No Big Bang

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Ned
The authors say that red-shifting is due to "tired light" and not due to movement away from Earth. Red shifting caused by motion works only if the Earth is the center of the universe and everything is moving away from us.

Just because everything is moving away from you doesn't mean you're at the center of anything. They're confusing proper motion with motion due to the expansion of space itself. Some galaxies (Andromeda, IIRC is one) are actually moving slightly towards us and are blueshifted - because they're close enough that the expansion of space isn't large enough to offset the proper motion in our general direction.

Get a balloon, blow it part way up, put some colored dots on it with marking pens. Then blow it up some more. You can see the dots all moving away from each other, no matter where any particular dot is with respect to the "center." It doesn't have to be a hollow shape, either. You could do the same thing on any elastic material.

Basic point being it ain't the galaxies moving, it's space itself (i.e. the universe) exanding.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Tired light ... that explains it. I'm tired all the time, so I must be a light particle

Have you shifted red?

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Basic point being it ain't the galaxies moving, it's space itself (i.e. the universe) exanding.

If someone mapped out the degree of red shift of distant galaxies would it not be possible to plot out the center of the universe? Surely this has been tried?

[The Mad Monk]

I don't think it can be. Redshift can give us the the distance and thereby the speed, but it give no clue as to direction. You need both to establish a vector.

I think.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I belive It gives the speed along the axis of meashurment, The raw red shift is compared to distance meashurments obtained from SuperNova to calculate speed. Plot a lot of these speed/distance combos and you get a line which is Hubbles constant. That can be used to estimate the distance of very high red-shift objects that we cant directly get a distance on.

In any case all the speeds are relative to our single point of observation which as Einstein showed is all that realy matters.

As pointed out earlier tired light has been soundly rejected by the scientific comunity, without some groundbreaking new observation to support it and a coresponding failure of the current theory its dosn't have a chance.

This ofcorse make is the perfect explanation in the Nediverse

[aneeshm]

KH in 10.... 9..... 8......

[KrazyHorse]

Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Ned
Red shifting caused by motion works only if the Earth is the center of the universe and everything is moving away from us.

Wrong.

This theory explains why stars and galaxies 15 billion light years away from us appear to be much older than Earth and the Milky Way and therefor must be older than the universe itself under the Big Bang theory

What? This makes no sense.

Why is it that an object being older than the Milky Way means that it's older than the Universe?

Any comments from our estimed physicists here?

Stop listening to cranks

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The universe didn't always exist, physicist or not.

How the **** do you know?

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, did you know that some galaxies are "blue-shifted." How is this possible with Big Bang

It's called peculiar motion

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, doesn't Einstein's General Theory already predict that light will undergo a redshift as it passes through space-time?

Perhaps in the Nediverse

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Just because everything is moving away from you doesn't mean you're at the center of anything. They're confusing proper motion with motion due to the expansion of space itself. Some galaxies (Andromeda, IIRC is one) are actually moving slightly towards us and are blueshifted - because they're close enough that the expansion of space isn't large enough to offset the proper motion in our general direction.

Get a balloon, blow it part way up, put some colored dots on it with marking pens. Then blow it up some more. You can see the dots all moving away from each other, no matter where any particular dot is with respect to the "center." It doesn't have to be a hollow shape, either. You could do the same thing on any elastic material.

Basic point being it ain't the galaxies moving, it's space itself (i.e. the universe) exanding.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If someone mapped out the degree of red shift of distant galaxies would it not be possible to plot out the center of the universe? Surely this has been tried?

This doesn't make any sense.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I don't think it can be. Redshift can give us the the distance and thereby the speed

Non-gravitational doppler shifts are a function both of the speed of the emitter relative to the observer and the angle of motion relative to a line joining the emitter and the observer. A purely spectroscopic measurement cannot determine either speed or direction absolutely. Generally highly-redshifted objects are so far away that their peculiar velocity (the velocity relative to us which is not a result of Hubble expansion) can be assumed to be small compared to the Hubble expansion. Therefore objects with significant redshift are just assumed to be receding from us. These objects are so distant that there is no hope of determining their proper motion (change in angular location in the sky), so this is the best we can do.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I belive It gives the speed along the axis of meashurment

Not quite. There is also the transverse doppler effect.

Non-relativistically you would not expect the transverse doppler effect to exist. In that case (take as an example the doppler effect on sound; velocities there are so low as to render SR useless) the doppler shift does simply give you the projection of the velocity on the line joining observer and source.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
The raw red shift is compared to distance meashurments obtained from SuperNova to calculate speed

Not quite. I believe that the raw redshift is used straight up as a velocity calculation in the manner I suggest a couple of posts up. The SN distance calculation is completely separate.