mathematical equation's that you all love so much. Maybe this has already been done and I just don't recognize it in what I find as the confusing language of your mathematics. So if any one is frustrated with what appears to be my rudimentary view of the universe, and feels the need to make snide comments, go ahead. Only, those comments reflect upon you more than I.

Lemur866
09-19-2017, 05:50 PM
What you propose has already been done and you just don't recognize it.

It is true that some of the bizarre and nonsensical things asserted by modern physics go against common sense. The only defense modern physics has to offer is that every experiment we make to try to disprove these silly theories only confirms them.

Math isn't fancy. It's just precise. If you find that mathematics leaves you frustrated and confused, then poking holes in modern physics might not be the best use of your time, because the only way to prove that physicists with their quantum-this and relativity-that are dead wrong about the nature of the universe is to prove that their fancy theories don't match with experimental results.

To do that you'd have to use math. How fast does a ball drop? Does a heavy weight fall faster than a light weight? Do objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force? You can restate equations in words, but that doesn't make it easier to understand. So take Maxwell's equations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations. What exactly is all that complicated math? It just explains how light behaves and unifies the confusing phenomena of light, electricity, and magnetism. If you understand this, then you understand how an electric motor or an electric generator works.

But if you think Maxwell got it all wrong, then it's not enough to just assert that maybe he got it all wrong, and have any scientists since 1862 ever bothered to check? Yes. Yes, they have bothered to check, because these equations are used every single second of every day by engineers. And if the equations didn't work then this mysterious internet we're using to communicate with each other wouldn't work.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-19-2017, 05:55 PM
Here's some plain common sense. Light "waves" (and all electromagnetic "waves"0 are not waves in the same way that water is. You cannot use water waves as an analogy for a stream of photons. Photons do not "bulge." They follow straight lines, i.e. geodesics, i.e. the shortest path between two points. The presence of matter changes the meaning of "straight" because it curves space, i.e. changes what the shortest path is. No bulging, compressing, or any other of your wrong language applies.

How do we know this? Math. Math, math., math, math, math.

You do understand that the light is not moving in a straight line to your eye? It is expanding, and contracting in three dimensional space at every mass it encounters. The point of greatest expansion would be closest to whatever is the largest mass it encounters on its journey. Its greatest contraction would be whatever point that was farthest away from any mass along its journey, and it repeats the process for every mass that it passes. What part of its journey are we observing it at?

Lemur866
09-19-2017, 06:11 PM
The sun's gravity does not explain the red shift we see when we observe distant galaxies.

Do you accept that plain english statement, or not?

Exapno Mapcase
09-19-2017, 06:36 PM
You do understand that the light is not moving in a straight line to your eye? It is expanding, and contracting in three dimensional space at every mass it encounters.

No, I'm afraid I don't realize that. As far as I am aware nobody has ever suggested such a thing other than you. I said above that light does not behave this way, and I said that because all the evidence - giant mountains of data - we've gathered over decades refutes that description. The behavior of light is computable through current established formula and the numbers match to incredible degrees of precision. Those formulas insist that light does move in geodesics , not just to my eye but everywhere, and not just light but all electromagnetic radiation, and not just radiation but massed particles as well, unless they are being artificially accelerated.

You can't simply assert whatever comes into your head and then demand that others prove it true. Especially when others have already done the experiments and come up with answers contradicting yours. The former is sheer pseudoscience, or crankery, or crackpottism, or any of the other names it has been called over the past few hundred years. No pseudoscience has ever magically turned into science. Whenever science is changed it comes from real scientists doing real science with real math. This can never change. You are not changing it. You are, purely and simply, doing it wrong.

Riemann
09-19-2017, 06:54 PM
...what I find as the confusing language of your mathematics...

Once again, there have been scientific revolutions; but no scientific revolution was ever initiated by somebody who did not start out with a comprehensive technical understanding of current science.

You seem to have enough insight to realize that you don't understand physics. Surely you must also understand that it works - that it's not just people (like you) pulling random ideas out of their backsides - but that prevailing theories are supported by vast amounts of research data. And it's the basis for computer chips, mobile phones, GPS satellites, and all endless other technology that you use every day. What on earth makes you suppose that you could, from your position of complete ignorance, understand where there might be flaws in the current theories?

Do you also plan to teach Lionel Messi how to play football, and Beyonce how to shake her booty?

Exapno Mapcase
09-20-2017, 10:14 AM
There's a wonderful snarky quote from Wolfgang Pauli to Werner Heisenberg when they were both just starting out trying to grasp QM and realizing that they had to learn to think differently from what the old textbooks taught.

It's much easier to find one way if one isn't too familiar with the magnificent unity of classical physics. You have a decided advantage there, but then lack of knowledge is no guarantee of success.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-21-2017, 07:29 AM
No, I'm afraid I don't realize that. As far as I am aware nobody has ever suggested such a thing other than you. I said above that light does not behave this way, and I said that because all the evidence - giant mountains of data - we've gathered over decades refutes that description. The behavior of light is computable through current established formula and the numbers match to incredible degrees of precision. Those formulas insist that light does move in geodesics , not just to my eye but everywhere, and not just light but all electromagnetic radiation, and not just radiation but massed particles as well, unless they are being artificially accelerated.

You can't simply assert whatever comes into your head and then demand that others prove it true. Especially when others have already done the experiments and come up with answers contradicting yours. The former is sheer pseudoscience, or crankery, or crackpottism, or any of the other names it has been called over the past few hundred years. No pseudoscience has ever magically turned into science. Whenever science is changed it comes from real scientists doing real science with real math. This can never change. You are not changing it. You are, purely and simply, doing it wrong.

If light is not expanding as it approaches a mass, explain why, when the suns rays shine down upon the earth, they appear to expand as they get closer to the ground.

Grey
09-21-2017, 07:34 AM
The same reason railway lines look like they converge into the distance.

Musicat
09-21-2017, 07:37 AM
If light is not expanding as it approaches a mass, explain why, when the suns rays shine down upon the earth, they appear to expand as they get closer to the ground.By "expand," do you mean "diverge"?

The reason there are few if any steady staters around is evidence, not the result of a holy war.As a side note, I have a book from ca. 1960 that is a collection of serious articles (i.e., Scientific American) by proponents of steady state and big bang theories, which were going head-to-head at the time. Both sides had heavy hitters (Hoyle et al), not cranks. In 1960, it was far from being settled, and this is an example of how science works.

I think I'll go re-read that book sometime, just for shits & giggles.

74westy
09-21-2017, 08:24 AM
If light is not expanding as it approaches a mass, explain why, when the suns rays shine down upon the earth, they appear to expand as they get closer to the ground.

How much expansion did you measure?

Exapno Mapcase
09-21-2017, 09:36 AM
If light is not expanding as it approaches a mass, explain why, when the suns rays shine down upon the earth, they appear to expand as they get closer to the ground.

How does your system explain a laser vs. a flashlight?

Grey
09-21-2017, 10:18 AM
I'm waiting for his system to explain perspective.

DrFidelius
09-21-2017, 10:21 AM
If light is not expanding as it approaches a mass, explain why, when the suns rays shine down upon the earth, they appear to expand as they get closer to the ground.Unless you have a measurement of this apparent expansion then it is nothing but a subjective observer effect.

Shodan
09-21-2017, 10:41 AM
It is frustrating being relegated to the status of idiot just because you are not understood. Even more when it happens because you are understood. Trust me, I know. You do understand that the light is not moving in a straight line to your eye? It is expanding, and contracting in three dimensional space at every mass it encounters. Light doesn't expand and contract - it follows the curvature of space, which is gravity. Massive objects change the curvature of space.

And red shift isn't caused by gravity - it is caused by the recession of the emitter relative to the observer. If the emitter is receding, since light cannot travel slower, it shifts to a lower-energy part of the spectrum. Red light is lower-energy than blue light (roughly speaking). When the emitter is approaching the observer, the emitted light is blue-shifted.

On average, most stars and galaxies are red-shifted, because on average, most of them are moving away from us. Therefore, the universe is expanding.

I have no more knowledge about cosmology than an astronomy course forty years ago, but maybe my very crude level of understanding will make my explanations simple enough. I hope so.

Regards,
Shodan

Darren Garrison
09-21-2017, 11:07 AM
How does your system explain a laser vs. a flashlight?

In his system a dragon with a laser beats an M1A1 with a flashlight.

Unless you have a measurement of this apparent expansion then it is nothing but a subjective observer effect.

I'm guessing that he is thinking of sunbeams (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&q=sunbeam+cloud&oq=sunbeam+cloud) from gaps in clouds.

dtilque
09-21-2017, 03:25 PM
And red shift isn't caused by gravity - it is caused by the recession of the emitter relative to the observer.

Not true that gavity doesn't cause red or blue shifting. But it's usually a very small effect, unless you're near an extremely massive object, such as the humongous black holes found in the center of most large galaxies. Generally, the Doppler shift from motion of bodies is so much greater that gravitational shift is ignored. Furthermore, his "theory" has the shifting from gravity backwards.


On average, most stars and galaxies are red-shifted, because on average, most of them are moving away from us. Therefore, the universe is expanding.

That's not true for stars within our galaxy. They're as likely to be blue- as red-shifted.

MANTRAPHILTER
09-23-2017, 08:51 PM
My theory is that a mass takes up the space that would otherwise occupy the same area that the mass does. This is how the space is warped. this warping of space is, to some extent, opposite of the density of the mass. We all agree that the light of a star changes its position as it travels by a mass. Also that it radiates out in all directions from its mass. My theory says that the sunlight would be entering less space as it travels farther from the mass of the sun. When you look up at the sun, when it is high in the sky on a bright day, notice how the light all pools around the sun, making it very hard to look directly at the surface of the sun, and as you look farther away the effect becomes less. This effect is caused by the compression of the light wave as they are entering the less space farther out. The light waves appear opposite of the way they appear to expand as they enter the space that is being warped by our planet. I suppose you are going to tell me that this effect is also just perspective, like the train tracks moving away from you but opposite. Only thing is we know that the light is traveling towards us. So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind. If I am right, think of a way to prove or disprove, instead of making snide comments about how big of a dumb ass you think I am, or referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.

DrFidelius
09-23-2017, 09:04 PM
My theory is that a mass takes up the space that would otherwise occupy the same area that the mass does. This is how the space is warped. this warping of space is, to some extent, opposite of the density of the mass. We all agree that the light of a star changes its position as it travels by a mass. Also that it radiates out in all directions from its mass. My theory says that the sunlight would be entering less space as it travels farther from the mass of the sun. When you look up at the sun, when it is high in the sky on a bright day, notice how the light all pools around the sun, making it very hard to look directly at the surface of the sun, and as you look farther away the effect becomes less. This effect is caused by the compression of the light wave as they are entering the less space farther out. The light waves appear opposite of the way they appear to expand as they enter the space that is being warped by our planet. I suppose you are going to tell me that this effect is also just perspective, like the train tracks moving away from you but opposite. Only thing is we know that the light is traveling towards us. So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind. If I am right, think of a way to prove or disprove, instead of making snide comments about how big of a dumb ass you think I am, or referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.As we have said before, unless you can quantify your statements (use math) then they are just hot air bullshit.

Riemann
09-23-2017, 09:55 PM
...So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind.

I think you left out the word "sheeple" here.

...how big of a dumb ass you think I am...

Not so much a big dumb ass, more a crackpot. Since this is GQ, here is the cite:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

From memory, I'm pretty sure you have scored with #2,3,4,5,6,15,18,24,27,28,34,36 & 37.

...referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.

Yes, that would be close to #15; although rejecting mathematics altogether is novel. Shall we describe the behavior of the universe using the medium of song?

Exapno Mapcase
09-23-2017, 10:29 PM
Not so much a big dumb ass, more a crackpot. Since this is GQ, here is the cite:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

From memory, I'm pretty sure you have scored with #2,3,4,5,6,15,18,24,27,28,34,36 & 37.

I was going to add up how many points were scored, but these stumped me:
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
There are so many of each that counting becomes tedious. And do we have to go through every post or can we just limit the scoring to the most recent one? Besides, I think that the scoring system is broken by sentences that are pure gibberish. Are those vacuous, false, or higher point value?

Francis Vaughan
09-23-2017, 11:29 PM
Science asks this of you. Propose an experiment that your theory predicts one answer to that existing theories predict a different answer to.

Now you are suggesting that the manner in which space is warped is due to the volume of the mass, and not any other aspect. You will need to define what you mean by a mass's volume, as clearly a cloud of gas has a different mass to a lump of rock of the same size. But you have already made a prediction that is not that made by relativity. (Actually you have made a prediction that pretty much contradicts relativity.) Relativity bends space by the mass-energy tensor. Not just the mass. Relativity says that in addition to the mass, you need to add in all the other energy in the object to work out the total curvature of space-time.

Anyway, before you can get further, you need to work though a few simple predictions your theory makes. You can start with gravity. Since you are bending space, you are clearly defining the gravitational forces via this, and you should thus be able to come up with a way of explaining gravitational attraction in the same manner as Relativity does, but via the way your mass's volume bends space. Minimally you should be able to come up with a way of deriving an expression for the attraction between two objects based upon the volume of the two objects. You can test it by predicting the orbital paths of planets. Rocky ones, gas giants, and Mercury. Especially Mercury.

Now, given the different way you define the way space is warped, you should have a different prediction to that of Relativity. Or, alternatively, you handwave it away, and say that your theory, ab-initio comes up with the same predictions as Relativity. In this case you don't have a theory. It is just navel gazing.

But, and this is key, you need to get your idea to the point where it makes predictions. You minimally have to say how much and in what manner your theory bends space. And, that is going to require mathematics. Maybe simple stuff to start with, but unless you have some way of quantifying what you are suggesting it also remains navel gazing.

It isn't up to us to work out what you mean, and given the tiny amount of content there is, it isn't possible to anyway. Minimally, define the volume of a mass. (Hint, it is going to be a lot harder than you imagine.) And do so in a manner that isn't essentially a way of re-using Relativity with different words, but actually comes up with new science.

Colibri
09-24-2017, 12:28 AM
My theory is that a mass takes up the space that would otherwise occupy the same area that the mass does. This is how the space is warped. this warping of space is, to some extent, opposite of the density of the mass. We all agree that the light of a star changes its position as it travels by a mass. Also that it radiates out in all directions from its mass. My theory says that the sunlight would be entering less space as it travels farther from the mass of the sun. When you look up at the sun, when it is high in the sky on a bright day, notice how the light all pools around the sun, making it very hard to look directly at the surface of the sun, and as you look farther away the effect becomes less. This effect is caused by the compression of the light wave as they are entering the less space farther out. The light waves appear opposite of the way they appear to expand as they enter the space that is being warped by our planet. I suppose you are going to tell me that this effect is also just perspective, like the train tracks moving away from you but opposite. Only thing is we know that the light is traveling towards us. So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind. If I am right, think of a way to prove or disprove, instead of making snide comments about how big of a dumb ass you think I am, or referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.

Moderating

You've been given many factual answers to your questions, which you refuse to accept as valid. What you consider "bullshit mathematical nonsense" is actually science. Since you do not accept the factual answers to your questions, I see little point in continuing this discussion. This is closed. Enough is enough.

Do not start addition threads in this forum unless you are prepared to accept factual and scientific responses to your questions.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator