Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 196 of 196

Thread: universe is here all along

  1. #101  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    [quote="Liongold"][quote]Hawking radiation is unproven nonsense.quote]

    That is a matter of opinion. Certainly, our ideas of thermodynamics, if correct, require it.

    Imagine a very steep gradient a thousand miles long. About 3/4 of the way up, put 2 cricket balls next to each other. One rolls downhill and the other rolls uphill. There is also negative energy, which I think is what many people feel when it is time to get up.
    You confuse the negative energy of the gravitational field with negative energy of a particle, which does not exist. Both are different; negative energy in the graviational sense is actually positive. To explain it better, imagine an object orbiting a body with a certain amount of energy. Now, move this back by any amount you desire. Now here is the rub: because the body is now orbiting much more slowly than it was, this implies that the energy it used to have has actually gone down. Consequently, in a sense, you can call this type of energy change negative energy. That is why people sometimes treat a gravitational field as a reserve of negative energy.

    Suppose we lived on a very hot planet where water did not exist naturally. In our labs we can change steam into water and then cool it down to as low as 10.C and we do a graph and find as we cool it down, it's volume decreases so we can show that somewhere below zero, water shrinks to a point source. Except that at 4.C water starts expanding again and at 0.C changes to ice. It is nonsense to speculate as Hawking has done.
    I understand why you used your example; however, then we would require additional knowledge of water in the first place to explain that it will indeed expand at 4 degrees. Suppose, for one moment, that we did not know of this property of water, but, based on other experiments on liquids/substances, we know it should indeed contract. Also suppose that we know water exists but cannot experiment on it. Do you think there is a way, based on our knowledge of other substances, to predict, precisely and correctly, that water will contract at 4 degres celsius? To do that, you require information currently beyond your reach; you must rely on theory and speculation to understand water.

    The same situation exists; our own knowledge of the conditions of the Big Bang is limited so far to at the very least a few billion years after the Big Bang; before that is mere speculation. Indeed, speculation becomes our only tool when dealing with events before that which is currently explainable.

    Until we are 100% certain on expansion, we should consider other ideas. Even if expansion is real, no one will see any movement in the galaxies in a thousand lifetimes, so we can have no real proof
    I assure you it is indeed real. Unless you can explain the redshift of the light of receding galaxies? There is incontrovertible evidence that each and every galaxy is moving away from us, as can be inferred from their redshifts.

    Dimensions build up on the lower dimensions. If you have a 3D table of normal size, then it's 4D self will be house sized, even though all we can see is the 3D aspect. If you have a 10D thing that is quantum sized, then it's 3D aspect will be a zillion times smaller.
    A good point, but not necessarily. Say I have a very long line , stretching out till infinity. Now suppose I told you that at some points the line curves, forming a wave crest. Now, it is obvious that a wave crest is two-dimensional. Similarly, this small wave crest (too small to be seen, by the way) sometimes rises a little above the line, again too small to be noticeable, a lot less frequent and the rise in height a lot smaller than the deviation of the crest from the line. This new kind of curve is three-dimensional.

    From this example, it can be seen that it is possible to form small three-dimensional lines from only a single dimension. You are, if you'll pardon me, imagining a Cartesian space with three axes and joining the axes together. You may claim that this will form a bigger object in different dimensions; this is true only if the object itself is increasing completely in dimensions. However, this is only a possibility; it is just as easy to imagine a very small house on a vastly huge square.

    However, I will grant you that your model of dimensions is equally applicable. Indeed, two ideas of dimensions include the one where the dimensions are smaller than the original three, so that we notice only the three, and the one where the extra dimensions are so huge, we notice only localised constituent dimensions.

    For example, let me take an enormous sphere, with us living on just a point on the sphere. Any mathematician will tell you that if you enlarge a curved space to a certain extent, it will be indistinguishable from Euclidean geometry; we have Riemann and Newton to thank for this. In much the same way, according to this idea, because the dimensions are so large, the only dimensions we will comprehend are the three dimensions we are familiar with.

    It doesn't work like that. Each dimension added, adds in size. A simplistic example:

    1D = 10 (a line ten atoms long), 2D = 100 (a square of 10x10 atoms), 3D = 1,000 (a cube of 10x10x10 atoms). 10D is going to be 10,000,000,000 atoms, so ten million times bigger than 3D
    Again, your idea of added dimensions resulting in an increase of size is a matter of opinion. The rest I've already answered to.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    There is incontrovertible evidence that each and every galaxy is moving away from us, as can be inferred from their redshifts.
    Not quite true. The Andromeda galaxy and several others are blueshifted and moving towards us. However this possibly nitpicky correction in no way detracts from your argument, so carry on!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Ah, thank you, Bunbury. I momentarily forgot about those. However, I assumed it is still correct to say that most galaxies are moving away from us, but thank you anyway.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    But that's an increase in hypervolume. If you take my example of a 2D polygon, and limit yourself to strictly 2D volume (eg: surface area), the polygon does not increase in 2D volume as you add additional dimensions.

    If you have a stack of sheets of paper 500 sheets high but only look at it from a 2D viewpoint, you won't see more than one sheet of paper but they are still there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="Liongold"]
    You confuse the negative energy of the gravitational field with negative energy of a particle, which does not exist. Both are different; negative energy in the graviational sense is actually positive. To explain it better, imagine an object orbiting a body with a certain amount of energy. Now, move this back by any amount you desire. Now here is the rub: because the body is now orbiting much more slowly than it was, this implies that the energy it used to have has actually gone down. Consequently, in a sense, you can call this type of energy change negative energy. That is why people sometimes treat a gravitational field as a reserve of negative energy.
    A nonsensical play on words.

    The same situation exists; our own knowledge of the conditions of the Big Bang is limited so far to at the very least a few billion years after the Big Bang; before that is mere speculation. Indeed, speculation becomes our only tool when dealing with events before that which is currently explainable.
    A speculation that most accept as hard facts.

    I assure you it is indeed real. Unless you can explain the redshift of the light of receding galaxies? There is incontrovertible evidence that each and every galaxy is moving away from us, as can be inferred from their redshifts.
    As I have pointed out elsewhere, gravity explains it very well. In a universe full of gravitational sources it would be strange if a photon could travel billions of light years without getting redshifted.


    Dimensions build up on the lower dimensions. If you have a 3D table of normal size, then it's 4D self will be house sized, even though all we can see is the 3D aspect. If you have a 10D thing that is quantum sized, then it's 3D aspect will be a zillion times smaller.
    A good point, but not necessarily. Say I have a very long line , stretching out till infinity. Now suppose I told you that at some points the line curves, forming a wave crest. Now, it is obvious that a wave crest is two-dimensional. Similarly, this small wave crest (too small to be seen, by the way) sometimes rises a little above the line, again too small to be noticeable, a lot less frequent and the rise in height a lot smaller than the deviation of the crest from the line. This new kind of curve is three-dimensional.

    From this example, it can be seen that it is possible to form small three-dimensional lines from only a single dimension. You are, if you'll pardon me, imagining a Cartesian space with three axes and joining the axes together. You may claim that this will form a bigger object in different dimensions; this is true only if the object itself is increasing completely in dimensions. However, this is only a possibility; it is just as easy to imagine a very small house on a vastly huge square.

    However, I will grant you that your model of dimensions is equally applicable. Indeed, two ideas of dimensions include the one where the dimensions are smaller than the original three, so that we notice only the three, and the one where the extra dimensions are so huge, we notice only localised constituent dimensions.

    For example, let me take an enormous sphere, with us living on just a point on the sphere. Any mathematician will tell you that if you enlarge a curved space to a certain extent, it will be indistinguishable from Euclidean geometry; we have Riemann and Newton to thank for this. In much the same way, according to this idea, because the dimensions are so large, the only dimensions we will comprehend are the three dimensions we are familiar with.
    Every extra dimension used is an increase on what went before it. Adding a house to a large square is adding a house to the flat area beneath it. If you build a house, the entire world is not the base of the house. Only the tiny bit of land it is based on.

    This is an intelligent discussion, I must say. Thank you for it.
    A discussion makes you think about something rather than just accepting it, even if the discussion is proving wrong something you know to be wrong. I do not always believe 100% points I put forwards but am willing to explore them as possibilities and even when they are shown wrong, I may have learned something valuable by going down different routes I would not usually explore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia
    Where are you getting your spurious arguments from? Some anti-Big Bang group? Reminds me of the arguments of creationists - superficially convincing to those whithout knowledge.
    Ho hum! Another bahhhh! from a sheep.

    You quoted Wiki at me on the cosmic microwave background. Can I suggest you read your own reference? For example, it says "

    "Two of the greatest successes of the big bang theory are its prediction of its almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background"
    The CMB should be 3,000.C at over 13.5 billion light years away. As we measure background microwave radiation ever closer, it should become ever cooler till we get to -271.C in our galactic neighbourhood. There is no evidence of this as the BMR reads -271.C wherever we look at it.

    It also says :

    "In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match to within experimental error what would be expected if small thermal fluctuations had expanded to the size of the observable space we can detect today."
    in 2004 (reported in New Scientist 28 Feb 2004), 4 separate groups found small variations in small regions of the sky, large variations in larger regions and smaller variations in the largest regions of the sky. Inflation says variations should be the same.

    Measured in detail by WMAP as in hundreds of H1 sources were the same as H1 sources in our galaxy. Does it get worse than that?

    In other words, it reflects what I have been saying, and the current microwave radiation is what we expect from the expansion of the universe since the Big Band.
    The CMB failed the shadow test in that most regions showed no difference, even when they were measured through galaxies. One might suspect that their readings were coming from our side of those distant galaxies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    A nonsensical play on words.
    Not my fault. It's merely convention.

    A speculation that most accept as hard facts.
    Mainly because these speculations are made on the basis ofalready existing and accepted facts and theories. For example, the Big Bang remains the premier model of the universe's beginning because it made one prediction that no other competing theory: it predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background. No matter your feelings about it, and its lack of shadows (by the way, you are wrong when you say that there is a lack of shadows on the CMB; your article clearly says that the observed shadowing is smaller than the one proposed, for which any number of explanations can be constructed), it was predicted to exist.

    It is for this reason that it was accepted.

    As I have pointed out elsewhere, gravity explains it very well. In a universe full of gravitational sources it would be strange if a photon could travel billions of light years without getting redshifted.
    Let me tell me why your answer is unsatisfactory. For one thing, there would only be noticeable redshifting if there was a correspondingly huge gravitational field; why then do we notice enormous redshifting from galaxies of approximately the same mass as nearby galaxies with much smaller redshifting?

    Another noticeable flaw: your theory predicts the galaxies or objects far away but with smaller mass possess much smaller redshifting; but this is not the case.

    Every extra dimension used is an increase on what went before it. Adding a house to a large square is adding a house to the flat area beneath it. If you build a house, the entire world is not the base of the house. Only the tiny bit of land it is based on.
    How many times must I repeat myself? Dimensions do not have to increase in size. Why, you con construct a small house as big as a thumbnail, while possessing a square big enough to hold several large mansions. According to you, however, the cube must be bigger than the square; a clear contradiction.

    A discussion makes you think about something rather than just accepting it, even if the discussion is proving wrong something you know to be wrong. I do not always believe 100% points I put forwards but am willing to explore them as possibilities and even when they are shown wrong, I may have learned something valuable by going down different routes I would not usually explore.
    Alright, forget discussion. Let's call it a debate, or as it seems to be now, an argument.

    Do you mind if I ask exactly what you've learned from going down those routes?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Mainly because these speculations are made on the basis ofalready existing and accepted facts and theories. For example, the Big Bang remains the premier model of the universe's beginning because it made one prediction that no other competing theory: it predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background. No matter your feelings about it, and its lack of shadows (by the way, you are wrong when you say that there is a lack of shadows on the CMB; your article clearly says that the observed shadowing is smaller than the one proposed, for which any number of explanations can be constructed), it was predicted to exist.

    It is for this reason that it was accepted.
    No one suspected the CMB till after it was found. Many years after.

    Only a few shadows were found which would indicate the galaxies were in front of the CMB. The rest of the galaxies had no shadows, indicating they were behind the CMB.

    Let me tell me why your answer is unsatisfactory. For one thing, there would only be noticeable redshifting if there was a correspondingly huge gravitational field; why then do we notice enormous redshifting from galaxies of approximately the same mass as nearby galaxies with much smaller redshifting?
    Photons leaving the Moon are redshifted. Just not as quickly as photons leaving a neutron star. The lower the gravitational field, the longer it takes. Several billion years long enough?

    Another noticeable flaw: your theory predicts the galaxies or objects far away but with smaller mass possess much smaller redshifting; but this is not the case.
    Redshifting here is due to distance travelled and not the object which expelled the photons.

    How many times must I repeat myself? Dimensions do not have to increase in size. Why, you con construct a small house as big as a thumbnail, while possessing a square big enough to hold several large mansions. According to you, however, the cube must be bigger than the square; a clear contradiction.
    We are not talking the object the extra dimensional object is on but it's actual base.
    If a house is built on a square mile of land, that land is not part of the house. What counts is the 2D area on which it is built.

    Do you mind if I ask exactly what you've learned from going down those routes?
    I think up theories. It's a way of testing them. Too many things are just accepted as true without question., That's how religions form.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I certainly believe you think so. Let's say for a moment that your right. Do you want him to stop? A fresh install of Windows with all the security updates is unhackable. Which means if you're being hacked, there's a program running on your computer giving him access. This program is called a Trojan. Most trojans just download adware, but there are trojans that let hackers screw with people.

    But there are these great programs called anti virus software which detect these trojans and delete them from the computer. Do you have any anti virus software installed? Have you run it recently?

    The other option is that your windows install is suffering from a bit of schizophrenia. Conflicting drivers probably. In which case one of the easiest solutions is to reinstall windows. Meaning deleting the existing install and starting over. The best solution would be to back up any files you want to save, then reformat your whole hard drive (deletes everything) and reinstall windows fresh.

    Mods: we're way off topic, could we maybe split to a new thread?
    I have had an expert from one of those people that say they can remove these hackers and viruses.

    He made several additions of anti-virus software like McAfee plus other modifications. That cost me a $100 and that did not help. Although McAffe did pop up with a address for this virus but I could not find the source on my 'find' search.

    I cntacted the FBI about this problem and they gave me a web site to check out .
    www.IC3.gov. I haven't used it yet but so far today, I haven;t had any problems.

    That deletion and restoration of Windows sounds promissing. I'll keep that in mind.
    Thanks.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Double post .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Liongold

    If you cut down to single posts that are easier to answer, than I will answer them. OK?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    No one suspected the CMB till after it was found. Many years after.
    Excuse me? Now you're saying that George Gamow and his assistant did not write a paper predicting that existence of the cosmic microwave background a full few months before it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson?

    Only a few shadows were found which would indicate the galaxies were in front of the CMB. The rest of the galaxies had no shadows, indicating they were behind the CMB.
    Your article says only one-fourth of the expected shadows were found. That doesn't mean only a few galaxies.

    By the way, how do you counter my supposed explanation for this effect?

    Photons leaving the Moon are redshifted. Just not as quickly as photons leaving a neutron star. The lower the gravitational field, the longer it takes. Several billion years long enough?
    No. Mainly because the photons will only be redshifted while escaping its gravitational field. The moment it leaves that gravitational field, it ceases to redshift any further. Consequently, the photon will not have a greater redshift from objects far away.

    Redshifting here is due to distance travelled and not the object which expelled the photons.
    In which case I must tell you that redshifting is not caused by the distance travelled by the photon, but rather the distance travelled by the object which emits it. Light does not redshift on its own, for much the same reason that sound waves do not Doppler shift on their own: they require something to cause such a change

    Congratulations: you've practically admitted the universe expands.

    Nah, just joking. I assume you meant something other than what I've inferred?

    We are not talking the object the extra dimensional object is on but it's actual base.
    If a house is built on a square mile of land, that land is not part of the house. What counts is the 2D area on which it is built.
    You know, this has gone on so long I'm forgetting exactly how this one started.

    Allow me to correct you: Only if we are talking of an actual increase in the dimensions of the entire object do we have to agree with you. That is not what the curled up dimensions have to behave like.

    A line for example, becames a sphere becomes a cube; but only if we increase it completely. If we increase only part of it to such extent, won't the resulting construction be smaller in size to the whole line?

    I think up theories. It's a way of testing them. Too many things are just accepted as true without question., That's how religions form.
    Doesn't answer my question.

    What exactly have you learnt from taking these routes?

    As for too many things being accepted without question; not all science is like that. Things such as superstring theory behave like this; yet other ideas do not. The Big Bang is accepted because it fits what facts we know so far. Expansion is accepted because we know it has to exist if our ideas are correct; either that or contraction, which doesn't quite fit the evidence.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Liongold

    Your user name is fictitious. IMO, the lion represents the Sahara desert. Ha ha.

    Regarding the CMBR, that I think you accept, I have provided credible evidence that refutes its origin as a remnant of the BBT.

    The Red Shift of 1000 that started at the 3000K level of the cooling universe is the point near its age of 13.7 billion years.
    So divide 13.7 by's 1000 and you get a redshift of one for every 13.7 MILLION years.

    The Virgo Cluster of galaxies that has been thoroughly studied, is at a distance of 54 millon light years. So when you divide this didtance by 13.7 million years, you get a redshift of 3+.
    For your informstion, the VC has a redshift of just .0035.
    So this is nowhewre near the 3+ figure that it should have, if the CMBR has that 1000 RS.

    This is just one example of the ludicrous nature of the BBT.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Duplicate post that I deleted .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="Liongold"]Excuse me? Now you're saying that George Gamow and his assistant did not write a paper predicting that existence of the cosmic microwave background a full few months before it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson?

    Andrew Keller reported an average temperature of 2.3K on a study of absorption lines in 1941. In 1946, Robert Dicke predicts radiation from "cosmic matter" at 20.K . These were the same in any direction.

    Your article says only one-fourth of the expected shadows were found. That doesn't mean only a few galaxies.
    3 out of 4 galaxies surveyed are apparently behind the CMB, 13.7 billion light years away.

    No. Mainly because the photons will only be redshifted while escaping its gravitational field. The moment it leaves that gravitational field, it ceases to redshift any further. Consequently, the photon will not have a greater redshift from objects far away.
    You apparently believe that nowhere in the universe does gravity affect anything but very locally. The Great Attractor is dragging our galaxy from 147,000,000 light years away. How much further it's influence extends is anyone's guess but I would think billions of light years.

    In which case I must tell you that redshifting is not caused by the distance travelled by the photon, but rather the distance travelled by the object which emits it. Light does not redshift on its own, for much the same reason that sound waves do not Doppler shift on their own: they require something to cause such a change
    Travelling through a gravitational field redshifts photons. The universe is full of gravitational sources. Redshifting is provably caused by gravity and is indistinguishable from recessional velocity.

    We are not talking the object the extra dimensional object is on but it's actual base.
    If a house is built on a square mile of land, that land is not part of the house. What counts is the 2D area on which it is built.
    A line for example, becames a sphere becomes a cube; but only if we increase it completely. If we increase only part of it to such extent, won't the resulting construction be smaller in size to the whole line?
    What's a whole line got to do with it? Is a single tree 100 foot high measured as small because it is in a 100 acre field?

    Doesn't answer my question.

    What exactly have you learnt from taking these routes?
    It helps me look at things from different angles, refine what I believe if I take criticism on board or dismiss it.

    As for too many things being accepted without question; not all science is like that. Things such as superstring theory behave like this; yet other ideas do not. The Big Bang is accepted because it fits what facts we know so far. Expansion is accepted because we know it has to exist if our ideas are correct; either that or contraction, which doesn't quite fit the evidence.
    Despite what so many claim, the BB is not regularly tested. People accept that it causes redshifting so base their work on that. Most scientists, working in other fields, know less than the average poster here about it. The flat world fitted theories till someone got around to testing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Re gravitational red shift.
    Gravity red shifts light that is leaving a source of gravity. The degree depends on how strong the gravity source is. However, gravity blue shifts light that 'falls' towards a source of gravity.

    If an Earth based telescope is observing light from a galaxy far, far away, it will observe gravitational shift that is the net result of the light leaving the gravity of the galaxy, and falling into the earth. ie a red shift from the galaxy's gravity, and a blue shift from falling into Earth.

    So the question is, which is stronger? Well, since the light is leaving a whole galaxy, and a galaxy is very low in density (since it spread over such a vast volume of vacuum), its net gravity is very weak. The Earth, though, has a much stronger gravity. The net result should be a blue shift. Yet we see a red shift. Thus, the red shift is not due to gravity.

    Of course, someone will argue that it is the individual gravity of suns that counts in the red shift. If that is so, why is the light from our sun not strongly red shifted? Of the light from Sirius? Or any other star near by.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Don't bother skeptic. He'll just conjure a contrary to evidence explanation from thin air again and present it as fact.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Re gravitational red shift.
    Gravity red shifts light that is leaving a source of gravity. The degree depends on how strong the gravity source is. However, gravity blue shifts light that 'falls' towards a source of gravity.
    Of course. But for the most part, when we measure redshifts, we are talking galaxies billions of light years away and it is while travelling those distances past a zillion gravitational sources that photons redshift.

    Of course, someone will argue that it is the individual gravity of suns that counts in the red shift. If that is so, why is the light from our sun not strongly red shifted? Of the light from Sirius? Or any other star near by.

    Light from our sun is redshifted, slightly. There is a slight difference between our sun at 93,000,000 miles and a galaxy at 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. Gravity being weak in those circumstances, it takes time to accumulate a noticeable redshift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Don't bother skeptic. He'll just conjure a contrary to evidence explanation from thin air again and present it as fact.

    Did you get that quote from the wiki?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Don't bother skeptic. He'll just conjure a contrary to evidence explanation from thin air again and present it as fact.

    Did you get that quote from the wiki?
    Pathetic!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia
    As I said before, the distance from source does not affect red shift in the way you suggest. It is the power of the gravity well that determines degree of gravitational red shift. Your suggestion that red shift increases over the light years as a photon travels is simply wrong. A weak gravity well 10 billion light years away causes less red shift than a strong gravity well within a light hour. In fact, the red shifting power of said gravity well fades into insignificance quite rapidly as a photon travels away from it. It is called the inverse square law.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Mass and energy comply to the Laws of Conservation.
    So there is no need for matter to be created.

    My solution for the cosmological redshift is the expansion of the light waves.

    Cosmo
    The problem with such a universe is that over a very long time, all matter would eventually be absorbed into black holes. There has to be a release mechanism or it will stay there.

    How would light expand? Photons are stable in that they can last billions of years and keep intact in the gravity of a neutron star.
    There is no scientific evidence of a black hole. Just papers, that could have been written by a grade school kid on Ridilan.

    But no real explanation that could be demonstrated, or show they are possible. Just conjecture and speculation. They are a fancy tale, to create interest and grant projects to study them. From everything I have seen written about them.

    The universe is a perpetual motion device. A very fancy one at that. It is not collapsing or expanding to its destruction. It is a well oiled machine. It needs little explanation. It does though need closer examination, so that the younger individuals studying the universe can get back to where real scientists already were a long time ago.

    We have to put down time travel, black holes and, worm holes, and anything else that is not basic verifiable hard information about the universe and get back to the real work of recording and learning about the universe.

    I admit you cannot sit around dreaming up a new idea or theory about a black hole every minute. But at least you will be doing something real and useful.

    They had old telescopes that could view and film what was thought to be black holes today. Very simple telescopes a very long time ago. They turned out to be very large planets. That just blocked a lot of light.

    There are some that believe astronomers are off their rocker. Because they know better what these things are. It has been on our local news programs. Nobody seems to care.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia
    As I said before, the distance from source does not affect red shift in the way you suggest. It is the power of the gravity well that determines degree of gravitational red shift. Your suggestion that red shift increases over the light years as a photon travels is simply wrong. A weak gravity well 10 billion light years away causes less red shift than a strong gravity well within a light hour. In fact, the red shifting power of said gravity well fades into insignificance quite rapidly as a photon travels away from it. It is called the inverse square law.

    What calculations have you done on this? One hour compared to ten billion years is a factor of 87.66 trillion difference. That weak gravity well is sufficient to hold the universe together.

    The Great Attractor is of sufficient gravitational strength to pull our galaxy towards it from 147,000,000 light years away. The universe is full of large gravitational sources, though few as large as that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    WMC. A neutron star can have an escape velocity of 2/3 c. Neutrons exist at such a density. Is it really a great leap of faith to believe that an escape velocity of more than light speed could exist with more mass? It is not much more.

    We can detect very dense bodies in small areas which no light is coming from (not hidden from us by dust clouds, etc). A neutron star can be as hot as a trillion degrees yet these bodies aren't hot. Why is that? We can detect accretion disks around them and hard gamma rays from them as material falls in. We can detect their size and spin rate, that they are more massive than neutron stars but smaller in size.

    Explain why this is not scientific evidence for a black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Bill is just an empiricist. He refuses to believe in anything unless there's direct detection and data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Bill is just an empiricist. He refuses to believe in anything unless there's direct detection and data.
    Everything Ben Franklin ever did or said is law and all his own experiments are interpreted using wild extrapolations from Ben's work. Everything else is made up by scientists and the US government involved in some sort of a conspiracy. The rest of the world is immaterial to him.

    WMC. A neutron star can have an escape velocity of 2/3 c. Neutrons exist at such a density. Is it really a great leap of faith to believe that an escape velocity of more than light speed could exist with more mass? It is not much more.

    We can detect very dense bodies in small areas which no light is coming from (not hidden from us by dust clouds, etc). A neutron star can be as hot as a trillion degrees yet these bodies aren't hot. Why is that? We can detect accretion disks around them and hard gamma rays from them as material falls in. We can detect their size and spin rate, that they are more massive than neutron stars but smaller in size.

    Explain why this is not scientific evidence for a black hole.
    We agree on something!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Sounds like every empiricist I've ever known :P Tesla was like that, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia asked what calculations I have done on the fact that gravity has little effect on red shifting across the billions of light years.

    Imagine a light being shone up from the surface of the Earth. In one second, it travels 300,000 kilometres. The Earth's gravity falls off at the rate of about 10% for every 300 kms. According to the inverse square law, this means that it is one tenth each 1000 kms approx. A ten fold drop each 1000 kms.

    Thus, after one second, the Earth's gravity on that beam of light has dropped by a factor of 3000 fold. That is, any possible red shifting is one 3000th after one second of that which it achieves at the ground level.

    Rather obviously, if we extend this calculation, the impact of the gravity on red shifting light becomes utterly trivial and unimportant within a tiny period of time.

    Thus, the idea that all those billions of light years are going to continue to red shift light is incorrect. The impact of gravity after even one hour is so low as to be pretty much unmeasurable in terms of red shifting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Sounds like every empiricist I've ever known :P Tesla was like that, too.

    After they told Tesla that his inventions that were sitting in his laboratory could not exist, due to extrapolations of very complex formulas dreamed up at the most advanced schools that were off limits to the masses.

    Yea, I would say that Tesla proclaimed that hands on was the only method of learning. Or of achieving higher learning.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    WMC. A neutron star can have an escape velocity of 2/3 c. Neutrons exist at such a density. Is it really a great leap of faith to believe that an escape velocity of more than light speed could exist with more mass? It is not much more.

    We can detect very dense bodies in small areas which no light is coming from (not hidden from us by dust clouds, etc). A neutron star can be as hot as a trillion degrees yet these bodies aren't hot. Why is that? We can detect accretion disks around them and hard gamma rays from them as material falls in. We can detect their size and spin rate, that they are more massive than neutron stars but smaller in size.

    Explain why this is not scientific evidence for a black hole.
    When you tell me that light is not escaping from that area. You are making two very big basic mistakes in real science.

    One, what are you seeing, when you claim you see no light? What does no light look like? We can duplicate that wavelength of black light here on earth.

    Two who is measuring the gravity? And how. We are not there to measure it. So it is a total speculation, no science involved at all. If we could actually measure or see the objects orbiting this effect, we could see the effect.

    What is the amount of gravity created by a very large planet? I do not know for sure. And neither does any other scientist until we either get there, or find and study, a planet very nearly its size.

    At best this is all speculation. Considering that real information about these objects is rejected. I doubt very highly that any such black hole exists.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Moderator mode:
    William, you are derailing a thread again with your nonsense that has only very little to do with the topic. Stay out of it, unless you have anything constructive to add. We will not start to discuss, whether your ideas have any scientific backing or not. If you want to do that, start your own thread.

    Regards,
    Dishmaster (Moderator).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    skeptic. A ten fold drop for each 1,000 kms. So the Moon is 380,800 kms away (average) and yet the Earth manages to hold it in place, despite the gravity dropping 3,808 fold to use your measurements.

    You don't mention the sun which holds in place the Kuiper belt and (presumably) the Oort Cloud, going out a light year, and presumably our sun's gravity goes out past that? This despite the sun's gravity dropping off 94,112,000,000 fold.

    We know that gravity holds the universe together from solar systems to galaxies to the entire universe. It is everywhere. We know that whole galaxies are moving about and that they do collide. We know that the Earth is being pulled from 147,000,000 light years away. Yet you believe that none of this affects photons, even over billions of years (or 31.56 x 10^15 seconds to put it another way).

    I remind you again of the difference between an hour and ten billion light years. A factor of 87.66 trillion times difference and you believe it will make no difference.

    There is also the point of light moving over 670 million miles from Earth in one hour so it will quickly slip out of the point of greatest attraction. As you point out, it will only be in that position for maybe 1 second rather than 1 hour, so not a lot of red shifting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Cyberia, why can't you get this? It is only a NET gravitational force that can shift light. Way out in between the galaxies the net force is negligible. You and sceptic just worked out how ridiculously small the forces become. The relationship is also not linear between the distance travelled and the gravitational force acting on it (inverse square law), so the proportion of gravitational red shift while it is in the vicinity of its source completely outweighs the shift it undergoes while in intergalactic space. That initial gravitational red shift is not even close to enough to account for the red shift that is observed, so there.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When you tell me that light is not escaping from that area. You are making two very big basic mistakes in real science.

    One, what are you seeing, when you claim you see no light? What does no light look like? We can duplicate that wavelength of black light here on earth.

    Two who is measuring the gravity? And how. We are not there to measure it. So it is a total speculation, no science involved at all. If we could actually measure or see the objects orbiting this effect, we could see the effect.

    What is the amount of gravity created by a very large planet? I do not know for sure. And neither does any other scientist until we either get there, or find and study, a planet very nearly its size.

    At best this is all speculation. Considering that real information about these objects is rejected. I doubt very highly that any such black hole exists.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    We can detect all wavelengths of radiation from space. The only radiation we get from black holes is hard gamma rays when things fall in and other radiation from the jets caused by magnetism whipping up infalling material. We are used to clouds of dust, even gas obscuring stellar objects so are not going to be fooled by them.

    A star emits infra-red radiation, even when it is a brown dwarf at just 300.C or lower. Since the background radiation is -271.C, we can detect anything hotter than that. However, black holes keep in all infra-red radiation so do not emit heat like even low mass dwarf stars do.

    We cannot detect gravity waves, or however gravity propagates. It is a process of we know roughly how much a certain type and size of star masses (weighs), and so what kind of gravitational force it would have. We can extrapolate this into distant star systems. If in a group of stars, we check them all and find they are not moving as they should but behaving as though there was an invisible star there, if we eliminate all possibilities, we can work out it's probably a black hole.

    Now as to measuring, we can do this with a BH, by it's spin, it's relativistic jets, and in some close cases, we can even see accretion disks.

    Jupiter masses nearly 1.9 x 10^24 tons.
    It is possible that the largest planet could be around 2 x 10^25 tons (10 times as big).
    But if you raise it ten times again, so 2 x 10^26 tons, you have a dwarf star.
    Our sun is nearly 2 x 10^27 tons.
    A neutron star maybe 4 x 10^27 tons.
    A black hole would be something like 10^28 tons upwards.
    So no one is going to mistake a large planet for a black hole.


    What problems do you have with a black hole? Do you believe an object can have an escape velocity greater than light speed? The biggest black hole so far, discovered last year, massed 18 billion times as much as our sun. That is as many stars as a small galaxy. You could not hide such a star/neutron star. The fastest spinning neutron star is about half light speed. Super-massive BH's have been found spinning at nearly light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Cyberia, why can't you get this? It is only a NET gravitational force that can shift light. Way out in between the galaxies the net force is negligible. You and sceptic just worked out how ridiculously small the forces become. The relationship is also not linear between the distance travelled and the gravitational force acting on it (inverse square law), so the proportion of gravitational red shift while it is in the vicinity of its source completely outweighs the shift it undergoes while in intergalactic space. That initial gravitational red shift is not even close to enough to account for the red shift that is observed, so there.

    Whole galaxies can provably drag other galaxies from millions of light years away. Yet according to you, they do not have sufficient force to affect a single photon in any way. Of course, spending trillions of times longer travelling through space than the object has leaving it's source makes no difference. It's not as if a planet could pick up solar radiation from it's sun over a million years equal to what it picks up from it going super nova, in a few seconds, is it? Cumulative effects don't happen, do they?

    Initial redshift would be cancelled out (usually) by arriving blueshift.

    Light always travels at light speed, regardless of any possible expansion of space. So we pick an object ten billion light years away so expansion would be about 150,000 miles per second between it and us. If we take sufficiently accurate readings of it's spectrum month by month for a year or maybe a decade and put them together, we should be able to observe the change in redshift of this spectrum as the object moves further away from us so becomes more redshifted. But no one has done this.

    I did point out to a professional astronomer that background radiation should be provably hotter at a constantly increasing rate, the further he looked away from Earth (until about 3000.C at 13.7 billion light years away). I never heard anything more from him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    You say this:
    Whole galaxies can provably drag other galaxies from millions of light years away. Yet according to you, they do not have sufficient force to affect a single photon in any way. Of course, spending trillions of times longer travelling through space than the object has leaving it's source makes no difference.
    And then this:
    Initial redshift would be cancelled out (usually) by arriving blueshift.
    Don't you think the second point invalidates your first? As the photon travels through space, it will encounter galaxies in every direction, don't you think? Those cancel each other out.


    Light always travels at light speed, regardless of any possible expansion of space. So we pick an object ten billion light years away so expansion would be about 150,000 miles per second between it and us. If we take sufficiently accurate readings of it's spectrum month by month for a year or maybe a decade and put them together, we should be able to observe the change in redshift of this spectrum as the object moves further away from us so becomes more redshifted. But no one has done this.
    You want them to be able to detect a difference of 1 in 10 000 000 000 units of redshift?


    Let's say you have a ball of gas in a container at 10 million K. If you expand the container to billions of times it initial size, will the gas still be at 10 million K? If yes, how do you arrive at that answer?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    See the HUDF below:

    http://www.oarval.org/HUDFen.htm

    You can see for yourself that the HUDF is a mixture of galaxies as we see here in our vicinity.
    The deeper you would probe, the less galaxies you would see because of the Malmquist bias.
    So galaxies with latge redshifts would amount to about 10% of the total seen at all the depths.
    So this is a 3D view .

    So evaluate this for yourself and form your opinion on what you think rather then what the text says.

    My opinion is that these galaxies are pretty much the same as we see in our vicinity. No evolution.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Do you concede my points Cyberia?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Don't you think the second point invalidates your first? As the photon travels through space, it will encounter galaxies in every direction, don't you think? Those cancel each other out.
    If a photon leaves a Milky Way sized galaxy and arrives at our galaxy, the red and blue shift should cancel out.

    Gravity over huge distances on all sides will drag at the photon, so causing it to lose energy over time. Think of a ball bearing rolling between 2 rows of magnets.

    You want them to be able to detect a difference of 1 in 10 000 000 000 units of redshift?
    For the most distant galaxies, they collect single photons to build up something useful.


    Let's say you have a ball of gas in a container at 10 million K. If you expand the container to billions of times it initial size, will the gas still be at 10 million K? If yes, how do you arrive at that answer?
    The microwaves start off at 3,000.C and the universe expands. So photons get further apart like in some gas clouds at millions of degrees centigrade where we could stand and not notice the temperature because the gas is so rarefied. But the photons are still 3,000.C , still hot like the gas is.

    So you measure the average temperature and there would be a cooling effect once there is space between the matter of the universe as it begins to thin out. The temperature over an area would continue to drop as the number of photons in a cubic mile of space dropped. But it would happen at a set rate over time. And for I don't know how long afterwards, though there would be ever less photons in a set area, they would still be around 3000.C .

    We are talking photons here because that is what we receive on Earth. How long before the photons themselves dropped from 3000.C to -271.C? Surely billions of years, so we could actually detect them "getting colder" as we get further from the BB?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My opinion is that these galaxies are pretty much the same as we see in our vicinity. No evolution.

    Cosmo

    From the time I spent on the galaxy zoo site, they do look like galaxies several billion light years away on that site. The writer talks of galaxies looking like toothpicks. Duh! Edge on spirals. "Majestic spirals look very poor when you don't have sufficient light to see them by, as any amateur who has looked at the Andromeda galaxy knows. As with past press releases from NASA, many are very poorly written up.

    I agree. No evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Gravity over huge distances on all sides will drag at the photon
    This does not work either. If you had a planet sized, perfectly homogenous billiard ball with a spherical cavity in the centre, then a person in that cavity will experience zero gravity, not be ripped to apart. Gravity acts on all parts of the photon. So while you might think that the gravity will stretch the photon, it's path will only be deviated.

    The universe is fairly homogenous on a large scale, so as the photon travels it will, on average, be exposed to both blue shifting and red shifting gravitational forces in all directions. Hence, no net frequency shift.

    For the most distant galaxies, they collect single photons to build up something useful.
    Yes, and? That makes it even more difficult.


    As for the rest: Don't you know any of the gas laws? You have volume, temperature and pressure. Increasing the volume decreases temperature and pressure. Quite simple and elementary.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia said :

    "Gravity over huge distances on all sides will drag at the photon, so causing it to lose energy over time."

    A serious lack of basic physics knowledge displayed here. Nothing loses energy. Energy cannot be lost. Just transformed into an other form. What form do you think it takes, Cyberia?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Actually energy can be lost in a limited sense if you're dealing with galactic redshift. This is because on the scale of the entire universe, energy is not necessarily conserved. When a photon is "stretched" by expanding space, that energy "disappears". It is not conserved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Gravity over huge distances on all sides will drag at the photon, so causing it to lose energy over time.
    Don't you think the photon would gain energy if it was moving towards the gravitational field of an object?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    When a photon is "stretched" by expanding space, that energy "disappears". It is not conserved.
    Technically, Numsgil, that's not entirely correct. The photon loses energy for much the same reason a fast rocket loses speed as it nears a strong gravitational field; the energy is used in attempting to resist the field.

    However, your statement does have implications. For one thing, where does the energy disappear to?

    That, sadly, is not the point in this thread. I just wanted to point out the right reason.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2
    There's no origin of the Universe. I heard and seen in my dreams in the year of B.C. that people and aliens landed on Earth to find peaceful planet. Then, they start to develop the Pyramid and Underground Deserts Based. But aliens put the signals that this planet was the first based because the complete of elements. It doesn't mean we descendant from aliens. Before aliens went to planet Earth, there's few of people living on this planet until it came to the realization. In other words, aliens was landed on the private place or not so crowded place. That's why aliens went back to planet Earth to see on what's inside on Earth but they are still searching where they want to create their based again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    When a photon is "stretched" by expanding space, that energy "disappears". It is not conserved.
    Technically, Numsgil, that's not entirely correct. The photon loses energy for much the same reason a fast rocket loses speed as it nears a strong gravitational field; the energy is used in attempting to resist the field.

    However, your statement does have implications. For one thing, where does the energy disappear to?

    That, sadly, is not the point in this thread. I just wanted to point out the right reason.
    Well, as far as I know, the shifting is more a side effect of time dilation due to the gravitational field than the photon being pulled this way and that. No energy is lost, it is just compacted or spread out. AFAIK
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    The math gets a bit thick for me, but check out this link. My understanding of the standard cosmological model is that on the scale of the entire universe, expanding space means losing energy (energy is related to a photon's frequency, remember). It's hard to get a straight answer so I might be wrong

    Here's a quote from teh link:

    "The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of years. Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy? Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies" belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor asymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy. Others will say that the energy is simply lost."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Gravity over huge distances on all sides will drag at the photon
    This does not work either. If you had a planet sized, perfectly homogenous billiard ball with a spherical cavity in the centre, then a person in that cavity will experience zero gravity, not be ripped to apart. Gravity acts on all parts of the photon. So while you might think that the gravity will stretch the photon, it's path will only be deviated.

    The universe is fairly homogenous on a large scale, so as the photon travels it will, on average, be exposed to both blue shifting and red shifting gravitational forces in all directions. Hence, no net frequency shift.

    Instead of a billiard ball, think of a steel ball bearing running between distant magnets. The pull is homogeneous so will not change it's direction, but the pull will slow it down. A photon cannot slow down so loses energy and redshifts. There will only be blue and redshifting like you talk about if a photon is close enough to a noticeable gravitational source.

    Yes, and? That makes it even more difficult.
    Not really. You are getting photons released over time, so each photon would be emitted further away than the last one if expansion is true.


    As for the rest: Don't you know any of the gas laws? You have volume, temperature and pressure. Increasing the volume decreases temperature and pressure. Quite simple and elementary.
    I hate to tell you this but microwaves aren't made of gas. A gas expands, it cools down. A photon beam covers a larger area, the photons initially just spread out. They will take a very long time to cool down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia said :

    "Gravity over huge distances on all sides will drag at the photon, so causing it to lose energy over time."

    A serious lack of basic physics knowledge displayed here. Nothing loses energy. Energy cannot be lost. Just transformed into an other form. What form do you think it takes, Cyberia?

    What dogma you got for me today? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. OK.

    What happens to a photon when it leaves an intense gravitational field? Why does it redshift as though it were losing energy? Come back when you have the answer, grasshopper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Actually energy can be lost in a limited sense if you're dealing with galactic redshift. This is because on the scale of the entire universe, energy is not necessarily conserved. When a photon is "stretched" by expanding space, that energy "disappears". It is not conserved.

    A photon cannot stretch. In one second, a photon covers 186,282 mps. If space in that second over that distance expands by the width of a proton, light still travels at 186,282 mps and not even a proton width further. If photons could stretch by such a tiny process, entering the Earth's gravity field would rip them to "pieces".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia
    Redshifting is not a loss of energy overall. It is a change of wavelength. The energy is 'smeared' over a larger portion of space, so the energy density gets less, but there is just as much total energy.

    You still do not seem not have realised that redshifting by gravity cannot cause the degree of redshifting we observe. It takes a very big gravity gradient to cause significant red shift. This is possible with a black hole or neutron star, but the light we observe from distant galaxies is not from those sources. And the gravity in interstellar space is so low, with respect to red shifting light, that it might as well not be there at all.

    Also, as has been pointed out many times, if light leaves a distant galaxy and is minimally red shifted, then there will an equivalent blue shift as it falls into our galaxy. The red shift we observe is NOT caused by gravity. It is caused by the expansion of the universe, and is a measure of the degree to which galaxies are receding from each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Instead of a billiard ball, think of a steel ball bearing running between distant magnets. The pull is homogeneous so will not change it's direction, but the pull will slow it down. A photon cannot slow down so loses energy and redshifts. There will only be blue and redshifting like you talk about if a photon is close enough to a noticeable gravitational source.
    You still don't understand what I am saying. There are "magnets" from every direction. They cancel each other out more or less.

    Not really. You are getting photons released over time, so each photon would be emitted further away than the last one if expansion is true.
    Sure, this is what is happening, but to measure it as precisely as you want them to is impossible.

    I hate to tell you this but microwaves aren't made of gas. A gas expands, it cools down. A photon beam covers a larger area, the photons initially just spread out. They will take a very long time to cool down.
    Well, I hate to tell you this, but photons do not cool down or heat up. They change wavelength as a result of expansion, which is not the same thing.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia
    Redshifting is not a loss of energy overall. It is a change of wavelength. The energy is 'smeared' over a larger portion of space, so the energy density gets less, but there is just as much total energy.
    Photons cannot stretch. Photons are individual and are unaffected by space distances becoming greater.

    You still do not seem not have realised that redshifting by gravity cannot cause the degree of redshifting we observe. It takes a very big gravity gradient to cause significant red shift. This is possible with a black hole or neutron star, but the light we observe from distant galaxies is not from those sources. And the gravity in interstellar space is so low, with respect to red shifting light, that it might as well not be there at all.
    A neutron star for one second or travelling through the universe for a few billion years. Spot the time difference. On one side you have great gravity. On the other side great time. That gravity that is almost not there moves whole galaxies about. Lots of galaxies collide, despite supposedly being biased to moving away from each other.

    Also, as has been pointed out many times, if light leaves a distant galaxy and is minimally red shifted, then there will an equivalent blue shift as it falls into our galaxy. The red shift we observe is NOT caused by gravity. It is caused by the expansion of the universe, and is a measure of the degree to which galaxies are receding from each other.

    As I have pointed out, I do not take into account the effect of the galaxy left because it is neutralised by the effect of the galaxy of arrival.

    How does it work? Galaxy Z is moving away from us. Photons are being admitted in our direction continuously. They always travel at light speed. They do not stretch. It means we are continually getting photons from ever further away. Kalster says the distance is too small to measure over years yet the recessional redshift is based on a fraction of a second. It is nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="KALSTER"]
    You still don't understand what I am saying. There are "magnets" from every direction. They cancel each other out more or less.
    If you have the equipment, try it out. Magnets placed correctly will stop the ball bearing moving towards either one, but will hold it in position, or in the example I mentioned, slow it down as it passes. They do not cancel out magnetic attraction. Only direction.

    [quote]Sure, this is what is happening, but to measure it as precisely as you want them to is impossible.

    That is what the recessional redshift is. Photons don't stretch or blue. We measure single photons over that distance so each is distinct. If we were measuring photons by the billion, then they would appear to blur into each other but not done one at a time.

    Well, I hate to tell you this, but photons do not cool down or heat up. They change wavelength as a result of expansion, which is not the same thing.
    A photon loses energy over time so it redshifts. As I said before, they do not stretch or blur. If a little thing like the space they travel through each second expanding by a proton's width stretched them, imagine what would happen when they got into the Earth's gravitational well. They'd be pulled apart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Kalster says the distance is too small to measure over years yet the recessional redshift is based on a fraction of a second. It is nonsense.
    I don't know what you are saying here. What do you mean by recessional redshift? If the redshift was due to the galaxies actually moving through, space then yes, the shift would be done in a short time, but since the redhsift is done over 13.7 Billion years of expansion and then measured to its current value, then one extra year would be impossible to detect. In fact, it is probably orders of magnitude smaller than the measuring error margin.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by ichatfilipina
    There's no origin of the Universe. I heard and seen in my dreams in the year of B.C. that people and aliens landed on Earth to find peaceful planet.

    I've had some dreams like that. I really should watch what I eat before going to bed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Don't you think the photon would gain energy if it was moving towards the gravitational field of an object?

    When it is sufficiently close to it's target galaxy. If also redshifts when moving away from it's home galaxy. They cancel out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    However, your statement does have implications. For one thing, where does the energy disappear to?

    Gravity soaks up the energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    If you have the equipment, try it out. Magnets placed correctly will stop the ball bearing moving towards either one, but will hold it in position, or in the example I mentioned, slow it down as it passes. They do not cancel out magnetic attraction. Only direction.
    Huh? Dude, like we have all been saying, the universe is isotropic on a large scale. In your analogy the bearing would not roll past only a couple of magnets, but through a gauntlet of them. Overall they will cancel each other out.

    That is what the recessional redshift is. Photons don't stretch or blue. We measure single photons over that distance so each is distinct. If we were measuring photons by the billion, then they would appear to blur into each other but not done one at a time.
    No. Each photon undergoes shifting. Each photon has its own wavelength.

    A photon loses energy over time so it redshifts. As I said before, they do not stretch or blur. If a little thing like the space they travel through each second expanding by a proton's width stretched them, imagine what would happen when they got into the Earth's gravitational well. They'd be pulled apart.
    What does blur mean? How can a single photon "blur"? The redshifts due to relativity and expansion are not the same thing.

    You are thinking of photons as if they are effervescent tablets travelling through water. Remember the billiard ball analogy I made. Two gravitational forces from either side do not rip the photon apart, because they cancel each other out. Those forces are acting on each point within the body in the field, not only on the nearest exposed side.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia
    Light is BOTH particle (photons) and wave. Which nature dominates depends on the situation. When we talk of red shift, it is the wave nature that dominates. When the light strikes matter, the particle nature has the greatest effect. You are amiss in your thinking when you talk of light between galaxies as if it were a stream of machine gun bullets. That is not its nature at all. When I spoke of light being 'smeared' over a greater distance with red shifting, that is due to the wave nature, and references to particle nature in relation to that are not appropriate.

    Talking of gravity 'soaking up energy' is also misleading. Photons are massless, and do not behave in a gravity well like massed particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia
    Redshifting is not a loss of energy overall. It is a change of wavelength. The energy is 'smeared' over a larger portion of space, so the energy density gets less, but there is just as much total energy.
    This is not true. Think about it. The energy of a photon is related to its wavelength. As the individual photon redshifts to a larger wavelength, by definition its energy is diminished. The energy is not "spread out", it actually disappears in a certain sense. See this link.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia
    Redshifting is not a loss of energy overall. It is a change of wavelength. The energy is 'smeared' over a larger portion of space, so the energy density gets less, but there is just as much total energy.
    This is not true. Think about it. The energy of a photon is related to its wavelength. As the individual photon redshifts to a larger wavelength, by definition its energy is diminished. The energy is not "spread out", it actually disappears in a certain sense. See this link.
    This is interesting. To go off on a tangent, it would almost seem as if the dark energy needed for expansion is borrowed directly from matter itself. Photons are after all the most basic form of matter in a certain sense and if the missing energy does not go towards expansion, where to then? I wonder how the variables add up.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    I read an article somewhere where someone wondered that exact same thing. They did the math and added up the energy lost from the CMBR over the life of the universe and the energy needed for Dark Energy. IIRC it was within an order of magnitude or two of each other. This wasn't a scientific paper, just a forum post or blog somewhere. So take it with a grain of salt.

    Would be interesting to work through the math ourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I read an article somewhere where someone wondered that exact same thing. They did the math and added up the energy lost from the CMBR over the life of the universe and the energy needed for Dark Energy. IIRC it was within an order of magnitude or two of each other. This wasn't a scientific paper, just a forum post or blog somewhere. So take it with a grain of salt.

    Would be interesting to work through the math ourselves.
    Cool. I wonder how the calculation would look if an estimation of the energy lost by ordinary radiated light during inter-galactic travel was added. I would follow such a calculation with great interest.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    [quote="Cyberia"]
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Don't you think the photon would gain energy if it was moving towards the gravitational field of an object?

    When it is sufficiently close to it's target galaxy. If also redshifts when moving away from it's home galaxy. They cancel out.
    Not necessarily. The gravity of one object may very well and most likely WILL be different than another.

    But, at least you admitted you were wrong.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    You all seem to accept the BBT as real.
    I refute it because it is cosmoGONY. I also explained the DM problem and refuted the DE problem.

    But if you guys want to solve the Universe energy problem, then you can use these components.

    3000K as the starting temperature when the light was allowed to travel freely through space.
    This energy is 3 Dimentional during expansion with space. It is considered to have a RS of 1000.
    Since it is expanding with space (3D), you treat it as an 'ideal' gas.
    So this is a relation between volume and temperature.
    The Wien formulsa comes very close to establish this relation between 3D space
    (2.898x10^-3)/temperature or wavelength.
    Since this 1000K is considered as a 'one' line dimension (3000-2.73 or 3) similar to a photon, you have a problem here. Ha ha.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    You all seem to accept the BBT as real.
    No, it is just currently the theory that describes all observations best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I refute it because it is cosmoGONY.
    This is not scientific, just excluding something, because you don't like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    3000K as the starting temperature when the light was allowed to travel freely through space.
    This energy is 3 Dimentional during expansion with space. It is considered to have a RS of 1000.
    Since it is expanding with space (3D), you treat it as an 'ideal' gas.
    So this is a relation between volume and temperature.
    The Wien formulsa comes very close to establish this relation between 3D space
    (2.898x10^-3)/temperature or wavelength.
    Correct so far - I guess. Just that the BB spectrum is always taken as an average along a line of sight or within a confined opening angle. By definition, a BB radiates isotropically, so direction does not matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Since this 1000K is considered as a 'one' line dimension (3000-2.73 or 3) similar to a photon, you have a problem here. Ha ha.
    I don't understand, what you are saying. Where is the problem? Let's make a little thought experiment: We have a closed volume containing gas at a certain temperature. Let's assume the gas is a perfect BB. Then we measure the spectrum of the emitted radiation (along a line of sight) and find a perfect Planck curve with the Wien's law giving us the temperature. Now let's expand the volume, so that it cools down with expansion according to the laws of an ideal gas. Then we do the same measurement again and find the temperature of that gas at that point in time. Now, where is the problem here? Isn't this the same like with the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I don't understand, what you are saying. Where is the problem? Let's make a little thought experiment: We have a closed volume containing gas at a certain temperature. Let's assume the gas is a perfect BB. Then we measure the spectrum of the emitted radiation (along a line of sight) and find a perfect Planck curve with the Wien's law giving us the temperature. Now let's expand the volume, so that it cools down with expansion according to the laws of an ideal gas. Then we do the same measurement again and find the temperature of that gas at that point in time. Now, where is the problem here? Isn't this the same like with the universe?
    The currant space temperature is 2.73K.
    Its wavelength at that temperature is considered to be from 1-2 millemeters.
    Wiens formula gives it a temperature of one mm.

    Here, you have a link between wavelength and temperature.

    But in an ideal gas, the heat energy would be relative to the volume and pressure.
    My opinion is that if the volume doubles, the temperature would be one half?

    So here you have two forms of measuring the Universe temperature.
    Which do you choose?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Duplicate post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Not necessarily. The gravity of one object may very well and most likely WILL be different than another.

    But, at least you admitted you were wrong.

    Of course not all galaxies have the same mass but we are not talking the wavelength of a gamma ray from a GRB here.

    I quoted what I have quoted several times already so I don't know how you work out I have admitted that I am wrong. Is this something to do with an inferiority complex?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    [quote="KALSTER"]
    Huh? Dude, like we have all been saying, the universe is isotropic on a large scale. In your analogy the bearing would not roll past only a couple of magnets, but through a gauntlet of them. Overall they will cancel each other out.
    OK, you don't want to do the experiment, forget it.

    No. Each photon undergoes shifting. Each photon has its own wavelength.
    A photon travels at a set speed in a set medium, regardless. So the distance of 186,282 miles light travels in one second expands by an atomic amount. So what! Light is still going to travel at exactly the same amount and not one electron's width further. I repeat:

    If a little thing like the space they travel through each second expanding by a proton's width stretched them, imagine what would happen when they got into the Earth's gravitational well. They'd be pulled apart.

    What does blur mean? How can a single photon "blur"? The redshifts due to relativity and expansion are not the same thing.
    A single photon cannot blur but a billion arriving at the same time from a fast receding object can cause blurring from many different redshifts. In the speeding train example, if you could take the whistle note each millisecond, each would be distinct but with our ears, we hear a large part of a second at a time, so hear many milliseconds worth which all blur into each other.

    You are thinking of photons as if they are effervescent tablets travelling through water. Remember the billiard ball analogy I made. Two gravitational forces from either side do not rip the photon apart, because they cancel each other out. Those forces are acting on each point within the body in the field, not only on the nearest exposed side.
    You're in a 100 ton rocket ship, you would not notice a pull from both sides cancelling each other out. You are a single photon, you are in a gravity storm with both sides trying to pull you towards them. There is no finely defined line where gravity cancels out at that size.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Cyberia
    Light is BOTH particle (photons) and wave. Which nature dominates depends on the situation. When we talk of red shift, it is the wave nature that dominates. When the light strikes matter, the particle nature has the greatest effect. You are amiss in your thinking when you talk of light between galaxies as if it were a stream of machine gun bullets. That is not its nature at all. When I spoke of light being 'smeared' over a greater distance with red shifting, that is due to the wave nature, and references to particle nature in relation to that are not appropriate.

    Talking of gravity 'soaking up energy' is also misleading. Photons are massless, and do not behave in a gravity well like massed particles.

    Some basic physics. Matter cannot travel at light speed. Light always travels at light speed. Particles are matter. Light is waves. Sand is particles but can behave like water in a storm. Photons are discrete objects as they do not leak out into a medium so can be mistaken for particles.

    Redshift is when a photon loses energy. It cannot slow down in speed so it's frequency does slow down causing it's wavelength to increase.

    Light travels at a set speed. If the distance it should cover in a single second expands by the width of a single electron, it does not matter because light travels at a set speed. The only difference is that it will take the smallest part of a second to cover that extra distance.

    The point about expansion is that it does not drag whole galaxies about. It expands the space between them as in an expanding hypersphere (similar to the surface of a balloon). There is no force on a photon. Expansion just means that a photon has to travel an ever greater distance, so no smearing or stretching of a photon.

    I have already explained photons in a gravity field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    I read an article somewhere where someone wondered that exact same thing. They did the math and added up the energy lost from the CMBR over the life of the universe and the energy needed for Dark Energy. IIRC it was within an order of magnitude or two of each other. This wasn't a scientific paper, just a forum post or blog somewhere. So take it with a grain of salt.

    Would be interesting to work through the math ourselves.

    Sounds like some serious BS to me. DE appeared some several billion years after the BB when it suddenly speeded up expansion. Note the word "suddenly". It has been increasing ever since. What were the magic words used to transform microwave energy into anti-gravity energy? "Hokus Pokus"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cyberia
    Methinks you have missed the point.
    Light travelling through space does not take the form of photons. Photons exist as one aspect of light, but do not manifest as photons in light travelling through space. In fact, it is not possible to envisage light as it travels through space, since it is not particle or wave, but shares some aspects of both. So to talk of photons in space is quite misleading.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The currant space temperature is 2.73K.
    Its wavelength at that temperature is considered to be from 1-2 millemeters.
    Wiens formula gives it a temperature of one mm.
    Sorry. Is this just a sloppy expression? Temperature is given in K, right. The Wien formula only gives you the wavelength, where the peak of the energy distribution is. But BB radiation is a continuum, where all wavelengths/frequencies are present.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Here, you have a link between wavelength and temperature.

    But in an ideal gas, the heat energy would be relative to the volume and pressure.
    My opinion is that if the volume doubles, the temperature would be one half?

    So here you have two forms of measuring the Universe temperature.
    Which do you choose?
    I still do not see the problem. All these quantities are related of course. The ratio of radiative and thermal energy is of the order of like you find it in the Planck equation. In an ideal gas, the volume is proportional to the temperature.



    If you keep the pressure constant, the volume increases with the temperature. The situation is much more complicated, when all quantities change. You can have an adiabatic process, where the increase of a volume reduces the pressure and also the temperature. But how this exactly works, depends on the properties of the gas (heat capacity, etc.). And it is not necessarily linear in volume and temperature.

    As far as I know, it does not make much sense to define a thermodynamic temperature of the universe, because the mean particle density is too low. Phenomenological thermodynamics are based on statistics of large ensembles of individual particles. This does not necessarily apply to the universe.

    In an ideal gas emitting a BB spectrum, both temperatures (radiative, thermodynamic) are the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/e/8/ce8dc304ae19dd87ab48ddfd9ecf7525.png[/img]ttp://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/e/8/ce8dc304ae19dd87ab48ddfd9ecf7525.png[/img]ttp://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/e/8/ce8dc304ae19dd87ab48ddfd9ecf7525.png[/img]
    adiabatic process

    As far as I know, it does not make much sense to define a thermodynamic temperature of the universe, because the mean particle density is too low. Phenomenological thermodynamics are based on statistics of large ensembles of individual particles. This does not necessarily apply to the universe.

    In an ideal gas emitting a BB spectrum, both temperatures (radiative, thermodynamic) are the same.
    Currently, IMO, there is only one BBT temperature and that is the CMBR temperature.
    I consider this to be a Universal temperature as an ideal gas that has distributed its heat uniformally throughout space.

    So this question of the BBTs energy is a moot question and beyond reach.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The BBT just doesn't work for a number of reasons. The CMB is the same temperature as nearby space because it is nothing bus a distance haze.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Currently, IMO, there is only one BBT temperature and that is the CMBR temperature.
    I consider this to be a Universal temperature as an ideal gas that has distributed its heat uniformally throughout space.
    For the most part, this is not true. The diffuse interstellar medium has a temperature typically of around 100 K. It is heated by the stars. Within clouds, it can drop to 30 K. The intergalactic medium is even much hotter. I think, it is a misconception to say that the universe has a mean temperate of the background radiation. It is just photons that have a spectrum that looks like a black body at a temperature of 2.73 K.

    Recommended reading: Joseph Silk, "A Short History of the Universe"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Dishmaster
    I am impressed by your knowledge on this subject. That is great!

    Can you let me know a wee bit about your background and experience?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    For the most part, this is not true. The diffuse interstellar medium has a temperature typically of around 100 K. It is heated by the stars. Within clouds, it can drop to 30 K. The intergalactic medium is even much hotter. I think, it is a misconception to say that the universe has a mean temperate of the background radiation. It is just photons that have a spectrum that looks like a black body at a temperature of 2.73 K.

    Recommended reading: Joseph Silk, "A Short History of the Universe"
    Your kidding, aren't you?

    Are you familiar with the interstellar space molecule that Andrew Mckellar discovered in our vicinity?
    It was determined to have a temperature of 2.3K.
    So how do you explain that?

    Refer to Contemporary Astronomy by Jay Pasachoff, copyright 1977, page 480.
    He wrote a later book.

    This page has the wavelengths of dozens of interstellar particles that I think would average out to a temperature of about 2.73K.
    Check for yourself.
    This is an old book so you would have to look in the archives of main libraries for it.
    Convince yourself.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Dishmaster
    I am impressed by your knowledge on this subject. That is great!

    Can you let me know a wee bit about your background and experience?
    Just follow the link on my profile page. There, you should find quite some information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Your kidding, aren't you?

    Are you familiar with the interstellar space molecule that Andrew Mckellar discovered in our vicinity?
    It was determined to have a temperature of 2.3K.
    So how do you explain that?
    No, I'm not. I vaguely remember that we discussed this already somewhere here. You are talking about molecular radiation which is due to spectral lines, I am referring to continuum radiation. Let me consult a few references to give you a thorough answer. But from the top of my head, I can say this:

    Spectral line radiation is usually emitted, when a molecule changes its rotational or vibrational state from a higher to a lower energy level. This is a quantum transition and therefore emits only a single line. The excitation can happen by different processes (shocks, radiation, heat). The radiation emitted does not necessarily reflect the temperature of its surroundings like the peak of a Planck distribution would do. The temperature cited with such observations is usually the so called excitation temperature that is linked to the frequency/wavelength and the intensity of the emitted line as well as the density of the gas in a rather complicated way. Simply speaking, the frequency of such a line transforms into a temperature by solving the equation of thermal and radiation energy.

    (with f being the degree of freedom of the molecule)

    Only a minimum energy is needed to excite such a molecule, which can be provided by a warm ambient medium. But this is only a lower limit of the true temperature, because a higher temperature can excite that molecule just as good. Measuring the radiation of space molecules is a standard observing technique nowadays.

    The temperatures of the interstellar medium can be very accurately measured with measurements of the continuum spectrum that is due to the heat radiation (modified Planck radiation or grey body). I have done that many times. It is highly accurate and yields the values I have given in my last post.

    Give me few days to come up with a few references and some more detailed information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    I gave you a reference for the space particles in the book mentioned above.

    This reference would be the NOISE of the CMBR radiations in the universe.
    The discovery was a detection of noise spots at different frequencies that complied to the Black Body Curvature and so this was then labeled as the CMBR .
    The variation of this CMBR is only 7/100,000 of a K. It is distributed throughout space. With this tiny vsriation, I consider it to be a Thermal Equalized Temperature that would imply an 'ideal' gas.

    So with these noise radiations, you can consider it to be a 'continuum of noise radiation.
    So in our interstellar medium, it is the same as in the intergalactic medium.

    These radiations were detected by satellites around our Earth. So I do not see
    how you can say the interstellar medium is that high as you claim.

    These space noises can constitute a continuum, but the variation is only a tiny fraction of differences that would represent an ideal gas.

    Cosmo

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Okay. Here is the actual scientific publication: http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1940PASP...52..187M
    You can click on the link to the PDF document and find the remark at the very end of that paper. Similar more recent measurements with a better accuracy confirm the results of an interstellar radiation field having a black body spectrum of a temperature around 2.74 K with a small uncertainty. (e.g. http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1986ApJ...309..822C and several references therein)

    A nice review on the history of the CMBR discoveries can be found at http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102402.

    So, I admit that the analysis of the intensity ratios of diagnostic spectral lines can indeed be a tool to derive the actual temperature with which the molecules (here it was CN) are excited. And it confirms the later findings by COBE and WMAP of the background radiation. So, all these observations only have one result: There is a homogeneous bath of photons having a continuous Planck spectrum indicative of a black body at a temperature of around 2.74 K. The big question is: What is the origin of these photons? And my quick investigation of the cited references tells me, that a cosmological cause (i.e. Big Bang) is not excluded at all.

    I even found a publication that reports on a measurement of the CMBR at a distance of z>3 (large redshift = large distance = in the past): http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2002A&A...381L..64M
    They find a higher temperature above 10K clearly indicating a development in time.

    But still, my previous remark about the temperatures of the interstellar and intergalactic medium remains. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_gas
    I have to dig up the reasons for that discrepancy, but I guess, it has to do with the gas density and the surrounding local radiation fields.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Okay. Here is the actual scientific publication: http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1940PASP...52..187M
    You can click on the link to the PDF document and find the remark at the very end of that paper. Similar more recent measurements with a better accuracy confirm the results of an interstellar radiation field having a black body spectrum of a temperature around 2.74 K with a small uncertainty. (e.g. http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1986ApJ...309..822C and several references therein)

    A nice review on the history of the CMBR discoveries can be found at http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102402.

    So, I admit that the analysis of the intensity ratios of diagnostic spectral lines can indeed be a tool to derive the actual temperature with which the molecules (here it was CN) are excited. And it confirms the later findings by COBE and WMAP of the background radiation. So, all these observations only have one result: There is a homogeneous bath of photons having a continuous Planck spectrum indicative of a black body at a temperature of around 2.74 K. The big question is: What is the origin of these photons? And my quick investigation of the cited references tells me, that a cosmological cause (i.e. Big Bang) is not excluded at all.

    I even found a publication that reports on a measurement of the CMBR at a distance of z>3 (large redshift = large distance = in the past): http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2002A&A...381L..64M
    They find a higher temperature above 10K clearly indicating a development in time.

    But still, my previous remark about the temperatures of the interstellar and intergalactic medium remains. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_gas
    I have to dig up the reasons for that discrepancy, but I guess, it has to do with the gas density and the surrounding local radiation fields.
    Your talking about isolated pockets of heated objects that msy be considered temporary except for some gas clouds.
    This according to that last web address you gave above.

    I am talking about the average (equalized) temperature throughout the universe.
    Sure, you have the very high star radiations moving through the various parts of the stellar medium but these are cooled out by the space vaccuum of zero K.

    I checked the temperature of Pluto in our solar sustem and saw that its surface temerature is 369 degrees fahrenheit.
    I forgot how to covert to centigrade?
    Can you convert fahrenheit to Kelvin? Thanks.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I am talking about the average (equalized) temperature throughout the universe.
    Sure, you have the very high star radiations moving through the various parts of the stellar medium but these are cooled out by the space vaccuum of zero K.

    I checked the temperature of Pluto in our solar sustem and saw that its surface temerature is 369 degrees fahrenheit.
    I forgot how to covert to centigrade?
    Can you convert fahrenheit to Kelvin? Thanks.

    Cosmo
    Space does not have a temperature.
    The temperature of Pluto's surface is estimated to be 40 to 50K.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The steady state idea has been pondered by much wiser astronomical and cosmological minds than any here, at enormous length and in enormous detail. End result is that it is not a credible idea. The Big Bang has so many facts supporting it that steady state is simply not credible.

    For example ; why is it that Hubble photos of far distant galaxies (meaning much younger galaxies) show that they are much closer together and show a much higher frequency of galactic collisions? Easy to explain from Big Bang and an expanding universe, but not so with steady state.

    Why is it that immensely distant stars appear to burn mostly hydrogen and have little helium? Why are many much larger than stars closer to us? These young stars are different to older stars, implying a universe that changes over time - not steady state!
    But more to the point, as ''beautiful'' Hoyles idea was, it required a Creation Field that spins a negative energy resevior which creates matter between galaxies as they merge away from each other.

    We have yet to observe such a creation on the scale of entire galaxies. Until the day we have some noticible matter ''appearing'' between galaxies, then we are left in awe of the theory. However, perhaps, and this is only speculation, perhaps it takes a little longer than just the wishful thinking of ''matter just appearing''. Maybe matter is being created between galaxies, but in very small amounts and takes the gradual course of time for us to see any ''clump'' of this stuff through the process of accretion... maybe that is why we are seeing gravitational effects but no real observable matter... indeed, maybe that is what the dark matter is?
    Only the mind can think twice simultaneously about a subject, but only one thing can inexorably come out of it. A choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Your talking about isolated pockets of heated objects that may be considered temporary except for some gas clouds.
    This according to that last web address you gave above.
    That's well possible. However, since the measurement of McKellar and others need a background light source (absorption lines), this measurement cannot be done everywhere either. But still, it is a good confirmation of the BB radiation field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I checked the temperature of Pluto in our solar system and saw that its surface temperature is 369 degrees Fahrenheit.
    I forgot how to covert to centigrade?
    Can you convert Fahrenheit to Kelvin? Thanks.
    Easy.



    So, 369F = 460 K seems a bit high. I guess it is rather -369F.
    http://www.universetoday.com/guide-t...ture-of-pluto/
    According to this quote, its average temperature is 44 K.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Maybe matter is being created between galaxies, but in very small amounts and takes the gradual course of time for us to see any ''clump'' of this stuff through the process of accretion... maybe that is why we are seeing gravitational effects but no real observable matter... indeed, maybe that is what the dark matter is?
    That was one of the first ideas. The rate needed was one hydrogen atom per square metre within 10 billion years. But it cannot be possible. If it were, we would have both matter and antimatter appearing. Their annihilation would lead to a weak glow in the gamma ray spectrum, which is not observed. If for some strange reason, only neutrons would appear, they would decay quickly into protons with some side effects also leading to a detectable radiation field that is not observed. That is the reason, why the supposed generation of matter was then linked to the QSOs and AGN. But this has a lot of problems, too, and is not backed up by observations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Maybe matter is being created between galaxies, but in very small amounts and takes the gradual course of time for us to see any ''clump'' of this stuff through the process of accretion... maybe that is why we are seeing gravitational effects but no real observable matter... indeed, maybe that is what the dark matter is?
    That was one of the first ideas. The rate needed was one hydrogen atom per square metre within 10 billion years. But it cannot be possible. If it were, we would have both matter and antimatter appearing. Their annihilation would lead to a weak glow in the gamma ray spectrum, which is not observed. If for some strange reason, only neutrons would appear, they would decay quickly into protons with some side effects also leading to a detectable radiation field that is not observed. That is the reason, why the supposed generation of matter was then linked to the QSOs and AGN. But this has a lot of problems, too, and is not backed up by observations.
    Mmm..
    Only the mind can think twice simultaneously about a subject, but only one thing can inexorably come out of it. A choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    Yes, I forgot the minus sign. So the temperature of Pluto is about 44K or as Mega says between 40-50K.

    I expected it to be a little colder but Pluto absorbs practically all the Suns energy out there.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Dish

    Yes, I forgot the minus sign. So the temperature of Pluto is about 44K or as Mega says between 40-50K.

    I expected it to be a little colder but Pluto absorbs practically all the Suns energy out there.

    Cosmo
    ''Practically all the suns energy''... where did you here this?

    Pluto isn't even a planet, it's an asteroid at best, so how can such a tiny object manage to absorb all the energy from the sun?
    Only the mind can think twice simultaneously about a subject, but only one thing can inexorably come out of it. A choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Dish

    Yes, I forgot the minus sign. So the temperature of Pluto is about 44K or as Mega says between 40-50K.

    I expected it to be a little colder but Pluto absorbs practically all the Suns energy out there.

    Cosmo
    ''Practically all the suns energy''... where did you here this?

    Pluto isn't even a planet, it's an asteroid at best, so how can such a tiny object manage to absorb all the energy from the sun?
    I think, he meant that Pluto has a small albedo. This means that only little light is reflected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Yes, that is what I meant.
    I expected Pluto to be a little colder.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Pluto does have a strange orbit that takes it inside Neptune's orbit at times, and has two seasons as in varying degrees of very cold. Possibly the closeness of Charon might shake it up a bit gravitationally, so warming it slightly by friction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •