-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Age of the Universe
- Thread starter Doveaman
- Start date
You too my friend. 
Redshift is an observed fact. Redshift due to Doppler shift (moving objects) and inelastic scattering are observe facts in the lab. The claim 'space expansion did it' is an affirming the consequent fallacy which enjoys *zero* empirical support from the lab.
Upvote
0
Not necessarily, no. The only known type of expansion that is known to cause redshift is Doppler shift, which has *nothing* do to with 'space expansion', just moving objects. Even if it's expanding due to object movement, "space expansion" has nothing to do with that redshift phenomenon.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
Upvote
0
From my experience, there is something to be said for the correlation between one's age and the expansion of the waist line.
Upvote
0
From my experience, there is something to be said for the correlation between one's age and the expansion of the waist line.
You may have a point.
Upvote
0
pgardner2358
AChristian1985
Although it is a mistake to consider the Bible as a scientific textbook, science nonetheless corroborates it where applicable (YEC's being both logically, theologically, and scripturally wrong). However, dear brothers: the whole point of the universe is to testify of God in Christ available as the Spirit to be life to our spirits that we may grow up in Him. Any objective knowledge, however correct, that does NOT lead to further subjective experience of Christ is vanity. "Set the mind on the spirit".
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2014
- 2,737
- 452
- 86
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
Redshift is the observation, not the assumption.
The hypothesis is that if the universe is expanding then we should see a correlation between wavelength independent redshift and distance. We test that hypothesis with the observations of such things as type Ia supernovae.
http://supernova.lbl.gov/
There are also other tests, such as the CMB and the Tolman surface brightness test.
The distance is determined by what are called "standard candles". The analogy is that a candle a few feet away is much brighter than the same candle 100 feet away, even though the candle is putting out the same amount of light at both distances. Therefore, if you can find a feature in the universe that puts out the same amount of light, you can use the relative brightness of that feature to determine distance. As it turns out, type Ia supernovae put out the same amount of light. Therefore, we can measure their brightness and determine how far away they are. We can also independently measure the redshift of the galaxies they are found in since luminosity and redshift are separate measurements.
The universe was quite foggy for the first few hundreds thousands years. It wasn't until atoms formed that light could pass freely through the universe. The first light we can see from that event is the CMB. After the first light formed, we started getting stars.
Which physics text book is this?
His name was Halton Arp, and what he was fooled by is called forced perspective. It is the same effect that produces this picture.
It has since been shown that the light from the quasars are passing through the material in the galaxies demonstrating that the quasars are behind the galaxies, not next to them.
Yes the shifting of red in a spectrograph is an observation but the shifting the red light on a spectrograph does not automatically imply that the source of the light is in motion; so expansion is an assumption or guess.
I would expect the red shift to be to do with optics; space as an imperfect and probably inconsistent lens. While I am not well educated I did learn about spectrographs refracting different colours at different angles. Spectography can be complicated but it can be simple and all shades of a colour are reflected to the same place so when the red light from another star is reflected differently it must be a different colour; how far can red light be stretched before it becomes infrared and invisible?
I can see no reason other than assumption that stars have to have the same Spectography and the reason why there are variations around the red area is that this is a juncture where the electromagnetic spectrum is changing form.
I am not sure what that graph of the exploding star meant, whether the climax was in the blue light range or whether the colours meant something else; Hubble is able to photo things invisible to the naked eye but I never saw anything relative to red light shift.
The text book: Perspectives of Modern Physics, Arthur Beiser, formerly Professor of Physics, New York University, 1969, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-13508
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2014
- 2,737
- 452
- 86
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
True.
It's a question of whether you interpret the redshift as a function of time dilation, or "space expansion".
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
Keep in mind that only Doppler shift expansion (moving object expansion) has a tangible effect on a photon in a lab. The "space expansion" claims remain an act of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab). Space expansion is an *alleged* cause of photon redshift that defies empirical support in the lab.
I would say no, yes, and no.
All redshift means is that *somehow* the photon *appears* to have lost some of it's energy since it was first emitted. The idea such energy is lost to the plasma/QM medium is called "tired light" theory, and several forms of inelastic scattering are *known* to cause photon redshift. Both Doppler shift and inelastic scattering have been documented as empirical causes of photon redshift. "Space expansion" has not. It's *assumed*.
It ultimately depends on the *cause* of photon redshift. If it's not caused by expansion, then redshift came first.
Hubble himself wasn't particularly keen on the expansion claims by the way.
Yep. If is caused by "space expansion", then Lambda-CDM has merit. If it's caused by inelastic scattering, or moving objects however, EU/PC theory is your best bet.
I think I'd like to see that quote.
Halton Arp was right about that. Unfortunately the number of jobs in astronomy is still pretty small, and fear of losing one's job is still a motive.
After the last Bicep2 public fiasco, the revelation that 'standard candles' aren't all that standard after all, and all the mass the underestimated in those early "dark matter" studies, Lambda-CDM is looking pretty shabby around the edges. It looks ok from a distance, but as you get closer, it's definitely a supernatural house of cards that is destined to fall sooner or later.
I wasn’t able to find that quote after browsing the book quickly, but I did find some interesting stuff.
25.1 The theory of the electron.
“The electron is the only elementary particle for which a satisfactory theory is known.”
I found something interesting but can’t find it again, “if a negative electron expels a photon it becomes a positively charged electron”
It seems like only a few months since I heard of x-rays travelling at around 15 times the speed of light. Photographed by Hubble.
As I understand Einstein the observed speed of light is more to do with the definition of light and the speed of light always appears the same regardless of its source. If a star was speeding away at multiple times the speed of light the observed light would still appear to travel at the speed of light regardless of the speed or direction of the source. If there were a Doppler effect it would be apparent in the whole electromagnetic range not just red.
Upvote
0
Diffraction is not the same as a red shift.
Stars and galaxies have the same absorbance and emission lines because they are made up of the same atoms.
http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/lines.asp
When we see those spectral lines shifted towards the red in a wavelength independent manner, this is an indication that spacetime is the root cause since physical interactions between light and matter produce wavelength dependent shifts.
Upvote
0
It's really too bad (and rather telling) that you've never been able to produce a single higher energy wavelength study that actually *demonstrates* that gamma rays are redshifted the same exact amount as lower energy wavelengths.
Even if it's true, there are *easier* and less *supernatural* ways to explain such a phenomenon that have nothing whatsoever to do with 'expanding space' claims:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
You probably misread something. That would not be allowed under the laws of physics as I understand them. Charge should be conserved in all such interactions. You may be misreading a Feynman diagram with a electron and positron destroying each other and producing gamma rays. Sometimes they like to muck with which axis is which and it can throw you off. i can't tell you how many times i've seen one that seems to be impossible until I notice they have time on the Y axis. Actually, there's one on the wikipedia page that does exactly that:
You are probably misreading something here as well. There was something a while ago with neutrinos that appeared to be moving just a tiny bit faster than light, but it turned out to be an error in the setup when they double checked everything.
And it does affect the whole spectrum. By redshift, they don't mean shift of the color red, but shift of the whole spectrum to longer wavelengths (in the "red" direction since red is the longest wavelength we can see). That happens when things move away from us. Things can also be blueshifted if they are moving toward us. That means shorter wavelengths.
Upvote
0
Scientists say the universe is expanding based on multiple lines of evidence - Hubble's law was just the first piece of evidence that the universe is expanding.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang? starts with Olbers' paradox, Hubble's law etc. and goes onto the CMB etc.
Note that a rumor about some astronomer being a bit paranoid is not science!
Upvote
0
Since you really want a reply to this post, msgd1025
:There is no evidence of a supernatural beginning to the universe. Your personal opinion is not evidence.
There is evidence for a natural beginning to the universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
How light crosses the universe is the same way it crosses any volume of space, e.g., from the Sun to the Earth.
The speed of light is c. Detecting a galaxy that is X light-years away means by basic Newtonian physics that it took the light cX years to get here. Thus a galaxy 13 billion light-years away from us means that that universe is at least 13 billion years old.
We have very good reasons to believe that light behaves everywhere as it behaves locally. For example that galaxy 13 billion light-years away from us matches local galaxies (adjusting for the simple fact that galaxies evolve) .
Upvote
0
Wrong, Michael: You asked for a single flaw and I gave you two flaws
!Read what you wrote "You won't point out a single flaw in his work either."
I made that statement into a lie by citing a post that you might have read months ago and another flaw
3 March 2015 Michael: A flaw in the Lerner et al paper is that it does not use multiple bands as a self-check on their analysis.
18 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is flawed because it ignores changes in surface brightness as galaxies evolve.
Can you count to 2 as in 2 flaws, Michael
With hints that the paper would be considered flawed by astronomers:
15 June 2015 Michael: The Lerner et al paper is "flawed" enough so that astronomers have not cited it since it was published a year ago.
18 June 2015 Michael: A nitpick for the Lerner et al paper is that this is the first paper that the authors have written on the subject of the Tolman surface brightness test - they have no published expertise in this complex subject.
The Tolman surface brightness test is complex enough that Sandage and Lubin had to split it up into five papers in 2001!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
