|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » RED SHIFT
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| turtle |
 Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Is there any other explanation for the red-shift observed from a
receding galaxy?
The doppler effect doesn't make sense
considering the constancy of the speed of light wherever it originates.
thanks from turtle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
turtle wrote:
Quote: Is there any other explanation for the red-shift observed from a
receding galaxy?
The doppler effect doesn't make sense
considering the constancy of the speed of light wherever it originates.
thanks from turtle
Um, there is MY theory!
www.hypersphere.us
Of course, it's just a crank theory that nobody will consider, even
though it's correct!
This theory is so "not accepted" that it actually got thrown out of
the Wikipedia "Crank Red Shift Theories" article!
Benj
The main objection to the hypersphere theory is the lack of detail and
experimental data (other than celestial red shift, of course)
regarding the frequency shift proposed at the angular 3-D to 4-D
interface. Note that the 4-D manifold does NOT refer to the Einstein
space-time mathematical construction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Miller |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1181924025.597405.238700@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
turtle wrote:
Is there any other explanation for the red-shift observed from a
receding galaxy?
The doppler effect doesn't make sense
considering the constancy of the speed of light wherever it originates.
thanks from turtle
Um, there is MY theory!
www.hypersphere.us
Of course, it's just a crank theory that nobody will consider, even
though it's correct!
This theory is so "not accepted" that it actually got thrown out of
the Wikipedia "Crank Red Shift Theories" article!
Benj
The main objection to the hypersphere theory is the lack of detail and
experimental data (other than celestial red shift, of course)
regarding the frequency shift proposed at the angular 3-D to 4-D
interface. Note that the 4-D manifold does NOT refer to the Einstein
space-time mathematical construction.
Hi Benj...
Well, I can see why it got thrown out of wikipedia. But that does not mean
that it is wrong. The vatican council came to the same basic conclusion when
they threatened Galileo with excommunication.
Bill Miller |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Miller wrote:
Quote: Hi Benj...
Well, I can see why it got thrown out of wikipedia. But that does not mean
that it is wrong. The vatican council came to the same basic conclusion when
they threatened Galileo with excommunication.
Benj
<muttering to self after public confession of heresy>
"Nevertheless, it still goes round the sun..." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 15 juin, 10:13, turtle <turtlez...@webtv.net> wrote:
Quote: Is there any other explanation for the red-shift observed from a
receding galaxy?
The doppler effect doesn't make sense
considering the constancy of the speed of light wherever it originates.
thanks from turtle
You could look up "tired light" as key words. This interpretation
was prefered by Hubble himself but the receeding velocity
interpretation was prefered by the community (easier to
understand).
It basically hinges on the idea that as photons trajectories
are deflected to some degree by gravitational pull from
source to us as they graze in-between galaxies, they
expend some energy each time as work as they are forced
out of straight line trajectory.
Makes much more sense in my view.
The Doppler effect is real though, but may not explain
all of the observed lightshift.
André Michaud |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John C. Polasek |
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:13:20 -0700, turtle <turtlezero@webtv.net>
wrote:
Quote: Is there any other explanation for the red-shift observed from a
receding galaxy?
The doppler effect doesn't make sense
considering the constancy of the speed of light wherever it originates.
thanks from turtle
It's easy, if you understand that it's you that's doing the receding.
The distant star can be considered essentially staionary as far as
Doppler red shift is concerned.
The impact velocity at your site is c-v. And if you don't like that,
consider if you move back 0 .1 wavelength for each wavelength, the
perceived WL is now 1.11*WL_0. The APPARENT frequency is lower by .9
but the intrinsic frequency does not change from its value at
emission.
John Polasek |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Miller |
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"turtle" <turtlezero@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1181916800.936301.193050@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Is there any other explanation for the red-shift observed from a
receding galaxy?
The doppler effect doesn't make sense
considering the constancy of the speed of light wherever it originates.
thanks from turtle
Hello turtle...
I just came across this book:
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Dr. Halton Arp, ISBN: 0-9683689-0-5, Apeiron, 1998)
Have not read it -- not in my main area of interest -- but it suggests among other things that the big Bang didn't.
For comments on the constancy (or not) of lightspeed there is an interesting editorial at:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html#top
I suspect that Galileo would have loved it!
Bill Miller |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Miller wrote:
Quote: I just came across this book:
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Dr. Halton Arp, ISBN: 0-9683689-0-5, Apeiron, 1998)
Have not read it -- not in my main area of interest -- but it suggests among other things that the big Bang didn't.
For comments on the constancy (or not) of lightspeed there is an interesting editorial at:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html#top
Interesting article (although I try to steer clear of relativity and
all the "I'm smarter than Einstein" debates) and I'll have to check
out that Red shift book as well. Thanks! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
