Galactic Redshift is not a Doppler Effect

[Marius]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Now that makes much more sense then the unsupported rhetoric in the OP!

And what exactly is unsupported ? That a light wave looses energy over vast distances, or that a loss in energy translates to a lower frequency and hence a redshift ? If E=hf then that is exactly what would happen. I do not understand what is your objection, you just say my OP is unsupported, when in fact it is supported by the equation of the light wave, but your post is supported by what ?!

Edited January 1, 2022 by Marius

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Marius said:

I do not understand what is your objection, you just say my OP is unsupported

!

Moderator Note

You do not explain how scattering leads to the observed redshift. You are merely asserting that it will.

 

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Marius said:

And what exactly is unsupported ? That a light wave looses energy over vast distances, or that a loss in energy translates to a lower frequency and hence a redshift ? If E=hf then that is exactly what would happen. I do not understand what is your objection, you just say my OP is unsupported, but your post is supported by what ?!

My posts are supported by scientists and evidence of spacetime expansion. Your's seem to be nothing more then anti mainstream rants. I mean if you have real evidence that mainstream cosmology is wrong, (in any aspect) then present your observational and/or experimental evidence. We may then see you in Stockholm next November. Best of luck!

Edited January 1, 2022 by beecee

[Marius]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You do not explain how scattering leads to the observed redshift. You are merely asserting that it will.

 

You do not explain how space itself expands either. You are merely asserting that it does.  

Did I mention scattering in the OP ? I said light looses energy as it travels vast distances of space, due to interactions with other particles, such as free electrons, plasma, gas clouds. I dont know what scattering will occur after trillions and trillions of such interactions and neither do you. It is absurd to pretend that I should somehow know or calculate this scattering, while you dont have to explain how space expands and just assert it as a fact that is somehow not needing any explanation.

 

[MigL]

You still don't get it.
No one is questioning the fact that E=hf ( for massless particles ).
We are questioning your mechanism for 'losing energy'.
It simply cannot happen as you describe

10 minutes ago, Marius said:

I said light looses energy as it travels vast distances of space, due to interactions with other particles, such as free electrons, plasma, gas clouds.

And we are saying light loses energy because the 'wave' is elongated as the space being traversed expands.
Simply because the interactions you are considering are well understood, and cannot explain the 'red'shift.

On the other hand, you can explain a 'red' shift by moving the source away from the observer.
( IOW, expanding the space between source and observer during transit time )
 

Edited January 1, 2022 by MigL

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Marius said:

You do not explain how space itself expands either. You are merely asserting that it does.  

As I suggested in an earlier post, before you try and re-write over a 100 years of cosmology, you need to actually know what that cosmology is.

The evidence for universal expansion over large scales is as follows...(1) cosmological redshift, as determined from Doppler and gravitational redshift. (2) The CMBR at 2.7K as discovered by Penzias and Wilson. (3) The very distant galaxies we observe are still in the process of formation, with much active star regions, as would be expected. 

 

[Marius]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You still don't get it.
No one is questioning the fact that E=hf ( for massless particles ).
We are questioning your mechanism for 'losing energy'.
It simply cannot happen as you describe

And I am questioning your mechanism for 'expanding space'. Which you don't even bother to describe. At least I gave a couple examples of what may cause light to loose energy. Maybe there are other causes, like dark...something. Here you go, I explained it ! Happy now ?

 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And we are saying light loses energy because the 'wave' is elongated as the space being traversed expands.
Simply because the interactions you are considering are well understood, and cannot explain the 'red'shift.

 

But why is your assertion that space expands, because of something that you dont know, more reasonable than my assertion that light looses energy over vast distances, because of something that I don't know ? Even if I cant say exactly what is the mechanism, I can easily imagine that it does. While I cant imagine how space itself expands, or what can be possibly expanding in an empty space, because its pushed by some mysterious dark energy which no one explains. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Marius

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Marius said:

And I am questioning your mechanism for 'expanding space'. Which you don't even bother to describe. At least I gave a couple exanmples of what may cause light to loose energy. Maybe there are other causes, like dark...something. Here you go, I explained it ! Happy now ?

But why is your assertion that space expands, because of something that you dont know, more reasonable than my assertion that light looses energy over vast distances, because of something that I don't know ? Even if I cant say exactly what is the mechanism, I can easily imagine that it does. As all waves loose energy at some point, until they fade completely. While I cant imagine how space itself expands, or what can be possibly expanding in an empty space, because its pushed by some mysterious dark energy. 

Your problem as I have mentioned is your ignorance of mainstream cosmology. This was amply illustrated in the thread on DM here

6 minutes ago, Marius said:

If the universe expands then why are galaxy clusters colliding with each other ? And why do not galaxies appear to be smaller and smaller if they are moving farther and farther away from us at these incredible speeds ?

and answered....

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Because the universal expansion applies only over the largest scales....over smaller scales, the effects of gravity take over and those galaxies are "decoupled"from the overall expansion rate. eg: our local group of galaxies and even beyond.  Or imagine a fish swimming at 5kms/hr, upstream against a current (expansion) of 10kms/hr..... And of course the galaxies that are moving farther and farter away, certainly do appear smaller and smaller. Why would you believe differently? Ever heard of the Hubble deep field?

Which strangely enough you failed to acknowledge. While we have plenty of evidence of the BB and subsequent space exoansion, cosmologists still do not know why it expands...or why curved spacetime is felt as gravity. But that doesn't detract from the evidence supporting these observations. I suspect with your general anti mainstream unsupported nonsense, that you have an agenda afoot. I can pretty well acurately suggest what that agenda would be. 

[exchemist]

33 minutes ago, Marius said:

You do not explain how space itself expands either. You are merely asserting that it does.  

Did I mention scattering in the OP ? I said light looses energy as it travels vast distances of space, due to interactions with other particles, such as free electrons, plasma, gas clouds. I dont know what scattering will occur after trillions and trillions of such interactions and neither do you. It is absurd to pretend that I should somehow know or calculate this scattering, while you dont have to explain how space expands and just assert it as a fact that is somehow not needing any explanation.

 

Then you need to put forward a mechanism by which a photon can somehow transfer a part of its quantum of energy to another entity, without being deflected from its trajectory. As I and others have pointed out, the known scattering processes are no good because these deflect the light in all directions, so that it would no longer seem to be coming from the source in question. In other words they would just attenuate the signal rather than reddening it.

So you must have some new process in mind, unknown to physics so far. What is it and how does it work? 

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, Marius said:

You do not explain how space itself expands either. You are merely asserting that it does.  

!

Moderator Note

Trying to be cute instead of following the rules is not a winning play. You were asked for a model and evidence, you failed to provide any.

 

Don’t bring this subject up again.