Posted on 01/20/2015 4:43:30 PM PST by LibWhacker
Ping
Interesting ...
I've always questioned this. I once read that light will also have a red shift as it passes through intergalactic dust and gas. So all galaxies will show a red shift, and the farther away they are, the more dust and gas the light will pass through. Hence a larger red shift.
But I don't have anything like a degree in science. I'm just a dumb lawyer, so I wouldn't bet the farm on my "theory."
Thanks for posting
- Niels Bohr
This statement is objectively false. There is no requirement that objects in relative motion must be moving slower than the speed of light.
Then there is the cosmological red-shift itself, which is another mystery. Physicists often talk about the red-shift as a kind of Doppler effect, like the change in frequency of a police siren as it passes by.
It's not a "kind" of Doppler effect. It is the Doppler effect.
But the cosmological red-shift is different because galaxies are stationary in space. Instead, it is space itself that cosmologists think is expanding.
The galaxies are not stationary in space. Both the galaxies and space are moving relative to other objects at other parts of space, and a Doppler shift is predicted in either (and both) cases.
The mathematics that describes these effects is correspondingly different as well,
Nope. Not true.
not least because any relative velocity must always be less than the speed of light in conventional physics.
Nope. Not true.
And yet the velocity of expanding space can take any value.
This is true. It can. Doesn't contradict any known physics. Doesn't require any new mathematics to describe.
One interesting idea is that the red-shifts of distant objects must increase as they get further away.
Already known. Already measured. That's what the Hubble Constant is.
But the evidence is paradoxical. Astrophysicists have measured the linear nature of the Hubble law at distances of a few hundred megaparsecs. And yet the clusters visible on those scales indicate the universe is not homogeneous on the scales.
Nope. No paradox. The large scale clusters are the result of quantum fluctuations that existed in the universe in the time before the first nanosecond. They are the result of Quantum Mechanics, which is more fundamental than General Relativity, and certainly much more fundamental than the "Hubble Law" which depends on assumptions which are not Quantum Mechanical in nature.
And so the argument that the Hubble law’s linearity is a result of the homogeneity of the universe (or vice versa) does not stand up to scrutiny. Once again this is an embarrassing failure for modern cosmology.
Nope. It's not. It's a result of the fact that we don't have a Quantum Mechanical version of General Relativity. In terms of general, rough morphology, it's perfectly adequate, and not contradicted by any information we have.
It’s of no consequence whatsoever. Doppler shift requires only differences in relative motion of source and observer. Whether it’s a moving object or moving space makes no difference.
Does this mean they’re going to retire “string theory”?
“I’ve always questioned this. I once read that light will also have a red shift as it passes through intergalactic dust and gas.”
As I understand it, that is not Doppler shift but rather the absorption and re-emission of light at a lower frequency, such as absorbing light, which warms the gas/dust particles, which re-emit the energy as heat.
This makes me suspect the whole article. Space may indeed be expanding, but it is a well known fact that the Andromeda galaxy is currently crashing into our Milky Way galaxy. This is true of other galaxies throughout the universe - you see them tearing into each other as the collision slowly happens.
Here's an example:
Not to worry!
Distant galaxies are, at this very moment, beginning a Class Action lawsuit against Einstein, Hubble and Planck.
Higgs, of boson fame, is their attorney.... or was that Higgins of Magnum, PI fame?
Our local group of galaxies is gravitationally bound as are other galaxy groups. Those other groups are moving away.
I just want to state, for the record, that it is NOT my fault.
Not in my storage building it's not.
The “red shift” that scientists observe isn’t just a general redening, it is a shift in a characteristic frequency of certain atoms, typically hydrogen. The issue of gas and dust affects the intensity of light, which has play in observations of distant “standard candle” supernovae.
“stationary in space” is nonsense. All motion is relative, and the distance between the objects is nothing but that. Some objects close distance - what is that, space shrinking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.