It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by masterp
Originally posted by Paladin327
but anyway, going back to the expanding ballon example, place 2 grains of sand on the outside of the balloon, blow up the ballon so it is rigid enough to measure. note distances. blow balloon up more, note differences have changed. this is how the universe's expansion was explained to me in 2 courses on astronomy. the ballon is space-time, and the sand is... something in the universe.
Which is not correct.
... ...
In the balloon & sand example you gave, the grains of sand would grow together with the balloon, and thus no change in distance would be observed.
What happens is that new space is being generated that pushes matter away from matter.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
"We don't understand what that force is so we called it dark energy"
How about there is no force.
How about you don't understand it because it doesn't really exist.
How about the universe is steady in state and the models of expansion and acceleration are wrong.
How about red shift is entirely caused by the known properties of plasma well described by Wolf back in the late 80s.
Cosmologists do not seriously consider the Wolf effect as a source of cosmological redshifts for fairly good reasons. To start with, the wolf effect consistently creates both redshifts & blueshifts (i.e., Wolf, 1986; Wolf, 1987a; Wolf, 1987b; Wolf, 1989). There are 76,483 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, data release 4. The fact that all of them are redshifted does raise the obvious, and as yet unanswered question: Why are there no blueshifted quasars? The only serious attempt to address this question, that I am aware of, is James, 1998. He was able to preferentially generate redshifts, by imposing the condition that the correlation length perpendicular to the line of sight must be significantly longer than the correlation length along the line of sight. While this might not be a bad assumption for a given example, it is hard to believe that this will be true for all quasars.
The first 3 of Wolf's papers (Wolf, 1986; Wolf, 1987; Wolf, 1987a) impose a formidable constraint on the size of the redshift: It cannot exceed the line width, which obviously prohibits all but very small redshifts. This constraint was overcome (Wolf, 1989; James, Savedoff & Wolf, 1990) later, but there are numerous caveats. The magnitude of the redshift depends on the ratio of the angle of incidence to the scattering angle, so anything that approximates Snell's Law (the angles are equal), will produce no spectral shift. And one still expects both red & blue shifts (but as before, see James, 1998).
Likewise, the analysis of Roy, Kafatos & Datta, 2000, also produces both red & blue shifts. They appeal to the blueshifted lines being possibly unobservable due to excess broadening relative to the redshifted lines, but do not deal with the question beyond that. So the blueshift question remains open. (I only saw this after telling you that James, 1998 was the only serious attempt I know of, and I don't feel like re-typing everything).
There are numerous caveats in the Wolf & James papers. For one thing, unscattered radiation cannot shift greater than the linewidth, and the latter papers do not consider the effect of unscattered radiation, i.e., what would the final spectrum look like if it were a mixture of scattered & unscattered light? They also always anaylze only emission spectra. While this should not make a difference (emission & absorption are inverse processes), it could make a difference in the details of scattering, where absorption features have fewer photons to scatter.
It should also be noted that the Wolf & Doppler effects are not identical. The Wolf effect induces extra line broadening, and induces a frequency dependent change in line intensity that will make an object look bluer than it really is (i.e., James, Savedoff & Wolf, 1990). But, of course, if you don't know what the original source spectrum looks like, this might be a hard thing to detect. One might search for systematic strengthening of lines in the blue direction, under circumstances where other effects can be ruled out (i.e., intervening material usually reddens a source).
Certainly it is legitimate to consider the Wolf effect, but in fact none of the papers suggest that the Wolf effect is responsible (or should be responsible) for the quasar redshifts under all circumstances. This is especially true in Roy, Kafatos & Datta, 2000, where they rely on a screening effect of intervening material, as in a quasar seen through a galaxy.
And one must note that the Wolf effect is definitely inapplicable to galaxies, because they are incoherent sources, and because there would be no explanation for the apparent redshift - distance relationship.
Why - with no background knowledge on the subject - would you come here and start a fight about something you don't know anything about, but which all of the experts who know the most about it of anyone in the world disagree with you about?
Do you think all of the physicist haven't spent 5 seconds thinking about whether or not their entire enterprise might be based on a fiction?
Originally posted by Strype
You appear to keep repeating the same argument, causing the entire thread to appear as a simple misinterpretation of words.
Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by mnemeth1
No offense, but the wording in the name you chose for this thread is a good indicator of why you are having difficulty comprehending the cosmos.
Originally posted by masterp
Originally posted by mnemeth1
How about some updated papers.
Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
arxiv.org...
combined with a nice explanation of the CREIL effect
jean.moretbailly.free.fr...
and a paper on it.
arxiv.org...
This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:
* Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24
* Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern.
* Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722.
* Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51.
* Goldhaber etal, ApJ in press.
These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.
When GR says space bends, it literally means nothing bends and that bending of nothing imparts real force.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I think it deals with it just fine.
The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.
BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I think it deals with it just fine.
The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.
BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.
Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).
It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.
Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).
It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.
Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.
What other evidence?
All the evidence is a bunch of hypothetical nonsense.
Wimps, gravitational waves, machos, dark energy, dark flows, dark matter, neutron stars, etc.. etc.. etc
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I think it deals with it just fine.
The two effects taken together, along with other mechanisms of scattering, can easily account for the observed red shift of cosmological objects.
BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T - its still far more plausible to believe that "space" is not "expanding" and galaxies are not flying apart from a big bang.
Please reread my post.It's not the redshift possibility I contradicted (though I can do that too, but just skipping that for now).
It's the time dilation which you either missed, misread, or just decided to change the subject. And not just the time dilation, but all the other evidence besides red shift which you don't want to address.
Then you say you want to talk about dark energy which I already conceded is less than certain. I guess if you're out of proof and arguments, switching subjects is the only tactic left.
For a group of 27 QSOs comprising virtually all objects in the catalog of Burbidge, Crowne, and Smith (1977) with z at least 0.45, listed apparent visual magnitudes less than 19.12 + 5 log z, and declinations of -15 to + 55 deg, a program of spectroscopy of all galaxies brighter than the red Sky Survey limit and within 45 arcsec radius of each QSO has been undertaken. Redshifts have been obtained for 25 of the 29 galaxies, and 13 galaxies in eight fields have redshifts within 1000 km/s of that of the QSO in the field. The chance probability of eight or more such agreements, evaluated from the redshift distribution of the total sample of galaxies, is shown to be less than 1.5 in a million, making the cosmological nature of QSO redshifts a virtual certainty. The possibility that two distinct types of QSO exist, one having noncosmological redshifts, is discussed briefly and found to be extremely unlikely.
Our recent work, based on the statistical analysis of the V\'eron-Cetty data(2003) supports that quasar redshifts fit the overall Hubble expansion law, as in the case of galaxies, for z less than equal to 0.295 but not for higher redshifts, indicating clearly the inadequacy of the Doppler effect as the sole mechanism in explaining the redshifts for high redshift quasars for z greater than equal to 0.295. We found that the redshift posseses an additive, discordant component due to frequency shifting from the correlation induced mechanism which increases gradually for ~ 0.295 < z < 3.0, however, appearing to follow the evolutionary picture of the universe with absolute dependence on the physical characteristics i.e., environmental aspects of the relevant sources through which the light rays pass, after being multiply scattered.
The CREIL effect occurs within space vacuum. Such vacuum is emptier than the best of the vacuums that one knows how to create on earth, but it contains a subtle gas, mainly made up of hydrogen. This very transparent gas is crossed over by the « hot » lights emitted by stars and by thermal radiations at 2.7 kelvins, made popular by the Nobel prizes Penzias and Wilson (« cold » lights). The CREIL effect also occurs within a hotter gas (when it is located near a high temperature object). As in a laser beam, some particles of the gas interact with lights, without shifting the beams, hence without disturbing the images of stars. Such interaction conveys energy from « hot » lights to « cold » ones. The result is a slight global drop of the frequencies of hot lights and a rise for cold lights. One could equally say that the spectra of the lights of stars redshift and that of cold lights blueshift (for thermal radiations, such blueshifts amount to a warming up, an amplification). Such effects, that a specialist of lasers and microwave beams would consider as so ordinary that, in optics, they bear the specific name of « parametric » effects, have been up to now looked over by astrophysicists. The simplest example of parametric effect is refraction. Gaseous substances being rather evenly distributed all throughout the universe (heavenly objects apart), their effects adding themselves up, the redshifts are broadly speaking in proportion with the amount of matter crossed over, thus often with distance. The more the spectrum of an object redshifts, the more distant it is: that is the Hubble law, henceforth accounted for by the CREIL effect, and not by the Doppler effect which brings in the notion of an expansion of the universe.
Space matter is filled everywhere in the universe. All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of space matter. Since the gravitational force is exerted on space matter, all massive bodies have a denser medium of space matter envelop. Bending of light when it passes through near massive objects like stars, lensing effects in some regions in the galaxies are because of the refraction of light by the denser space matter that present in these regions and are purely the demonstrations for the presence of space matter in the macro world.