The Universe is *Not* Expanding

[booker]

Light from galaxies looks redder than it should. We can all agree on that. The spectral line shifts proves that.

 

But there isn't any Doppler shift. It's just an illusion because you can't say how fast something is moving two blocks away. Galaxies just look like they are moving away.

 

Instead of things looking at a further distance, they look like a greater *velocity*. The shape of space is just not what you expect. It's like looking at something moving across your field of vision. If it's really moving at a slight angle away from you, it looks like it's slower.

 

I can prove it too.

[insane_alien]

I can prove it too.

 

then do so.

[booker]

What? You probably think it's doppler shift. Based on what theory?

[Sayonara]

What do you mean, "what"?

 

If you have evidence that refutes that the universe is expanding, present it.

[booker]

What do you mean, "what"?

 

If you have evidence that refutes that the universe is expanding, present it.

 

How do you explain that some galaxies are moving away at faster than the speed of light?

[mooeypoo]

Right, okay, you said you can prove it, how 'bout you stop asking silly questions you can get answers to online and prove your highly-unlikely anti-mainstream-science theory so we can actually follow the rules and spirit of the forum and (oh..) debate?

 

Or have you missed the part where this is a SCIENCE forums and not a google tutorial?

[iNow]

I think he missed the part where he said "I can prove it too."

 

 

I think what he meant to say is that he could attempt to cast the shadow of uncertainty on what is presently accepted in the mainstream by asking only peripherally relevant questions of those who challenge the assertions he's put forth in the OP. However, that hardly qualifies as proof.

[Ophiolite]

I think what he meant to say is that he could attempt to cast the shadow of uncertainty on what is presently accepted in the mainstream by asking only peripherally relevant questions of those who challenge the assertions he's put forth in the OP. However, that hardly qualifies as proof.

 

However, it is as much as we can expect in this section of the forum.

[Edtharan]

But there isn't any Doppler shift

Spectral lines are caused when electrons in an atom decay to a lower orbit. When they do so they emit very specific frequencies of radiation. Each atom has a very specific set of spectral lines. This allows us to identify a particular atom at a distance.

 

This was use to good effect when the element Helium was discovered. When astronomers looked that the sun they could account for all sets of spectral lines except one set. They postulated that this was due to there being a new element, so they named it after the Greek god of the sun Helios (Helios -> Helium). Not only that, based on the spectral lines they were able to specify the properties of that element, and then later found it here on Earth.

 

So, spectral lines are extremely specific. So specific in fact that they can tell us about the properties of an atom.

 

Now, when astronomers look at the light from distant stars in other galaxies, they notice that the spectral lines didn't match up. There were two possibilities:

1) The laws of physics in distant galaxies are different to the laws of physics in our galaxy

2) There was something going on to change the spectral lines.

 

Further analysis showed that the lines weren't all that different, and that the difference was that the frequency of the spectral lines were either a very few shifted towards the higher frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum (what is called "Blue Shift"), and by far the majority were shifted towards the lower frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (Red Shift).

 

Now we know that Electromagnetic Radiation consists of Waves, and we know that when a source of waves is moving towards you then the perceived frequency will be higher, and if the source is moving away from you then the perceived frequency will be lower.

 

This is what we are seeing with the light from distant galaxies.

 

This effect is called the "Doppler Shift".

 

Hang on, but you just said that there is no Doppler shift. But the spectral lines proves otherwise. We can clearly see shifts in frequency of the spectral lines, and the only known method to cause this is by movement of the source relative to us.

 

Using the mathematics of relativity (which is also need for Global Positioning Systems, so we know that the maths is correct, or the GPS wouldn't work), we can work out the speed of those galaxies.

 

Further more, GPS is very relevant as the Red Shift/Blue Shift actually occurs and can be measured (and is one of the factors that needs to be accounted for).

 

A further example that proves that Doppler Shifts do occur between moving objects was with the Huygens probe that was sent to Saturn's Moon Titan. There was an error on board the orbiting space craft which meant that the antenna designed to receive signals form the Lander didn't work. However, there was another antenna that could receive signals, but it operated at a different frequency that the main one.

 

As the second receiver operated at a different frequency, it would have been like tuning your TV into one station in an attempt to watch a completely different station. But, the Lander and the Orbiter were moving at a different rate relative to each other. By adjusting this speed, they were able to take advantage of the Red/Blue shift (the Doppler effect) to change the frequency that the Orbiter received the signal from the Lander. This meant that they could now receive the signal from the orbiter as the frequency was Doppler shifted to a frequency that it could receive.

 

This proves that the Doppler shift for electro magnetic waves does exist, as if it didn't we would never have received the data from the Huygens probe on Titan.

 

If the Doppler shift was only an illusion, then it could not have allowed the Orbiter to receive the signal from the Lander. So your claim that the Doppler shift is only an illusion and doesn't really exist is completely refuted by the evidence that exists.

[iNow]

 

However, it is as much as we can expect in this section of the forum.

 

While I understand your point, I disagree. I think this is the BEST place to do it. This is the place where different ideas can go to prove themselves. It's not supposed to be a trash pile (though, admittedly, that's often what it becomes). This section is supposed to be a place where things are discussed, new ideas explored and those same ideas are supported in the face of challenges. Once they've successfully passed through the gauntlet which is peer review they can move into more accepted areas of dialog having proven their worth.

 

Again, I know what you mean (and saw your smilie), but I think that just because a thread lands in the pseudoscience & speculations forum does not exempt it from the need to support the assertions being made within it.

 

That's really nothing more than my opinion, so it'd probably be best to get back on topic.

 

 

Btw, Edtharan - Nice response.

[booker]

Spectral lines are caused when electrons in an atom decay to a lower orbit. When they do so they emit very specific frequencies of radiation. Each atom has a very specific set of spectral lines. This allows us to identify a particular atom at a distance.

 

This was use to good effect when the element Helium was discovered. When astronomers looked that the sun they could account for all sets of spectral lines except one set. They postulated that this was due to there being a new element, so they named it after the Greek god of the sun Helios (Helios -> Helium). Not only that, based on the spectral lines they were able to specify the properties of that element, and then later found it here on Earth.

 

So, spectral lines are extremely specific. So specific in fact that they can tell us about the properties of an atom.

 

Now, when astronomers look at the light from distant stars in other galaxies, they notice that the spectral lines didn't match up. There were two possibilities:

1) The laws of physics in distant galaxies are different to the laws of physics in our galaxy

2) There was something going on to change the spectral lines.

 

Further analysis showed that the lines weren't all that different, and that the difference was that the frequency of the spectral lines were either a very few shifted towards the higher frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum (what is called "Blue Shift"), and by far the majority were shifted towards the lower frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (Red Shift).

 

Now we know that Electromagnetic Radiation consists of Waves, and we know that when a source of waves is moving towards you then the perceived frequency will be higher, and if the source is moving away from you then the perceived frequency will be lower.

 

This is what we are seeing with the light from distant galaxies.

 

This effect is called the "Doppler Shift".

 

That's a pretty strong argument, Edtharan

 

Let me test your logic, if I may.

 

A) Light emmited in one inertial frame is measured in another inertia frame. When the frequency changes it is by definition called a Doppler shift.

 

B) Light from distant galaxies is red shifted.

 

C) Therefore the red shift is due to a Doppler shift.

 

Dogs have fleas. Therefore my lousy pet gorrilla is a dog.

 

Hang on, but you just said that there is no Doppler shift. But the spectral lines proves otherwise. We can clearly see shifts in frequency of the spectral lines, and the only known method to cause this is by movement of the source relative to us.

 

Really?

Edited August 25, 2008 by booker

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And what do you propose is causing the Doppler shift?

[booker]

And what do you propose is causing the Doppler shift?

 

There's not a Doppler shift. Spacetime is like morphing and mixing things up in very precise ways that I can explain.

[mooeypoo]

Stop saying you can explain, and instead EXPLAIN it already.

[booker]

Right, okay, you said you can prove it, how 'bout you stop asking silly questions you can get answers to online and prove your highly-unlikely anti-mainstream-science theory so we can actually follow the rules and spirit of the forum and (oh..) debate?

 

Or have you missed the part where this is a SCIENCE forums and not a google tutorial?

 

I know what sicence is. It's not unlikely, it's *highly likely* as I am showing.

 

This is all about 'vectors'. Vectors are like arrows. You point an arrow in a direction and it moves that way in space *and* time. Vectors have a length and a direction. Light follows these vectors, so you don't need Doppler shift. It's all very clear if you can follow the physics.

[mooeypoo]

Again ignoring the rules.

 

You're not SHOWING anything - you're just contradicting everyone without a shred of effort to show us why you claim what you claim.

 

Posting a claim is not enough, you need to prove it, and the burden of proof is on you, not on us. You claim that mainstream science is wrong, you need a whole lot more than a 2 line retort (that says nothing) to convince anyone your theory has any validity to it.

 

~moo

[booker]

Again ignoring the rules.

 

You're not SHOWING anything - you're just contradicting everyone without a shred of effort to show us why you claim what you claim.

 

Posting a claim is not enough, you need to prove it, and the burden of proof is on you, not on us.

 

On an aside, can you prove this. I hear this a lot. No one ever seems to bother saying why the burnden falls one way or another. They just take it on faith I suppose.

 

But not to worry, I will be composing a demonstration to my claim.

For your part, I wouldn't mind a proof of your-burden-of-proof argument, so much as you claim the burden of proof is on yourself.

[iNow]

And here we go again...

[mooeypoo]

On an aside, can you prove this.

I'm not the one making the claim, hence this is besides the point. The question remains: Can *you* prove your words. It seems you can't.

I hear this a lot. No one ever seems to bother saying why the burnden falls one way or another. They just take it on faith I suppose.

Very easy: You made a claim, you need to support it. If I were the one to make a claim, I'd have to prove it.

 

The scientific evidence support (VASTLY support) universe expansion, the existence of the doppler effect in stars and distant galaxies, and much more that proves (quite extensively) that our universe expands, and that the Big Bang happened.

 

The fact you don't know these explanations, or don't understand them, does not mean they don't exist. That's also what I meant about a google demonstration; it seems you are in need of some reading, which you can do quite simply by looking up the Big Bang theory (+proofs) and the Doppler Effect in astronomy (+proofs and observations).

 

That will show you that currently, science DOES have proofs for this theory.

 

You made a claim that is against mainstream science. Hence, the burden of proof is on you.

 

By your own admission and your own evasions, it seems you have no proof.

 

But not to worry, I will be composing a demonstration to my claim.

I'm starting to doubt that very much. Restore my faith in your claims by actually showing us some substantiations instead of claiming you have them.

 

For your part, I wouldn't mind a proof of your-burden-of-proof argument, so much as you claim the burden of proof is on yourself.

 

Read up. And read a bit about the scientific method, logical thinking and logical fallacies, too. You made a claim in this thread, you are in need of proving it. It's science. It's logic. It's the rules of this forum.

 

Prove us wrong. Substantiate.

 

Good luck,

 

~moo

[booker]

For the first part of my argument, I will demonstrate the falacy in comparing velocities.

 

We might ask ourself, how do we compare velocities? Why, we put the little arrows side by side and see if they match. I shall call this rematching.

 

But things are not so simple as they seem. If I rematch one arrow with another around the entire Universe it changes direction. If I rematch an arrow with another arrow in a straight line, a different answer is had. It all depends on what I call rematching trajectories

 

This can be understood quite simply by flying from Amsterdam to New York. If you fly west to New York you are still moving west when you get there. If I have to go to Georgia first I am flying a little bit south as well as west. In completing the circuit to New York, but have kept track of a little arrow initially pointing to the west, it will no longer point west on arriving in New York.

 

Now with a leap of faith we can assume the arrow is a velocity so that any two velocities depend on the matching trajectory to get to the rematching nexus.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So what you're saying is they might be going other directions besides just "away from us" without us knowing?

[booker]

I'm not the one making the claim, hence this is besides the point. The question remains: Can *you* prove your words. It seems you can't.

 

Very easy: You made a claim, you need to support it. If I were the one to make a claim, I'd have to prove it.

 

That is logical falacy number 15, my good man, with a little bit of #1 thrown into the mix previously.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

The scientific evidence support (VASTLY support) universe expansion, the existence of the doppler effect in stars and distant galaxies, and much more that proves (quite extensively) that our universe expands, and that the Big Bang happened.

 

I think I've put the burden of proof (your words) on Edtharan concerning this Dopper business.

 

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

 

You made a claim that is against mainstream science.

 

My good sir, please read my previous post.

Edited August 25, 2008 by booker

[mooeypoo]

You have no proofs at all, do you.

[booker]

By the way, what's this "We" business. The others have given up, seeing the error in their ways.

 

Edit: Cept Captain Reffsmat. Excuse me captain.

[mooeypoo]

Nope, no proof at all.

 

No knowledge of the rules, either, it seems.

 

Reported.