ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek is dead...

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Oct. 07 2009, 10:19 am

Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 7:03 am)
As for red shift, I believe it is an optical illusion and Einstein didn't really make that "biggest blunder" of his life. There are things which seem obvious to me which other folks in the business have yet to trip over. I don't want to say why I believe it is an optical illusion as yet, just remember where you heard it. ;)

Actually it is an optical illusion to an extent, since it is something we see.

Here is the quick definition: (let's see how well my memory is)

A redshift is a shift in the frequency of a photon toward lower energy, or longer wavelength. The redshift is defined as the change in the wavelength of the light divided by the rest wavelength of the light, as

z = (Observed wavelength - Rest wavelength)/(Rest wavelength)

Note that postive values of z correspond to increased wavelengths (redshifts).

Different types of redshifts have different causes.

The Doppler Redshift results from the relative motion of the light emitting object and the observer. If the source of light is moving away from you then the wavelength of the light is stretched out, i.e., the light is shifted towards the red. These effects, individually called the blueshift, and the redshift are together known as doppler shifts. The shift in the wavelength is given by a simple formula

(Observed wavelength - Rest wavelength)/(Rest wavelength) = (v/c)

so long as the velocity v is much less than the speed of light. A relativistic doppler formula is required when velocity is comparable to the speed of light.

The Cosmological Redshift is a redshift caused by the expansion of space. The wavelength of light increases as it traverses the expanding universe between its point of emission and its point of detection by the same amount that space has expanded during the crossing time.

The Gravitational Redshift is a shift in the frequency of a photon to lower energy as it climbs out of a gravitational field.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Oct. 07 2009, 6:57 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 06 2009, 9:35 pm)
Re: Vice_Adm_Baxter, Oct. 07 2009, 10:19 am EDT

Pretty dang good there, Admiral!

Quite a few folks have had some excellent input in this thread.

The three commonly accepted causes for redshift you have listed are aberrations - observed distortions with commonly accepted causes.

My conjecture is the doppler redshift somehow proving an ever expanding universe and that the farther away an object is from us the faster it is receding from us is an illusion - a mistaken idea, a misleading visual image, something accepted as true that is actually false.

Cosmological Redshift - That wavelengths increase simply because they travel great distances is generally accepted but ignorant. There is no reason given other than, basically, light waves stretch/get longer due to the distances they travel and get bogged down in spacetime. Pfffft.

Gravitational Redshift - This we can actually see with the lensing effect.

Sorry dude, but i have to stop you right there. You are COMPLETELY WRONG about redshifts. Light waves do not stretch. They are simply moving in relation to one wave crest to the next due to the object emitting the waves being in motion. The best example i can give is when you hear a siren from far away. When it travels towards you, it has a different sound than when it is traveling away from you. This is not due to the soundwaves being stretched, it is due to the fact that the siren is moving. The wavelengths in the direction of motion appear to be smaller because the motion of the siren. The wavelengths in the opposite direction of motion appear to be stretched because the sources is moving farther away.

Quote
The frequency of the sounds that the source emits does not actually change. To understand what happens, consider the following analogy. Someone throws one ball every second in a man's direction. Assume that balls travel with constant velocity. If the thrower is stationary, the man will receive one ball every second. However, if the thrower is moving towards the man, he will receive balls more frequently because the balls will be less spaced out. The inverse is true if the thrower is moving away from the man. So it is actually the wavelength which is affected; as a consequence, the received frequency is also affected. It may also be said that the velocity of the wave remains constant whereas wavelength changes; hence frequency also changes.


EDIT: I'm studying Physics.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Oct. 07 2009, 8:15 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 5:12 am)
Hey, dude :laugh:

If you really want to do this, o-key-doke...

See, I make one post without sources and, basically, I get this .. ummm ... stuff ;)

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Oct. 07 2009, 6:57 pm)
Sorry dude, but i have to stop you right there. You are COMPLETELY WRONG about redshifts. Light waves do not stretch. They are simply moving in relation to one wave crest to the next due to the object emitting the waves being in motion.

;)

You need to find a better source. It's totally bogus. Take it from a physics major.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Oct. 07 2009, 8:42 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 5:39 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Oct. 07 2009, 8:15 pm)
Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 5:12 am)
Hey, dude :laugh:

If you really want to do this, o-key-doke...

See, I make one post without sources and, basically, I get this .. ummm ... stuff ;)

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Oct. 07 2009, 6:57 pm)
Sorry dude, but i have to stop you right there. You are COMPLETELY WRONG about redshifts. Light waves do not stretch. They are simply moving in relation to one wave crest to the next due to the object emitting the waves being in motion.

;)

You need to find a better source. It's totally bogus. Take it from a physics major.

Quote
cosmological redshift: The redshift due to the expansion of the Universe. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a Doppler shift. Most galaxies move away from us, but this is not the cause of their redshifts. Instead, as a light wave travels through the fabric of space, the universe expands and the light wave gets stretched and therefore redshifted.
Source: cosmological redshift

Now, here's a little help:
What is the difference between the "Doppler" redshift and the "gravitational" or "cosmological" redshift?

So, if you wish to disagree with Cornell, be my guest. Also, there's plenty more where that came from.

Physics major, huh? I've taught physics and just happen to have my own university quality dome and scope on the top of my house. You're letting you ego overload what you can back up, PC...

I do disagree. If this were established fact, it would be what would be tought, which it is not.

EDIT I don't think so. What kind of physics have you taught?
P.S. Im willing to bet my homemade telesecope in my backyard is bigger.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Oct. 07 2009, 10:24 pm

THE COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT AS AN EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON PHOTON FREQUENCY by Charles Weber, MS

SUMMARY

The dependence of the frequency shift on the cosine of the angle made with the gravitational field is an approximation because of the fact that the photon's trajectory changes. It follows that photons of energy should have a slight residual red shift upon passing a mass. This shift is proposed as the main cause of the cosmological red shift.

For a hypothesis that explains quasars as an optical illusion produced by bending of the light from the opposite jet around a huge mass (gravitational lens) WITHIN the quasar.

DISCUSSION

The effect of gravity on electromagnetic frequencies as determined by Pound and Rebka had been proposed by Einstein as proportional to the cosine of the angle that the trajectory makes with the direction of the gravitational field [1]. Katila and Riski have confirmed this law experimentally [2]. However this law is actually an approximation.

To understand why, consider a photon of energy approaching the earth with a trajectory such that it will be tangent to the surface. Assume that the earth is stationary. Then the situation is portrayed by figure 1, where Y is the radius of the earth, X is the distance of the photon of energy from the point of tangency, Z is the distance of the photon from the center of the earth,  is the acceleration at the surface of the earth,  is the acceleration along the z direction,  is the vector acceleration along the X axis, is time, V is velocity in general, C is the speed of light, M is the equivalent mass of the photon of energy (Vigier has proposed that one photon of light energy is equivalent to 10 to the -65th grams of mass [9], which has been proved to high accuracy [17] and Siepmann has proposed that a photon has less density than the ether), E is the energy of the photon, and  signifies a change in a quantity.

Then:

{ gravity's inverse square law } 1.

{ Einstein's cosine law, x/z is the cosine }. 2.

{ combining equations 1 & 2 } 3.

{ hypotenuse of a right triangle } 4.

{ combining equations 3 & 4 } 5 .

The equation for a change of energy as velocity changes in general is given

6.

7.

{ combining 6 & 7 } 8.

In this case: and 9.

Therefore combining equation 8 with the two equations of no. 9 we get:

10.

Putting equation 10 in differential form as approaches zero, keeping in mind that when we integrate, the term containing will vanish, we get:

11.

If we insert for m and the value of A from equation 5 into equation 11 we get:

12.

If we integrate equation 12 to solve for a change in energy, we get (note; ¿a¿ should be ¿A¿):

13.

Therefore the value of from to , is: .

The reason why the above integration of energy change, which manifests itself as a change in frequency in this case since the speed of light cannot change in a vacuum, is an approximation is that the above treatment assumes that "Y" is a constant while actually it is not. The photon's path curves in toward the earth slightly, and therefore the acceleration "A" increases slightly. Therefore the blue shift is slightly greater than the cosine law would predict. At first thought one would think that the red shift deviation going out would be equal to the blue shift deviation coming in. However the light trajectory is still being bent toward the earth, so the red shift deviation going out should be greater than the blue shift deviation when the photon reaches infinity. Adding to the deviation is the circumstance that the earth moves slightly toward the photon. This part of the deviation can be safely ignored for practical computations since it is extremely tiny. There is also an approximation inherent in the fact that "M" is not really a constant either, but changes with the frequency. However, this approximation should have no effect on the deviation between the red and blue shift, and so is immaterial to the thesis of this article.

CONCLUSIONS

It follows, then, that whenever a photon of energy passes any mass from a great distance to a great distance it will red shift slightly. If the mass is extremely rigid, such as an individual hydrogen atom for instance, the energy transfer will presumably take the form of giving the mass a slight motion toward the photon's trajectory. If it is not rigid, some of the energy transfer will presumably take the form of heat from tidal friction.

Another way of visualizing the concept that I propose is this; Imagine two bodies in space moving toward each other. Then imagine someone firing a bullet between them from a great distance. While the bullet is passing between them, it attracts both bodies. So when the bullet reaches a great distance away, the two bodies should be moving slightly faster toward each other, and will generate more energy when they collide with each other. Therefore the bullet should have less energy.

Now there is no way of knowing with an experiment whether a photon attracts a mass. However, since it IS known, or at least strongly suspected, that a mass attracts a photon, it is plausible that a photon does so attract a mass. Indeed it has been proposed that mass is only a standing wave itself. In any case it would be a good idea to perform an experiment to determine if a photon does lose energy when moving horizontally through a gravitational field.

If the mass is already moving away from the trajectory, instead of the deviation being a red shift, the deviation should be a net blue shift. To visualize why this must be so, picture two masses in space moving away from each other. If anything passes between them possessing gravitational properties, after it passes they will be moving apart slightly less rapidly than before. So therefore the passing object must have slightly more energy. However the average effect for all mass in space should be a red shift since there must be many more masses that are stationary relative to the trajectory or moving parallel to it than masses moving away.

At first thought one would think that distant objects would have little effect since gravity declines with the square of the distance. However, the average amount of mass in each succeeding shell of space around the photon of energy increases with the square of the radius. Therefore, statistically, each shell will have the same effect as the one inside it and outside it. It follows that, in an infinite, uniformly dense universe, the dampening effect would be infinite no matter what the size of the deviation was. Since the dampening effect is actually extremely small if the cosmological red shift is a manifestation of this phenomenon, it follows that either the universe is not infinite, or that there is a cut off point beyond which gravity can not be felt. If there were a dozen black holes close to the line of sight between us and a galaxy, no one would deny that there would be a perceptible red shift in the light from that galaxy. So anyone who denied that the cosmological red shift was significantly caused by a gravitational interaction would be saying that he did not believe the cut off point extended out very far. It has been argued that, if there was a gravitational interaction, the star light would be blurred. However, there are several instances of two images of quasars near each other with almost the same red shift. This has been interpreted as a single quasar that has been gravitationally lensed by a large mass almost in the line of site. Nevertheless the image is not significantly blurred. If a single mass will not blur an image, how much less would many, many trillions of masses on all sides and all distances averaging each other out blur an image? Indeed, the fact that the light from all stars is very precise is proof of this hypothesis because it must be obvious that some star¿s light would have to be lensed to one extent or another by large masses even if there is a close cut off point to gravity, and there is no blurring.

The periodicity of the red shift whereby distant stars seem to show distances which show sudden jumps [7] would seem to suggest that there are quantum components to the effect of gravity on the red shift. If so, this would provide the mechanism for a cut off point for gravity, if there is one, since there could be a distance beyond which there was insufficient energy differential to make the quantum jump. If the universe is infinite, there never will be an extinction of the photons from distant stars. Their energy would get smaller and smaller but would never vanish until they reached the quantum point, since the amount of dampening is a function of the magnitude of their energy, "E". If telescopes were ever developed that could accurately detect the long wavelengths, it would still be extremely difficult to see out past 100 billion light years or so, such a large number of galaxies would be subtended by the telescope's angular resolution. Thus the background radiation would seem almost homogeneous since it would be the red shifted electromagnetic radiation from such an enormous number of galaxies. This then is the reason why the night sky appears to show no light between nearby stars and galaxies. It is also no doubt the reason why there is more background infrared radiation (also see this site and this one) in the sky than visible light from all sources since this also either must be light that has been arriving from dust enshrouded galaxies or light from a vast number of distant galaxies that has been reduced in energy. Support for that is in the fact that the infrared background is highly textured [18] as if coming from clusters of galaxies. It may be the reason why the spectrographic lines from distant quasars are slightly closer together than those in the laboratory [6].

It should be possible to demonstrate whether there is a residual red shift or not by sending an X-ray beam past a large object such as Jupiter or the sun using the Mossbauer effect similar to the apparatus used by Katila and Riski [2] if it is possible to build a large enough of a device. The beam would have to be sent on the same side of the mass as any direction of motion it might have. A long evacuated pipe here on earth might also be sufficient. The one-meter distance of Katila and Riski almost showed it. However, the time of day would have to be selected such that the earth's motion through space was not a factor. Perhaps it would be conceivable to demonstrate it in glass fiber loops as proposed by Manly and Page [8]. A way to gain some evidence statistically would be to examine light sources on the other side of galaxies. They should seem a little further away than they actually are as measured by other means, and this has been done [3] [4] [10]. It may also be possible to detect that galaxies viewed through our own galaxy will seem a little further away than those viewed at right angles to it.

Zwicky spoke of gravitational drag on light as early as 1929 [12]. Howusu has taken this concept a little further and proposes the energy loss from tired light is by virtue of emission of tiny gravitons by the photons (be sure to scroll down). I regard it as more likely that there is a swarm of gravitons in space that create gravity by pushing a mass toward another mass in greater numbers on the side away from attracting mass. The microwave background radiation is often advanced as proof of a big bang (Le Maitre¿s expanding Universe) by virtue of loss of energy of the original photons of energy. If this did happen, presumably Zwicky¿s tired light proposal or something like it would have been necessary to degrade the photons, although one would think the photons would have long since left the observable Universe since the Universe would have to be at least 30 billion years old if the big bang is valid, since it would take at least 20 billion years for the galaxies to move out to their furthest visible distance. There is now evidence that the microwave radiation comes from the near Universe. Most now believe the coincidence that the earth is at or near the center of the Universe. At least everyone has joined up with Copernicus and Kepler, and have removed us from the center of the solar system.

Astrophysicists have been assuming that the earth is moving toward the Virgo galaxy cluster at high speed (over 400 kilometers per second) around a false premise. They have been assuming the earth is moving toward Virgo at high speed based on a Doppler shift of the microwave background. However, there is no possibility at all that the shift is a total Doppler shift. In order for it to be a total Doppler shift, the blue shift and the red shift would have to be both perfectly round and perfectly symmetrical in size and direction with regard to each other, and they are not. Also there must not be any odd shifts off to the side, and there are. (see this site). It must be that there are less masses in the direction, of Virgo, visible and otherwise, relative to other directions, and more masses in the alleged trailing direction. Therefore it must not be a Doppler shift solely but also a gravitational interaction shift. This would explain why the speed of the earth through space is so dramatically and unrealistically higher as seems to be determined by the microwave background than it is as determined by coaxial cable speed variations. There is also a very small movement in the light from a quasar hitting a target as the earth rotates [D. Weber, private communication].

LaViolette has proposed the red shift can be explained by a ¿subquantum¿ time dependant phenomenon taking place when gravity is absent between galaxies. It seems like a far out hypothesis, but not nearly as far out as the big bang or warped space (ether or quantum medium) hypotheses.

Fischer has analyzed the above concept I proposed using the general relativity approach. He also concludes that there is a "gravitational viscosity" which degrades the energy of a photon as it passes through space. He also concludes that the Universe is not infinite, although he does not suggest the possibility of a finite cut off effect of gravity (5).

If photons attract mass as surely as mass attracts photons, or there is a "refractive" index in the ether around photons as Puthoff alleges to be around mass, or there are gravitons (5a) which impinge on photons as they have been suggested to impinge on mass, or space ("ether" or "aether" in 19th century terminology) is warped around photons as Einstein has suggested for mass, they MUST lose energy as they pass a mass. If there is a red shift from such a deviation, the big bang hypothesis would no longer be necessary to explain the cosmological red shift. Whether any part of the big bang hypothesis survived would then depend on the density of mass (including dark mass) in space and where the cutoff point is, neither of which can be determined at present with certainty. You may see good critiques of the big bang theory by Sauve at this site and another by Keiran at this site. Most people have a confirmation bias, that is they sort through data and then select that data which is confirming and reject or rationalize the rest. The big bang hypothesis has a very strong grip on the imaginations of most astrophysicists these days and other possibilities are dismissed out of hand (new hypotheses can be dangerous to the power wealth or prestige of old theory adherents [22] ). However experiments should be performed to rule out or in other possibilities as well.

There has also been a hypothesis put forward that the cosmological red shift is a Compton effect from electrons in space. by John Kierein. Since the Compton effect would blur distant galaxies, it is not likely a valid explanation.

Moret-Bailly has proposed that the red shift is from a Raman effect by molecules in space which have uneven numbers of electrons [21] such as ionized hydrogen, which is said to make up part of hydrogen in space (H3+ ions) [19] except near QSOs where it is 100% because of strong ultraviolet [16] ), and the resulting light made coherent by the ion¿s low density. The Raman effect has been established experimentally here on earth and it is being widely accepted that there are ions in space [14] and gases can produce a Raman effect [15], so that his proposal is plausible and on solid ground so far. Furthermore, if hydrogen ions can not do it, apparently there are molecules in space, some of which must surely be ionized. Red shifting of the starlight which passes through the solar corona would give some circumstantial support to this hypothesis [11]. Light from the hot member of a pair of binary stars is red shifted [13], which is also supportive

Marmet has proposed a hypothesis similar to the last involving inelastic collisions with hydrogen.

Wang has proposed in a DET theory that the cosmological red shift is caused by the dispersive extinction of star light by the space medium, instead of by the movement of the heavenly bodies.

If all five explanations prove true for the red shift it will make determining the location of any kind of cut off point very difficult. All five hypotheses being valid would be very complicated indeed.

Van Flandern gives 30 major observational phenomena that the big bang can not explain without fudge factors. Van Flandern also discusses observational tests for a big bang versus a static Universe. A static Universe is favored in the absence of fudge factors. Marmet also discusses some philosophical reasons why the big bang hypothesis is dubious. Recently another phenomenon has been discovered that denies a big bang. Some stars at the supposed edge of the Universe are red giants, which are very old. Also metalicities of distant quasars are very high. There are massive galaxies at enormous distances [23], which would be difficult to assemble in time given a big bang. Lerner lists numerous contradictions to the big bang hypothesis here.

If the red shift were a Doppler shift from mass hurled outward by a huge explosion, that mass would be proceeding outward in a shell like a supernova explosion with an empty space inside and all the original electromagnetic radiation beyond the mass [18]. The way out of this dilemma that theorists propose is that mass is not moving out but that space (called "ether" or "aether" in the 19th century or space-time in the 20th) itself is expanding. They use as evidence the fact that distant supernova last longer than nearby ones. Scientists are now uncertain of the theory behind the interpretation of this phenomenon [20 Siegfried]. It would be extremely desirable to find an alternate explanation for that supernova phenomenon or we will be left with an unable to be proven, useless hypothesis, as useless, even if valid, as a hypothesis that the good fairy is waving her magic wand at the electromagnetic waves.

The scientists above who hint at a huge, maybe infinite cosmos in which the earth or sun is not the center were not the first to so propose. Giordano Bruno proposed it around 1582 as a logical implication of he work of Copernicus. For this he was burned at the stake. Luckily people are much kinder these days, so I anticipate not being baked myself.

For a hypothesis that explains quasars as an optical illusion produced by bending of the light from the opposite jet around a huge mass (gravitational lens) WITHIN the quasar, click on this URL.

For a discussion of an experiment by Kehr that attempts to support a gravitational drag on ether click here.

EPILOGUE

----You may see pictures of quasars and AGNs here. or links to other sites here.
----The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has links to images of quasars and galaxies in this site.
----For a society organized to discuss avant garde hypotheses click on; Natural Philosophy Alliance --- and --- a group that disputes the big bang and its newsletter.
----Lerner lists numerous contradictions to the big bang hypothesis here.
----You also may find useful a site which gives abstracts of journal articles in the physical sciences.
----Kracklauer discusses arguments against ¿loco¿ (weird) theories in physics, as well as extensive discussions of the histories of various paradigms and theories. He even has made translations of key publications in this field of theories.
----Makinson has written an essay that points out that our conventions for the fundamental constants and the metric system (which goes back to the French revolution) are both inconvenient mathematically as well as based on imprecise foundations.
----Palais suggests that our equations would have been much simpler if we had set pi at half the current value.
----For a fascinating site which views the Universe in steps of a factor of ten (or 1000 if you consider volume) see this site.
----For a hypothesis that explains the large volcanoes of Mars and the bulges associated with them as the disruption from the antipode of a huge meteor impact, see this site.
----For views of the Universe from increasing distances try this site.
----For some gorgeous colorful views of stars, etc. in space see this site.
----For an explanation of astronomy in Laymen¿s terms and with numerous colorful pictures, see this site. ----For some dramatic views of a virtual travel to Mars and then to outer space, a trip which would take thousands of years even inside our own galaxy, but compressed into 12 minutes, see this site.
----For a hypothesis that explains the gullies and canyons of Mars as erosion by rivers of silicone dust, click here.
----If you are interested in relativity theory, you may find some theory and a link from this site to solar system animations.
----See here for a site that gives weekly information about the night sky for amateur astronomers, including positions of planets, comets, star clusters, etc. and some informative articles.
----Another amateur astronomer site that shows how to view distant galaxies, including how to find and links to suppliers is here
----Also a site that explores amateur spectroscopy including technique and sources of materials is here.
----You will probably be entranced by very beautiful pictures of objects in space.
----For abstracts of gravitational lensing articles, see this site.
----For a site that proposes a thin plate hypothesis to explain the plates in the crust of the earth, see this site. It has a link that explains the formation of ocean trenches.
----It has been proposed that the Decca traps were caused by violent movement of the crust in the antipode opposite to the Yucatan Cretaceous meteor impact. That the antipode is in the Indian ocean and not in India is not proof that India has moved since it is possible that earth waves move at a different speed in opposite directions if the meteors strike at an angle or that the speed of seismic waves is greater under the Pacific than under Africa.
----All you need to know about physical constants.

----If you would like to read a science fiction yarn about five women who blasted out into outer space to establish a colony on the planet of a distant star, read this.

----There is a free browser called Firefox, which is said to be less susceptible to viruses or crashes, has many interesting features, imports information from Iexplore while leaving Iexplore intact. You can also install their emailer. A feature that lists all the URLs on a viewed site can be useful when working on your own site and its source view color codes the html code.
----There is a free program available which tells on your site what web site accessed your site, which search engine, statistics about which country, statistics of search engine access, keywords used and their frequency.
It can be very useful. This site contains a very large number of astronomical links.


My Webpage

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Oct. 07 2009, 11:36 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 8:27 pm)
Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Oct. 07 2009, 10:24 pm)
THE COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT AS AN EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON PHOTON FREQUENCY by Charles Weber, MS

My Webpage

Thanks Admiral.

I appreciate you taking so much time to make all of that up ;)

:eyesroll:

I just didn't feel like typing in the name of the web page geeesh!  :p

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Oct. 08 2009, 10:27 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 7:16 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Oct. 07 2009, 8:42 pm)
Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 5:39 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Oct. 07 2009, 8:15 pm)
Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 5:12 am)
Hey, dude :laugh:

If you really want to do this, o-key-doke...

See, I make one post without sources and, basically, I get this .. ummm ... stuff ;)

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Oct. 07 2009, 6:57 pm)
Sorry dude, but i have to stop you right there. You are COMPLETELY WRONG about redshifts. Light waves do not stretch. They are simply moving in relation to one wave crest to the next due to the object emitting the waves being in motion.

;)

You need to find a better source. It's totally bogus. Take it from a physics major.

Quote
cosmological redshift: The redshift due to the expansion of the Universe. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a Doppler shift. Most galaxies move away from us, but this is not the cause of their redshifts. Instead, as a light wave travels through the fabric of space, the universe expands and the light wave gets stretched and therefore redshifted.
Source: cosmological redshift

Now, here's a little help:
What is the difference between the "Doppler" redshift and the "gravitational" or "cosmological" redshift?

So, if you wish to disagree with Cornell, be my guest. Also, there's plenty more where that came from.

Physics major, huh? I've taught physics and just happen to have my own university quality dome and scope on the top of my house. You're letting you ego overload what you can back up, PC...

I do disagree. If this were established fact, it would be what would be tought, which it is not.

EDIT I don't think so. What kind of physics have you taught?
P.S. Im willing to bet my homemade telesecope in my backyard is bigger.

To begin with, you do have an ego problem.

I said:
Quote (trekbuff @ Oct. 07 2009, 12:35 pm)
Cosmological Redshift - That wavelengths increase simply because they travel great distances is generally accepted but ignorant. There is no reason given other than, basically, light waves stretch/get longer due to the distances they travel and get bogged down in spacetime. Pfffft.
which you initially quoted. I clearly indicated I did not agree with it. It is a theory, therefore not established fact.

I gave you four sources, one of which was Cornell University.

I need not prove anything to you. Read the thread. Oh, that's right. You have comprehinsion problems. Sorry...

What do you have? A cardboard tube Dobsonian? You did say homemade. Your's is bigger than mine? :laugh: Child.

I have an 8' Ash-Dome with a 14" Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain mounted on a hand configured Byers C-14 Retrofit Starmaster drive and fork.

Finally, you don't think so? I have no use for someone calling me a liar. We could have had some fun. I believe I'm done with you, PC. Find someone else to impress. Too bad....

16" mead Lightbridge

22" Dobsonian yes it is homemade and cherry. I'll take a pic of it. I also have a dome i made from PVC pipes and tarps, it actually works pretty good. I saw it in a magazine and built one.

I still say your sources are bogus. None of my professors give it any credence. I'll go with them.

PS i never called you a liar, just wrong.
Also, you stated that Einstein never made anything up when i clearly showed you that he did. He had no reason to include a cosmological constant other than it didn't jive with how he thought the universe should be. It wasn't an educated guess, or based on any mathmatical property, he just didn't like the idea of an expanding universe. So yes, Einstein made stuff up.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Oct. 10 2009, 3:33 am

I did not read the whole discussion about this but here is a source I found from NASA from 2008. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html

Tests of Big Bang: Expansion
Edwin Hubble

Edwin Hubble and the Mount Wilson telescope and Graph showing a straight line comparison of galaxy distance vs. velocity The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein's General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917, the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.
The Hubble Constant

Expanding raisin bread loaf moves the raisins apart at different speeds with greater distance between raisins. The specific form of Hubble's expansion law is important: the speed of recession is proportional to distance. The expanding raisin bread model at left illustrates why this is important. If every portion of the bread expands by the same amount in a given interval of time, then the raisins would recede from each other with exactly a Hubble type expansion law. In a given time interval, a nearby raisin would move relatively little, but a distant raisin would move relatively farther - and the same behavior would be seen from any raisin in the loaf. In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down.

The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 +/-3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 +/- 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc.

And here also is another link from NASA. http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1929/guide/universe_expanding.html

I also did read papers for and against the Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe. The main arguments against an expanding universe usually take out the 3 observational pillars of cosmology. These are the Hubble Expansion and the Cosmic Microwave Background and also General Relativity. It is theorized that in the future these observations will appear different but for now can it be proven?

GalaxyClass14

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 396

Report this Oct. 12 2009, 8:21 pm

wow

CE bob

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Dec. 12 2010, 1:22 am

In the UK Dr Who was resurrected after a decade lack lustre efforts before being brought back to its full potential. I only hope the same is true of the Star Trek franchise.


Enterprise could have been so much more but as usual accountants and statisticians armed with viewing figures murdered it. In hindsight it was quality entertainment in its scope and production value, unfortunately raised expectations born of TOS and TNG allowed many be over critical of it.

Doc Boomstick

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 178

Report this Dec. 14 2010, 10:01 am

I actually really enjoyed ST09 even though I preferred TNG era shows over TOS. Regardless, I think the heart of ST is in TV. Even though I enjoyed TNG movies I think it was DS9 and VOY that kept the Trekverse strong. We clearly won't see a TOS-based TV show with the movies being active and the odds of a show set in the "old" universe are low. The best bet for a new TV series would be some kind of Academy show set in the ST09 universe. Sadly, I guess I agree with the original post. No matter how good the movies are, the original universe is gone. It's just a remake now. We'll never get to see what happens to (post-Nemesis) TNG, DS9, or VOY crews in the prime universe.

The Jayson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 69

Report this Jan. 24 2011, 8:21 pm

Star Trek dead? Like it was in the late 60s? 

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Jan. 25 2011, 5:07 am

Like the 60s, we have the fan base but no network enthusiasm.

HisRoyalHighnessTheKing

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 34248

Report this Jan. 27 2011, 9:17 am

It is my opinion there will never again be another Trek TV series based on the old Trek history/canon


Good


Trek needed a fresh start.


The only way to do that was either a new TV show from the Prime Universe set far further into the future, or a reboot based on an Alternate Universe


The Prime Universe had played out.


May God Save The King

UFP2009

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 224

Report this Feb. 05 2011, 8:17 am

Quote: kludge77 @ Sep. 23 2009, 3:18 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 23 2009, 2:40 pm)It is my opinion there will never again be another Trek TV series based on the old Trek history/canon. Enterprise was cancelled and STXI made a huge amount of money. CBS/Paramount/? lost sight of Trek a long time ago and it simply became a cash cow. STXI has proven it to TPTB that Trek no longer need be about "old" Trek. Sorry, folks, but it's gone.
It's entirely possible that this is true. I have no idea. What can we do besides express our thoughts and wait? At least there are those here who have a love of the franchise, and are willing to express their views. Either for or against.

Regardless for me. I'd rather have watered down Star Trek than no Star Trek. Who knows, in 10 years I might be defending this canon! (doesn't seem likely now.)
Star Trek is not dead just wounded; I have said over and over to revive SS The UFP series must be produced. I have many ideas for it but who will listen? The next movie must make touch with TOS cause that's where it all started; the characters must be closer to the originals.
George Takie is a has a baratone voice the new Sulu was far from it. It had many problems.

I wanna change my User name.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum