Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Big Bang

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Ned


    "Gravitational Redshift

    Another phenomenon predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity is that light loses energy as it emerges from a gravitational field. When light loses energy, its wavelength becomes longer and the color of the light shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (thus called the "redshift").

    Two key tests of the gravitational redshift are the Pound-Rebka Experiment and NASA's Gravity Probe A. In 1960, physicists Robert Pound and Glen Rebka were able to detect the redshift of high-energy gamma rays in an elevator shaft at Harvard University. They sent gamma rays up from the bottom of the shaft to a sensor 74 feet high. As the gamma rays climbed the 74 feet out of Earth's gravitational field, they lost a minuscule amount of energy (~ 2 parts in a trillion), which Pound and Rebka were able to detect. Their measurement agreed with Einstein's predictions to within 10%, later improved to about 2%.

    A more precise test of the redshift was conducted by Gravity Probe A in 1976, a rocket-based experiment, also known as the Vessot-Levine test. In this experiment, a hydrogen-maser clock was launched to an altitude of 6,000 miles. The frequency of the clock in flight was compared to the frequency of a matching clock on the ground. The experiment revealed that the frequencies of the clocks differed slightly, matching Einstein's predictions to within 70 parts per million. "

    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/...417theory.html
    You are stupid.

    Light "falling" deeper into a gravitational well gains energy and is blueshifted. Light "rising" out of a gravitational well is redshifted.

    Why do you bother attempting to postulate or defend wacko theories of cosmology if you don't even understand basic physics?
    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
    Stadtluft Macht Frei
    Killing it is the new killing it
    Ultima Ratio Regum

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by trev
      It is extraordinary that the Big Bang proponents deliberately ignore the many problems with the theory, but shoot down every other alternative. Big Bang ideas have had millions more time and money spent on research, yet seriously fall short in explaining the current large scale structure of the universe
      Uhhh....no.
      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
      Stadtluft Macht Frei
      Killing it is the new killing it
      Ultima Ratio Regum

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Ned
        Lul, the balloon expands, it is at a constant rate (right?). Stars opposite us, across the balloon would move away at 2 x. Stars near us would move away at much less than 2 x. But 2 x is the limit.

        But x is a relatively low velocity. Why don't we see galaxies and other objects moving faster than that towards us as they spin about star clusters?
        ok forget the balloon analogy you're reading too much into the objects on a 2d shell aspect of it which is not a useful aspect of the analogy. Instead consider the raisin bread analogy. The raisins are objects in the universe and the dough is the space. As you bake the bread and it rises the raisins move apart. If the bread is of sufficient size the speed at which the raisins recede from each other will increase to any speed you like (obviously ignorning relativity ) for a pair of raisins sufficiently distant in the original dough.


        I should add that ignoring relativity for the speed of separation of raisins in the raisin bread analogy is appropriate anyway since you can't assume the speed of light is the limit for rates of separation between two objects whose separation results from the expansion of the intervening space.
        Last edited by Geronimo; December 16, 2006, 18:31.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Lul Thyme


          If the universe was static, then both would be true.
          We would be looking at an object 12 billion years away as it was 12 billions years ago.

          the expansion of the universe complicates things a bit and I think that such an object would actually be farther in this case.
          It depends what you mean when you say "distance". I can think of at least 5 different definitions for it...
          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
          Stadtluft Macht Frei
          Killing it is the new killing it
          Ultima Ratio Regum

          Comment


          • #80
            I love how Ned thinks that physicists are complete ****ing idiots who would have missed something blindingly obvious like our expansion model not actually explaining Hubble velocities.

            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by KrazyHorse


              You are stupid.

              Light "falling" deeper into a gravitational well gains energy and is blueshifted. Light "rising" out of a gravitational well is redshifted.

              Why do you bother attempting to postulate or defend wacko theories of cosmology if you don't even understand basic physics?
              Gravity well? I thought there was no gravity in the General Theory, just curved space time. If this is true, then you have to agree that redshifting as one moves through curved space time is predicted by Einstein.
              http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

                Originally posted by KrazyHorse


                There are no galaxies visible 14 billion light years from us.
                Regardless of location, are there or are there not galaxies that are on the order of 20 billion years old that we can see?
                http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Lul Thyme


                  I have no idea what you mean by "inward".
                  If you take the SURFACE of the balloon as being the universe, then for someone in that universe, there are in fact galaxies in all the direction...



                  If this makes it too hard for you, imagine instead a possibly infinite loaf of bread with raising in it, and the loaf of bread is growing (maybe it's being cooked?). all the raisins are moving away from all the other raisins, and further raisins are moving away faster.
                  oops sorry I missed this post Lul.

                  well said

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by KrazyHorse


                    It depends what you mean when you say "distance". I can think of at least 5 different definitions for it...
                    What are those 5 definitions? What terms do physicists prefer to use to avoid that ambiguity?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Lul Thyme


                      I told you, that direction doesn't exists in that universe.
                      Take the bread example if that suits you better I already told you.
                      It seems you have to assume the BB theory to explain your observations.

                      I was reading elsewhere that CMB is the proof that the Steady State Universe cannot be true. Is there a simple explanation for why?

                      Others state that "tired light" would cause "blurring," which is not observed.

                      Why blurring?
                      http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Ned


                        Gravity well? I thought there was no gravity in the General Theory, just curved space time. If this is true, then you have to agree that redshifting as one moves through curved space time is predicted by Einstein.
                        ????????

                        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                        Stadtluft Macht Frei
                        Killing it is the new killing it
                        Ultima Ratio Regum

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

                          Originally posted by Ned
                          Regardless of location, are there or are there not galaxies that are on the order of 20 billion years old that we can see?
                          No.
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            To quote the wikipedia entry:

                            In physics, light loses energy when it moves away from a massive body such as a star or a black hole; this effect reveals itself as a gravitational redshift in the frequency of the light, and is observable as a shift of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. Gravitational redshift is sometimes known as the Einstein effect, although that is not the only meaning applied to that term.

                            Light coming from a region of weaker gravity shows a gravitational blueshift
                            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                            Stadtluft Macht Frei
                            Killing it is the new killing it
                            Ultima Ratio Regum

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Re: Re: Re: No Big Bang

                              Originally posted by KrazyHorse


                              You are a ****ing idiot.
                              Are you calling this gentleman an idiot as well?

                              cosmicvariance.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, cosmicvariance.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!
                              http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Geronimo


                                What are those 5 definitions? What terms do physicists prefer to use to avoid that ambiguity?
                                This has some of them at least:

                                12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                                Stadtluft Macht Frei
                                Killing it is the new killing it
                                Ultima Ratio Regum

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X