Cosmological redshift due to Doppler Effect (split from Where are the laws of the universe exactly?)

[Itoero]

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 8:38 PM, Strange said:

 

??? 

The doppler effect only deals with 'observable' wave behavior. The Austrian physicist Christian Doppler described this phenomenon in 1842. Redshift is often 'defined' as doppler redshift. Cosmological redshift is for example also defined as being due to the doppler effect. In the doppler effect, sound waves are treated the same way as electromagnetic radiation...very odd.

There is this 'theory' you can call  "Compton redshift" which states that Compton(inelastic) scattering causes Cosmological redshift.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Redshift is often 'defined' as doppler redshift. 

Only when it is caused by the Doppler effect.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Cosmological redshift is for example also defined as being due to the doppler effect.

Er, no it isn't. It is nothing to do with the Doppler effect.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

In the doppler effect, sound waves are treated the same way as electromagnetic radiation...very odd.

Not sure why you think that is odd. They are both waves. If you move towards the source, for example, you will encounter peaks of the waveform more frequently. In other words the waveform will appear to be shorter meaning higher pitch or bluer light.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

There is this 'theory' you can call  "Compton redshift" which states that Compton(inelastic) scattering causes Cosmological redshift.

Citation needed. (I could point out some of the obvious reasons why this can't be true. But I would rather see what dodgy source Itoero is relying on.)

Edited October 3, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

The doppler effect only deals with 'observable' wave behavior.  

"Observable" meaning what, exactly?

[Itoero]

 

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:54 PM, Strange said:

Er, no it isn't. It is nothing to do with the Doppler effect.

The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source...so yes it is.

 

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:54 PM, Strange said:

Not sure why you think that is odd. They are both waves. If you move towards the source, for example, you will encounter peaks of the waveform more frequently. In other words the waveform will appear to be shorter meaning higher pitch or bluer light.

So you travelled to a star to check this?

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:54 PM, Strange said:

Citation needed. (I could point out some of the obvious reasons why this can't be true. But I would rather see what dodgy source Itoero is relying on.)

The interaction photons-free electrons forms the K-Corona in stars so comptonscattering is definitely there.  Also, there is zero scientific evidence  that the properties of a wave can change without interacting with it's quanta.

Cosmological redshift is probably caused due to a mix of gravitation and photoninteraction.

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh....3..450K

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source...so yes it is.

There is no (significant) proper motion in cosmological red shift.

For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Quote

We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.

 

17 minutes ago, Itoero said:

So you travelled to a star to check this?

You can test this in a lab. It is how radar guns measure speed. 

18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The interaction photons-free electrons forms the K-Corona in stars so comptonscattering is definitely there.

Irrelevant. We are talking about cosmological red-shift. Do you have a reference that says it is cased by scattering, or did you make it up all by yourself?

19 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Also, there is zero scientific evidence  that the properties of a wave can change without interacting with it's quanta.

Apart from, say, Doppler red shift, gravitational redshift or cosmological red shift.

You don't have to interact with a photon to change its properties. For example, the energy (wavelength) is observer dependent; just moving relative to it will change its properties.

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Cosmological redshift is probably caused due to a mix of gravitation and photoninteraction.

Well, it is a brave man who claims GR is wrong. What are you going to replace it with?

27 minutes ago, Itoero said:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh....3..450K

I thought you might be referring to this. Sigh.

If red shift was due to Compton scattering then it would cause blurring of images that we don't see. Also, the redshift would depend on the wavelength, which we don't see. And Compton scattering doesn't happen at all for low energy photons.

Apart from that, if you claim that cosmological red shift is not due to the change in scale factor, then you need a new theory to explain all the other evidence (CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, etc)