Thread: Red Shift???

Tell me if I am wrong, but wouldn't light begin to slow down and shift to a lower wavelength if it has to travel hundreds of Lightyears to reach us.

So wouldn't the red shift phenomena just be a result of Light traveling a long way and is therefore not evidence that the universe is expanding?

yeah
i think you are right.
It is possible what u said.
let me wait for some more reply. :wink:

This is the so-called "tired light" theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

It is not very popular today for various reasons discussed in the article.

That theory really doesn't explain anything to me. (please pardon my ignorance)

The speed of light is a constant, so how can a single particle Given a specific amount of thrust possibly maintain such a constant speed over near infinite distances without losing any energy at all to maintain ts speed. Also if no light lost any of its energy how come we cant look from space and see all the way to the edge of the universe?

I apologize if I sound really stupid I really never did take any advanced classes in school and I'm not intelligent enough to go to college.

Originally Posted by Dragor

The speed of light is a constant, so how can a single particle Given a specific amount of thrust possibly maintain such a constant speed over near infinite distances without losing any energy at all to maintain ts speed. Also if no light lost any of its energy how come we cant look from space and see all the way to the edge of the universe?

The light is traveling through a vacuum, so there is nothing to stop it. It is not a perfect vacuum so some of the light is absorbed or reflected, some makes it through untouched.

According to the relativity theorists, there is no edge of the universe.

Originally Posted by Dragor

Tell me if I am wrong, but wouldn't light begin to slow down and shift to a lower wavelength if it has to travel hundreds of Lightyears to reach us.

So wouldn't the red shift phenomena just be a result of Light traveling a long way and is therefore not evidence that the universe is expanding?

Yes.
But the light is not tiring.
I wrote an article about the 'Expansion of Light Waves' that promotes an 'intrinsic force' within the photons that cause the photons to expand slowly.

It is possibly on one of the latter pages with my previous nickname.

Mike C

yes, if you could get into a VERY fast spaceship and left earth and traveled straight away from earth, you would end up back at the earth eventually. like the inside of a ball.

mike c, if i may ask, could you maybe answer my question on this post? no-one seems to have an answer and you seem to have them.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=8330&start=15

Originally Posted by KALSTER

mike c, if i may ask, could you maybe answer my question on this post? no-one seems to have an answer and you seem to have them.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=8330&start=15

Black holes do not exist.
If they did, they would be visible and detected in this modern age.

Black Holes would be visible because the light passing just outside the 'event horizon' would create a weak spherical globe of light around this EH to be visible. This globe would be the light from around the backgroun stars that surround the BH.

BH's are supposed to be the remnants of 'giant blue stars' that have burned themselves out.
In the past history of our galaxy, there must have been a large number of these stars. So there should have been one or two in our vicinity to be detected. There are none.

Mike C

Originally Posted by Mike C

Black Holes would be visible because the light passing just outside the 'event horizon' would create a weak spherical globe of light around this EH to be visible. This globe would be the light from around the backgroun stars that surround the BH.

Why on earth would you think this...?

i think he might be thinking of the lens effect?

The Land of Oz doesn't really exist, right?

But, we have evidence on a silver screen it does.

The Flying Monkeys, on that silver screen, man, "they're real".

So what makes the stars so real?

Originally Posted by Dragor

...how come we cant look from space and see all the way to the edge of the universe?

There's stuff in the way. Dust, rocks, stars, nebula, galaxies, Gene Roddenberry...

And that whole distance thing, too...

.....popcorn......

......kids playing under seats........

............cigarette smoke......................

....................back seat.................................

drugs are evil

don't get 2 self aware???????

right?

You were humoring I?

so is MSG.

so is bad sex.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Mike C

Black Holes would be visible because the light passing just outside the 'event horizon' would create a weak spherical globe of light around this EH to be visible. This globe would be the light from around the backgroun stars that surround the BH.

Why on earth would you think this...?

Well, 'Event Horizons' are portrayed to surround 'black holes'.
Since they are the outer edges of BH's, wouln't these EH's bend light just outside their borders?
Think!

Mike C

Light that hits the event horizon doesn't automatically scatter all over the place. It exits in a place that corresponds more or less with where it entered. If all the light from a particular source arrives together from one direction, then all that light will leave together from another.

As far as the redshift in general, I'm happy to leave it as a mystery. Rushing to an answer about everything creates entrenchment, and invariably blocks the way to real science, because if anyone ever actually figures out the real answer, they end up having to overcome the entrenchment in addition the the basic challenge of proving their theory.

Originally Posted by Mike C

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Mike C

Black Holes would be visible because the light passing just outside the 'event horizon' would create a weak spherical globe of light around this EH to be visible. This globe would be the light from around the backgroun stars that surround the BH.

Why on earth would you think this...?

Well, 'Event Horizons' are portrayed to surround 'black holes'.
Since they are the outer edges of BH's, wouln't these EH's bend light just outside their borders?
Think!

Mike C

What you are talking about is known as Gravitational Lensing: Where light from many sources behind a large gravitational body is bent more in some closer to the body than further away. This would NOT form a sphere of light however and needs many different sources of light behind the bpdy such as galaxies

Originally Posted by Nevyn

Originally Posted by Mike C

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Mike C

Black Holes would be visible because the light passing just outside the 'event horizon' would create a weak spherical globe of light around this EH to be visible. This globe would be the light from around the backgroun stars that surround the BH.

Why on earth would you think this...?

Well, 'Event Horizons' are portrayed to surround 'black holes'.
Since they are the outer edges of BH's, wouln't these EH's bend light just outside their borders?
Think!

Mike C

What you are talking about is known as Gravitational Lensing: Where light from many sources behind a large gravitational body is bent more in some closer to the body than further away. This would NOT form a sphere of light however and needs many different sources of light behind the bpdy such as galaxies

Well yes. It is similar to GL but you cannot make a direct comparison to the GL of galaxies because of the structural differences, distances and numbers.

Stars are much more numerous here in our galaxy that would surround any existant BH's if there were any.

Mike C