An alternative explanation to account for redshift...

[realisoph]

I have extensively argued here and here that - while one can imply redshift from recession velocities between the emitting and receiving bodies - one cannot do so inversely... meaning: one cannot imply recession velocities from the observation of redshift. I therefore contended that using this inverse logic (without any means of validation with respect to distant galaxies) one would have to significantly reduce the probability which one applies to the Big Bang having been an actual event.

Being asked to provide an alternative model to account for the redshift, here is my idea which I would invite you to discuss in this thread:

Radiation - such as light - passing by celestial bodies is bent due to gravity which accelerates it and thus 'stretches' the pattern.

If I am granted one wish... please, for once, try to stick to the argument instead of asserting that I am full of crap or anything such.


IMPORTANT! While the first draft here above was already going in the "right" direction, you will find a revised hypothesis a later post and later still a more appropriate analogy to explain how it works.

 

[nasher168]

Then why do further away objects exhibit more redshift than closer ones?

 

[realisoph]

Then why do further away objects exhibit more redshift than closer ones?

Because - as the distance increases - there's also more interaction (or interference) going on.

 

[Pulsar]

1. I debunked your argument in my last post on your big bang thread. I'll copy it again:

You want confirmation that redshift is due to a Doppler effect? No problem. Let's start with visual spectroscopic binary stars: those are star systems for which we have both visual information (we actually see them orbit around each other) and spectroscopic information (their redshifts change according to their orbit). Both the redshift info and the visual info match perfectly. Capella is an example of this, with both stars orbiting around each other in 104 days.

But maybe now you're whining "Ok so the Doppler effect is true for nearby stars, but that's not cosmic expansion!" No problem, I can give you evidence of that as well: Type Ia Supernovae in distant galaxies. You see, such supernovae have a characteristic light curve: their brightness increases very rapidly, and then declines over the next few weeks in a well known manner, which has to do with the radioactive decay of Cobalt and Nickel isotopes.
Now here's the fun part: The higher the redshift of a Type Ia supernova, the slower its brightness changes: we literally see them change in slow motion. And the slower change matches exactly with the value calculated from relativistic velocity time dilation. Every other explanation fails: tired light, gravitational time dilation, ...

So the cosmic redshift of Type Ia Supernovae is in exact agreement with velocity time dilation, which was yet another prediction of the Big Bang theory.

got it?

2. Bending light affects its path, NOT its redshift. It would also distort the source image, like a gravitational lens does.

3. Read a physics book. Go back to school.

4. Stop making new threads with the same drivel.

 

[realisoph]

1. I debunked your argument in my last post on your big bang thread. I'll copy it again...

I wouldn't so much call it debunking if you haven't even the patience to wait for and consider an answer.

You want confirmation that redshift is due to a Doppler effect? No problem. Let's start with visual spectroscopic binary stars: those are star systems for which we have both visual information (we actually see them orbit around each other) and spectroscopic information (their redshifts change according to their orbit). Both the redshift info and the visual info match perfectly. Capella is an example of this, with both stars orbiting around each other in 104 days.

I never argued that changing velocities relative to us (due to orbital motion or otherwise) would not result in a change in the observed redshift. So, we observe a change in the redshift for binary stars... I would have expected that, too.

But maybe now you're whining "Ok so the Doppler effect is true for nearby stars, but that's not cosmic expansion!"

Neither would I be "whining" about it nor would I contest that the above would only apply to nearby stars. But you are right if you guessed that I would claim that there is still a component to the observed redshift that can just as well be accounted for by the theory suggested in this very thread.

...cosmic expansion! No problem, I can give you evidence of that as well: Type Ia Supernovae in distant galaxies. You see, such supernovae have a characteristic light curve: their brightness increases very rapidly, and then declines over the next few weeks in a well known manner, which has to do with the radioactive decay of Cobalt and Nickel isotopes.
Now here's the fun part: The higher the redshift of a Type Ia supernova, the slower its brightness changes: we literally see them change in slow motion. And the slower change matches exactly with the value calculated from relativistic velocity time dilation. Every other explanation fails: tired light, gravitational time dilation, ...

On one hand, just as the "main signal" from that distant object (e.g. radiation from a Type Ia Supernova) is subject to the influence that causes a redshift, so is any superimposed signal (that characteristic light curve) ...on the other hand, suppose such a supernova (or the whole galaxy in which it is in) is indeed moving away from us... then what? Would that make for universal expansion and debunk the theory presented above?

2. Bending light affects its path, NOT its redshift. It would also distort the source image, like a gravitational lens does.

You merely stating that the redshift would not be affected is not very compelling... unless you can provide any grounds for such a claim. Of course, the image we perceive of any object is changing depending on our distance and relative position and, above all, depending on whatever happens to the transmitted signal during its journey. To assume that it would not does not make a lot of sense.

3. Read a physics book. Go back to school.

Use the poll instead of spamming the thread.

4. Stop making new threads with the same drivel.

Are you able to realize that - when a thread is getting insanely complex or off topic - it might be good to start a different thread for a specific argument worthy of discussion? Of course I will discuss things with the same attitude and based on the same premises. If you are tired of my perspective... feel free to leave.

 

[Josan]

Radiation - such as light - passing by celestial bodies is bent due to gravity which accelerates it and thus 'stretches' the pattern.

No, radiation does not get redshifted by celestial bodies. We know this through observation.


Edit: Well, except for gravitational redshifts, but that is obviously not what you meant and can't account for all the observed redshifts.

 

[Lallapalalable]

I could understand your argument if the gravity you are referring to was soley that of the source (ie the star's/galaxy's gravity causing the light to travel at a lower velocity), but
1. that would be a one time influence, (Edit: It would be continuous, but not strong enough to account for the observed shift)
2. the distance of the observed object would have no influence on the shift, therefore your hypothesis would imply that the more distant the object the more massive it is, and
3. the gravity of other galaxies would still not affect the shift, as it would only redirect the path the light takes.
I know thats not what you were saying, but thats where what you said made the most sense (and even then, it didnt).

Also, I agree with Pulsar. You really should have no reason to create a new thread for the same argument. You had your chance, most people here dont agree for many reasons, so take it at that. What you are saying is akin to declaring God exists without giving a unique argument, or any at all. We dont agree, we say why, and until you can produce an argument in our language (evidence, reasoning, and not ignoring ours), nothing will change.

 

[realisoph]

An alternative explanation to account for redshift... gravit

Let me just answer my own questions...

a - What is "gravitational redshift"?
b- Why would I not have meant that?
c- Why you assume that it could not account for the generally observed redshift that occurs when looking at distant galaxies?

a - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

b - I have not meant that but it is a good starting point to understand and make estimates about this version of "gravitational redshift"

c - well, because it is probably not universally applicable to all the redshifted signals we're perceiving

 

[realisoph]

I could understand your argument if the gravity you are referring to was soley that of the source (ie the star's/galaxy's gravity causing the light to travel at a lower velocity)

If that is how you understood my theory... then you didn't understand it.

but...
1. that would be a one time influence,
2. the distance of the observed object would have no influence on the shift, therefore your hypothesis would imply that the more distant the object the more massive it is, and
3. the gravity of other galaxies would still not affect the shift, as it would only redirect the path the light takes.
I know thats not what you were saying, but thats where what you said made the most sense (and even then, it didnt).

So, point 1 and 2 are irrelevant, as the gravitation of the emitting body is not much of concern with respect to what I proposed. In 3, all you do is make an unsubstantiated claim or did you provide any evidence for it? I know very well, that I haven't provided any evidence either... but how could I? I just came up with that theory.

Also, I agree with Pulsar. You really should have no reason to create a new thread for the same argument. You had your chance, most people here dont agree for many reasons, so take it at that. What you are saying is akin to declaring God exists without giving a unique argument, or any at all. We dont agree, we say why, and until you can produce an argument in our language (evidence, reasoning, and not ignoring ours), nothing will change.

Please read the OP! This is not the same argument as that of the Big Bang even if it might be a subset.

As long I only hear a lot of silence once certain attempts to debunk part of my admittedly bold argument have been refuted in detail... I don't care much if most people still disagree or not.

You may chose to unite with everyone who ever disagreed with me at some point, but I don't find that very ingenious... especially not with respect to arguments which you even fail to understand right in the first place.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Where did you get your doctorate in physics?

 

[darthrender2010]

I know very well, that I haven't provided any evidence either... but how could I? I just came up with that theory.

I'm sorry, but no, you didn't come up with a theory. You came up with a guess with no basis in phenomena. What you came up with can barely be called a hypothesis.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Since this is just copy pasta from the old site, why don't you do us all a favor and answer this question from the old thread

Before I made a statement about this hypothesis, I'd want to see your development. What is your equation that says what the magnitude of the force vector is that seems to attract these two bodies, one to the other (it may be caused by something else than an attractive force, but it certainly expresses itself as an attraction)? Can you predict the location of, say, Jupiter in the sky on Dec 25, 1CE, at 9:00PM local in the Israeli time zone from observations of its location at several points in the past? Can you work the Mercury problem that led Einstein to develop his hypothesis? Why does light bend around massive objects, as observed?

As for he rest, you'll need to explain the Cosmic Background Radiation, for starters.

 

[realisoph]

Where did you get your doctorate in physics?

Neverland

 

[Lallapalalable]

Re: An alternative explanation to account for redshift... gr

What is "gravitational redshift"?

Thats where the gravity of the source or point of observation causes a redshift (or a blueshift). See my previous post as to why this does not account for the generally observed redshift of galaxies (specifically 2, the "irrelevant" one)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

In 3, all you do is make an unsubstantiated claim or did you provide any evidence for it?

The gravity of bodies adjacent to light's path affect the path of the light in direction but not frequency. The energy goes into redirecting the light, where if it were to affect the frequency it would need to be directly behind the path or very close to have any real noticable affects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

And I barely know anyone here, so just uniting behind them more or less never happens with me. I will, however, agree with them when they say something I was considering saying.

 

[realisoph]

I'm sorry, but no, you didn't come up with a theory. You came up with a guess with no basis in phenomena. What you came up with can barely be called a hypothesis.

Well then, call it a hypothesis.

Anyhow, that the trajectory of radiation bends when passing by a (strong enough) gravitational field does not originate in my guessing.

The proposed pattern shifting effect is yet to be proved or disproved (in this thread).

 

[borrofburi]

I know very well, that I haven't provided any evidence either... but how could I? I just came up with that theory.

I'm sorry, but no, you didn't come up with a theory. You came up with a guess with no basis in phenomena. What you came up with can barely be called a hypothesis.

This...


So, once, in very simple terms: how does your hypothesis account for the fact that we observe a directly proportional link between the distance a star is from us, and the amount of redshift that star's light has?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Neverland

So you have guesses and no degree, and you've decided to resurrect dead threads in order to spew the same ignorance-based nonsense a second time? Shouldn't you have spent this time learning things? I realize that learning things is harder than making shit up for no good reason, but you should still give it a try some time.

 

[Lallapalalable]

So wait, I think I see where you are coming from. You want to say that everything we have concluded could very well be false, provable only through some observation we have not made yet. But how is it scientific to claim something based on a hypothetical observation nobody has made yet, namely you, and may never make for reasons including that it does not happen? Its inquizitive, sure, and there's no harm in that, but you should acknowledge even the arguments that dont cater your point of view.

 

[realisoph]

An alternative explanation to account for redshift... gravit

Since this is just copy pasta from the old site, why don't you do us all a favor and answer this question from the old thread

Before I made a statement about this hypothesis, I'd want to see your development. What is your equation that says what the magnitude of the force vector is that seems to attract these two bodies, one to the other (it may be caused by something else than an attractive force, but it certainly expresses itself as an attraction)? Can you predict the location of, say, Jupiter in the sky on Dec 25, 1CE, at 9:00PM local in the Israeli time zone from observations of its location at several points in the past? Can you work the Mercury problem that led Einstein to develop his hypothesis? Why does light bend around massive objects, as observed?

As for he rest, you'll need to explain the Cosmic Background Radiation, for starters.

Was this is with respect to my theory of gravitation? If yes, then it is not essential to this argument and this is probably not the right thread to repost related questions. Even though I fear that opening up another thread on that theory will also open another can of whoopass for me... if you request it, I'll create one.

 

[Nelson]

Well then, call it a hypothesis.

Anyhow, that the trajectory of radiation bends when passing by a (strong enough) gravitational field does not originate in my guessing.

The proposed pattern shifting effect is yet to be proved or disproved (in this thread).

OK, so you have a hypothesis since I last checked in. At least that is a step forward, although you have failed to offer ANY rigid framework at all. You again simply stated an idea in incredibly basic terms.

As people have already mentioned gravitational redshift is already a part of GR, but you seem to be discussing some sort of redshift when lensing occurs. Physicists have observed many cases of objects being lensed, there is no corresponding redshift, so you have ZERO empirical evidence to backup this claim.

But I'll humor you for a bit. Now that you have a hypothesis, the first step is to determine a prediction made by your model that differs from the current model. I think in this case, it would be that redshift should strongly correlate with the number of objects near the line of sight to the source. That is:

If you take a large number of sources at some fixed distance, the objects whose light must pass near many other objects on the way to us will be significantly more red-shifted than those who have a reasonably clear shot to us.

Well the answer is that there is NO such correlation. And this hypothesis will not explain the current observations.

Your idea fails even the most basic scrutiny. Why do you think this is a reasonable alternative to current theories? We have already discussed that your basic premise is "infinity". You believe that time and space must be infinite, and therefore any evidence to the contrary must be incorrect, because the true conclusion must be "infinity".

You start knowing the conclusion, and you are desperately searching for a model to make your conclusion work. This IS NOT science.