Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Critics
ramoss
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 121 of 130 (342327)
08-22-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-22-2006 6:04 AM


Have you investigated the reliablity of either of those sites. Neither are have any accademic veracity. One is run by a businessman with ecllectic tastes, the other is selling a conspiracy by scientist book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-22-2006 6:04 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 130 (342367)
08-22-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-22-2006 6:04 AM


quote:
Exactly what red shift indicates has been in question for some time.
Not really. I am aware that some people think that they have "alternatives", but the alternatives of which I am aware are either untestable, or when they are testable have failed the tests to which they have been subjected. The conventional cosmological theories have been well substantiated by the evidence that has been collected in the near century since the Big Bang theory was proposed.
-
quote:
Evidence has nothing to do with theory.
But evidence has everything to do with substantiating or refuting a theory. Theories stand or fall based on how well they conform to reality, which is judged by whether predicted phenomena are observed.
-
quote:
There is to much unsettled in this area to place all our eggs in one basket.
Unfortunately, we have no choice. According to the evidence the basket definitely exists, and we have no other basket at this moment.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-22-2006 6:04 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 130 (342747)
08-23-2006 11:32 AM


Redshift
How is the redshift of light frequency explained with respect to relativity?
Is the redshift we observe due to the relative motion between the two objects?
Does the relativity theory tell us that such motion is detectable?
Joman.

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2006 1:13 PM Joman has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 130 (342764)
08-23-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Joman
08-23-2006 11:32 AM


Re: Redshift
quote:
Is the redshift we observe due to the relative motion between the two objects?
Yes. In fact, I have done experiments in undergraduate physics lab courses in detecting doppler shifting of spectra (like the Mossbauer Effect). The doppler shift is real and is detectable. (Since the motion is due to the expansion of space, General Relativity might give a different calculated value for the shift than Special Relativity -- one of the resident Relativity experts would know better.)

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 11:32 AM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 3:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 130 (342791)
08-23-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Chiroptera
08-23-2006 1:13 PM


Re: Redshift
quote:
Yes. In fact, I have done experiments in undergraduate physics lab courses in detecting doppler shifting of spectra (like the Mossbauer Effect). The doppler shift is real and is detectable.
Chiroptera,
Thank you for your response.
If one assumes that all is exanding then, wouldn't the wavelength of the light widen on it's journey across the cosmos between two objects?
And, if the measuring stick used to determine the wavelength also expanded appropriately then, the expansion of the wavelength would remain observationally nulled.
But, if that is true, then the measured redshifts are not due to expansion and can't be used to describe nor predict the possible expansion of the universe, can it?
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2006 1:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2006 4:43 PM Joman has replied
 Message 127 by Parasomnium, posted 08-23-2006 5:02 PM Joman has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 130 (342812)
08-23-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Joman
08-23-2006 3:37 PM


Re: Redshift
quote:
If one assumes that all is exanding then, wouldn't the wavelength of the light widen on it's journey across the cosmos between two objects?
Yes. This, in fact, is the cause of the red shift.
-
quote:
And, if the measuring stick used to determine the wavelength also expanded appropriately then, the expansion of the wavelength would remain observationally nulled.
Perhaps, but the measuring stick is not expanding. The space around it is expanding, but at a very small rate. The forces that keep the atoms that compose the measuring stick are enough to keep the atoms at the same distance. So the measuring stick will not expand.
The reason distant galaxies are receding from one another is that there is a great amount of space between them. As all of this space is expanding, they are moving apart rapidly and so the gravitational pull of the galaxies on one another is not sufficient to prevent them from moving apart.
Now, when galaxies that are close to one another, like in a cluster, there is not as much space in between them, so they would not be moving apart very quickly; in this case, they don't move apart at all because the gravitational forces are strong enough to keep them together, like the ruler.
So the only things that expand are things where the forces that keep them together are not strong enough to counter act the expansion -- in this case, this is only galaxies that are far apart that feel the effect of the expanding universe.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 3:37 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 3:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 127 of 130 (342821)
08-23-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Joman
08-23-2006 3:37 PM


Re: Redshift
Joman,
You should read the article mentioned here by A.Sphere*. It's a fascinating read and it would answer a lot of your questions, I think.
*) A relative of A.Square, I take it?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 3:37 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 3:41 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 130 (343016)
08-24-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Chiroptera
08-23-2006 4:43 PM


Re: Redshift
Quotes by Chiroptera.
quote:
Perhaps, but the measuring stick is not expanding. The space around it is expanding, but at a very small rate.
The measuring stick can't be immune can it? There's no such thing as space around the measuring stick being different than the space around each and every atom it's made of, is there?
quote:
The forces that keep the atoms that compose the measuring stick are enough to keep the atoms at the same distance. So the measuring stick will not expand.
The measuring stick can't be immune unless you propose the idea that the space around the atoms that the measuring stick is made of is different than the space around the measuring stick as a whole.
Such a notion would be like trying to say that the dots on the stretched balloon don't get bigger. It would also imply that the wavelength of light would be immune to expansion effects.
quote:
The reason distant galaxies are receding from one another is that there is a great amount of space between them. As all of this space is expanding, they are moving apart rapidly and so the gravitational pull of the galaxies on one another is not sufficient to prevent them from moving apart.
You said the expansion is slow. Now your saying that the galaxies are rededing quickly due to the slow rate of expansion?
And, this brings up the same point I've already made in this post. You make it seem as though only the space around the galaxies is expanding. But, the space that the galaxies occupy within themselves is throughout themselves also expanding. Agree? And, this isn't any different than the space contained within the structure of any object (measuring rods included). The logic of the Michelson Morley experiment relied upon the fact that space pervades all things...otherwise they would have deemed it necessary to do the experiment in outer space when the opprotunity presented itself. Which I think NASA should anyway. Have they?
I notice that you didn't say "because all of this space is expanding therefore..." Instead you said "As all of this space is expanding.." Do you wish or need to clarify?
quote:
Now, when galaxies that are close to one another, like in a cluster, there is not as much space in between them, so they would not be moving apart very quickly; in this case, they don't move apart at all because the gravitational forces are strong enough to keep them together, like the ruler.
Again. If the expansion force cannot overcome the effect of local gravity in the senario you've given above, then it would be utterly impotent in the case of enormously greater denseness of matter as proposed at the initiation of the expansion.
quote:
So the only things that expand are things where the forces that keep them together are not strong enough to counter act the expansion -- in this case, this is only galaxies that are far apart that feel the effect of the expanding universe.
All things are filled with mostly space isn't that true? Therefore your notion is false.
Again. Your saying that wherever such forces accumulate the expansion of space is thwarted. But, no greater accumulation of such forces has ever occurred than accurred at the moment of initial expansion according to the big bang notion. Therefore, such an accumulation would have easily prevented any expansion force present at that time.
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2006 4:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 08-24-2006 3:37 PM Joman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 130 (343019)
08-24-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Joman
08-24-2006 3:27 PM


Re: Redshift
Evidently I didn't explain the situation well enough. No surprise -- I wasn't too satisfied with my explanation when I wrote it.
Yes, the space which the ruler occupies is expanding. If there were no forces whatsoever, the atoms that make up the ruler would be carried along with the ruler and move further apart. But there are forces involved -- the reason the ruler is solid is because the atoms experience forces that hold them together, near one another. It is because of these forces that the atoms stay at the same distance from one another even though the space in which they occupy is expanding.
As an analogy (weak as it may be) imagine a swimmer being swept downstream in a river by the current. Suppose that the swimmer starts near a large rock sticking out of the water. The flowing water will take the swimmer further and further away from the rock. But if the swimmer holds onto the rock, the swimmer and the rock will remain together even though the water continues to flow past them.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Joman, posted 08-24-2006 3:27 PM Joman has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 130 (343022)
08-24-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Parasomnium
08-23-2006 5:02 PM


Re: Redshift
Parasomnium,
I read the article thank you.
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Parasomnium, posted 08-23-2006 5:02 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024