Does the process of accreation cause redshift?

[shmengie]

For the sacke of this arguement, the universe began homogonously.

 

From the start of time, gravity causes matter to accreate in larger and larger mass(es).

 

Cloud to planet, star, galaxy and/or blackhole. The accreation process is a natural order of mass and (as yet) un-ending.

 

No theory, I'm aware of, accounts for the effect on light passing through increasing potential of gravity wells.

 

I postulate every wave of light that traverses the course of the universe passes through countless gravity wells. Further postulate the majority of wells encountered experience increased gravity potential, due to accreation, between the moment light encounter and the moment of departure.

 

Most gravity wells increase potential over the course of time. Most light waves transition through numerous wells through the course of travel time.

 

Cosmological redshift could be a function of matter contracting, increasing well potential and stretching waves.

 

Regards,

 

-Joe "shmengie"

[Strange]

If light enters a gravitational well it will be blue shifted, and when it leaves it will be red-shifted. In the end, it will be back where it was.

 

When Hubble first observed the redshift-distance relationship many hypotheses were proposed and tested. None survived except the big bang, because it was the only one (so far) to explain all, the evidence.

[shmengie]

And when gravitational well accreates more mass while the light is in the zone, does light not exiit more red?

Edited April 14, 2015 by shmengie

[Strange]

What sort of objects are you thinking of that can have a significant mass increase in the short time that a photon passes by?

 

Also, when we look at and measure the red-shift of distant galaxies, they are not usually obscured by objects in front of them (because that would make it hard to measure the red shift) and so the effects of any intervening mass will be very small or non-existent.

[shmengie]

No particular object need increase in mass by substantial amount all once, tho that would amplify the effect.

 

All objects are falling toward heavier ones and have likelyhood of becoming part of the heavier neighbor, unless they estabilish a non decaying orbit, or one gets ejected by a 3rd party.

 

The Milkyway galaxy is in the process of merging with 2 other smaller galaxies, unless that astronomer lied to me. That is a form of mass accreation which increases the net gravity well of the milky way. It's not an instantaneous accreation but it is happening as light passes through any edge of the well.

 

Suspect the shift is minor by most advents. But it is compounded by the fact that light interactes with a lot of gravity wells in this fashion, unless it's trip is very short.

 

This has potential to make things look like we live in an expanding universe.

 

Wish I could do the math...

[Mordred]

Not in the case your describing. The change in mass density is less than that of our galaxy itself. Its insufficient to cause a noticeable change.

 

We also do not completely rely on redshift. We use alternative methods such as stellar parallax to confirm redshift measurements.

 

Another piece of evidence that the universe is expanding is thermodynamics. The universe cools due to expansion.

[Strange]

But it is compounded by the fact that light interactes with a lot of gravity wells in this fashion, unless it's trip is very short.

 

But this isn't true.

[Mordred]

When light crosses a gravity well we have the blueshift as it falls in. When it climbs back out it redshifts the same amount unless the gravity well density changes prior to exit.

 

We look for these anomolies, it's commonly called the Sachs Wolfe effect. One common time period where this occurs is the CMB. The change in density is due to the thermodynamic processes at the time.

 

With galaxies etc the change in potential/per time is too insignificant compared to the travel time of light passing a galaxy.

 

So the blueshift/redshift will negate each other resulting in the emitter frequency.

 

Cosmological redshift is over an extremely large amount of time. The light cone link in my signature will allow you to see the rate of change over time/expansion.

[imatfaal]

Most of the universe is empty empty space with precious few particles and no gravity wells.

 

When the universe was hot and dense enough for all light to be in constant interaction with matter it was so hot that atoms were ionised and absorbed/re-emitted the light. The light that was around at the transition from hot/dense/ionised to cooler/less dense/atomic is seen now as the CMBR - the wavelength of that light corresponds to the wavelength of hot hydrogen which has subsequantly been red-shifted by an expanding universe (per the predictions of the BBT); there is no "room" left for another cause of generalised red-shifting

[shmengie]

 

But this isn't true.

 

Strange,

 

If the limit to gravity's reach is infinate, I understand your comment, all light is affected by all wells, always.

 

However, if the reach of gravity is infinate, it to lends credence to this thesis.

--

 

I'm confident the thesis merit, however, the more I consider it, the more ways I find it easy to discredit:

 

For instance:

 

Mass acreating onto larger object already have gravitational pull on light waves. At most only the half of mass acreating on the far side of a celestial object would exert a net increase in potential. The mass acreating on the near side, would have weakend potential up to the point of accreation.

 

There could only be a minor net gain in potential which may only affect angle of the vecotor, though if affects the angle of the vector, I think it's reasonable to assume it would also affect energy of the wave.

 

Consider it takes light approx. 100,000 years to traverse the length of the Milkyway. During that time the central black hole could have the munchies several times. Because the reach of gravity may be infinate, the light wave doesn't need to travel close to a galaxy to be minorly affected by a minor gain in potential, due to accreation.

[Mordred]

A 100,000 years is negligable in change of overall density. The key your missing is the gravitational potential on entrance and the gravitational potential at exit of the well.

 

The change in density on entering and exit, is the only way you can have a change.

Think of it this way. Redshift isn't linear it has a curve on the redshift scale. The range of redshift is 0 to 1100 z over 13.8 billion years.

 

What's a mere 100,000 years

Ps you can use the calculator in my signature to see the rate of change.

[shmengie]

There's no means to test the hypothesis, so there is little incentive to complete the math, which I find somewhat frustrating. Found this wiki talk session, which contains some similarities to my postulation:

 

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

 

It contains some of the math, but its not complete, don't know if anyone is still working on it..

[Mordred]

There is the means via

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

[shmengie]

There is the means via

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

But there's no method to test via experiment in the labratory.

 

Observed cosmic shift are predominately correlated to glactic expantion and/or doppler effect, not associated with mass contraction occuring since the beginning of time.

[Mordred]

The universe is our laboratory, we test the above formula with various methods such as parallax distance calculations. This includes gravity well influences from light crossing bodies. Redshift is extremely important. In distance measures, as such it is continously tested and studied.

 

Here is a handy 191 slide coverage of the cosmic distance ladder which allows us to validate and test redshift in cosmological uses

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fterrytao.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcosmic-distance-ladder.pdf&rct=j&q=cosmic%20distance%20ladder%20pdf&ei=7GAxVZDYEsrVoATezYCgDQ&usg=AFQjCNE2Ja92G14PtyiIChUBDCfDwTlNvw&sig2=iQdeqwFggpyD24XnBvAF2A&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cGU

 

As you can see from that slide we don't rely on just one method

[shmengie]

The slide doens't explain the cause of redshift, it does indicate that on scales parallax becomes useless, redshift is another method to measure for distance.

 

Hubbles law: Redshift of an object is proportinal to it's distance. BBT postulates recession due to expantion. The smoking gun for BBT, is CMB radiation, even though there are inconsistencies which will presumably be cleard up when Planck project publishes.

 

The slide does state that because BBT has been confirmed by many other observations, curiously, no cititation for any of them. Based on what I've read CMB is the "smoking gun" and even though data from WMAP et al, don't line up with theory or prediction, it's proof... Could lead one to believe BBT science, works differently than other siences...

 

BBT relies on a specific order of forces changing. I'm in favor of such postulation, but if true, theory and prediction will become difficult, likely impossible to prove because the mathmatecial formula must change on a pivot of time. This I'm very skeptical, and believe will never be proven.

 

I commend Allen Guth for postulating inflation. Think he's done more than anyone, WRT advancing our understanding of the evolution of the universe.

 

I'd like to devise a test to prove redshift is caused by... cosmic expantion, matter contraction, dark matter/energy interaction or some other cause... W/out a test that can confirm or deny cause of redshift, I fear we're poking theories in the dark... Not that that's necessiarly a bad thing.

[Strange]

So I just came across this (from a rather unreliable source, haven't had a chance to check into it yet) which sort of relates to the original point. In an expanding universe, then crossing an area of different density can cause red shift:

 

The low mass helps explain the low observed temperature of the cold spot. Crossing the region, CMB photons lose energy (observed as a longer wavelength, which corresponds to the cooler temperature) by converting kinetic energy into gravitational energy.

Were the universe regular, those photons would recover energy from other mass exiting the region; the shortage of mass means the energy isn't recovered.

That's what links the supervoid to the possible acceleration of the universe's expansion: over the 1.8 billion years between ingress and egress, the universe around the photons became less dense, leaving less stuff to give the photons back their kinetic energy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/22/somethings_missing_in_our_universe_boffins_look_into_the_supervoid/

(There are a few factual errors in that article, buit the quoted bit looks reasonable.)

[swansont]

The slide does state that because BBT has been confirmed by many other observations, curiously, no cititation for any of them.

Slides tend not to have citations on them for basic info in my experience. Slide real estate is too valuable. You give citations for novel/new results or to tout your own work.

 

Based on what I've read CMB is the "smoking gun" and even though data from WMAP et al, don't line up with theory or prediction, it's proof... Could lead one to believe BBT science, works differently than other siences...

Um, whut? Don't line up? Different science?

[shmengie]

Slides tend not to have citations on them for basic info in my experience. Slide real estate is too valuable. You give citations for novel/new results or to tout your own work.

 

 

Um, whut? Don't line up? Different science?

 

You understand, BB is a lot of theory, which doesn't equate to science, right? I percieve you are convicted it is nothing but science. That doesn't mean there isn't scientific study of BB, but study and "science" are descrete concepts, IMO.

 

The biggest problem I have with BB or BBN is that it's mostly theories explaining the theory BBN/inflation. There is no proof and there may never be... Dark energy is a figument of BB postulation. Don't know what it is, if it's real or what, but it fits with a postulation of the accelerating universe.

 

There are a lot of things I like about BB/inflation. A few I find difficult to agree with.

 

All matter has been concentrating into stars and galaxies since some form of a starting point. Most agree, based on observation it appears fact. I consider matter falling into gravity wells as a plausible explanation for some redshift of light, but that concept doesn't agree w/BB, so it's "wrong"... It goes against BB, so it's not worth investigating.

 

BB is a tidy conceptulization for the beginning, easy to visualize in the minds eye. I suspect that's why it's the most accepted and also why recieved the most attention. Just because it's the most accepted doesn't make it right, nor does it make it science.

 

Acceptance does have a tendency to label those who disagree as crackpot and easier to neglect competing theory.

 

That, my friend, is a sad state of the "science".

 

Conceptualizing a complete and competing theory for BB, is way beyond my ability. No matter how try, I lean toward a "starting point" which I believe is the bigesst hole in Steady State.

 

Regards,

 

-Joe

[swansont]

You understand, BB is a lot of theory, which doesn't equate to science, right? I percieve you are convicted it is nothing but science. That doesn't mean there isn't scientific study of BB, but study and "science" are descrete concepts, IMO.

When you use therms like theory incorrectly that raises a red flag in terms of the credibility of your objection, but even that pales into comparison of the absence of specifics of your argument. That typically indicates the problem is a lack of understanding. The good news is that's correctable, if one is amenable to it.

 

The biggest problem I have with BB or BBN is that it's mostly theories explaining the theory BBN/inflation. There is no proof and there may never be... Dark energy is a figument of BB postulation. Don't know what it is, if it's real or what, but it fits with a postulation of the accelerating universe.

The current acceleration isn't postulated. It's a conclusion from experiment.

 

All matter has been concentrating into stars and galaxies since some form of a starting point. Most agree, based on observation it appears fact. I consider matter falling into gravity wells as a plausible explanation for some redshift of light, but that concept doesn't agree w/BB, so it's "wrong"... It goes against BB, so it's not worth investigating.

Redshift from a gravitational well is a matter for GR rather than the BB. It doesn't "go against" BB AFAIK, since it's not covered by it.

 

If you are going to argue against GR then you are swimming upstream against a fairly well-tested theory.

 

BB is a tidy conceptulization for the beginning, easy to visualize in the minds eye. I suspect that's why it's the most accepted and also why recieved the most attention. Just because it's the most accepted doesn't make it right, nor does it make it science.

What makes it science is that it's falsifiable, and it's tested against measurement and the predictions agree with theory. That's also why it's accepted.

 

 

Acceptance does have a tendency to label those who disagree as crackpot and easier to neglect competing theory.

 

That, my friend, is a sad state of the "science".

 

Conceptualizing a complete and competing theory for BB, is way beyond my ability. No matter how try, I lean toward a "starting point" which I believe is the bigesst hole in Steady State.

Lack of rigorous objection or alternative is the much sadder state of crackpottery. And the truth is that there are two separate issues here: objections to the mainstream, and presenting an alternative. You can do the former without the latter, but you still need to present a rigorous argument. You have thus far declined that invitation. All we've gotten is a "sad state of affairs" hand-wave. The trouble is that we DO pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

Even your earlier question, "when gravitational well accreates(sic) more mass while the light is in the zone, does light not exiit(sic) more red?" it shouldn't be too hard to guesstimate given some reasonable assumptions, but I don't see any attempt to see if this would be in the ballpark of a noticeable effect.

[Strange]

 

You understand, BB is a lot of theory, which doesn't equate to science, right?

 

Huh? It is a theory, a very succesfull and well-tested theory. That is why it IS science.

 

I percieve you are convicted it is nothing but science.

 

Mathematical model: check

Quantitative predictions: check

Predictions tested (and confirmed) by observation: check

Model adjusted based on evidence: check

 

Yep. Sounds like science to me.

 

The biggest problem I have with BB or BBN is that it's mostly theories explaining the theory BBN/inflation.

 

Errr ... Yes. It is scientific theory. That is what scientific theories do.

 

There is no proof and there may never be...

 

Don't worry, there never will be. Scientific theories are never proved.

 

Dark energy is a figument of BB postulation. Don't know what it is, if it's real or what, but it fits with a postulation of the accelerating universe.

 

Observation, not postulate.

 

There are a lot of things I like about BB/inflation. A few I find difficult to agree with.

 

Science has nothing to do with what you like or dislike. (Maybe you want philosophy, just down the corridor.)

 

All matter has been concentrating into stars and galaxies since some form of a starting point.

 

No. Stars and galaxies didn't form until after hundreds of millions of years.

 

I consider matter falling into gravity wells as a plausible explanation for some redshift of light, but that concept doesn't agree w/BB, so it's "wrong"... It goes against BB, so it's not worth investigating.

 

That is not the reason. Surely you don't really think that? Are you able to produce a mathematical model that produces results consistent with observation? No? Do you that that, just maybe, that is why the idea isn't accepted?

 

And then you have all the other, much more important and compelling, evidence for the big bang. How would you address those? Why focus on one of the least important bits of evidence? (Until the other evidence turned up, there were several alternative models.)

 

BB is a tidy conceptulization for the beginning, easy to visualize in the minds eye. I suspect that's why it's the most accepted and also why recieved the most attention. Just because it's the most accepted doesn't make it right, nor does it make it science.

 

That is back to front (to put it politely). The reason it is widely accepted is because it is the best model that fits all the evidenec.

 

Acceptance does have a tendency to label those who disagree as crackpot and easier to neglect competing theory.

 

It depends why the disagree. If you disagree because you have an alternative model that fits all the evidence, then you are not a crackpot.

 

If you disagree on the grounds of aesthetics or simply disbelief, then you are. Don't be that guy, as they say.

 

That, my friend, is a sad state of the "science".

 

sounds more like the sad state of your ignorance of science.

 

Conceptualizing a complete and competing theory for BB, is way beyond my ability.

 

Then you have absolutely no rational basis for saying it is wrong.

[Mordred]

 

 

There are a lot of things I like about BB/inflation. A few I find difficult to agree with.

 

All matter has been concentrating into stars and galaxies since some form of a starting point. Most agree, based on observation it appears fact. I consider matter falling into gravity wells as a plausible explanation for some redshift of light,

-Joe

This wouldn't work with observational evidence. Cosmological redshift is rather homogeneous and isotropic. We have tons of observational support in this. For example Planck and WMAP must filter out redshift to make their images.

 

The technique goes something like this. Use a spectrum analyzer, examine the 21 cm hydrogen line. We know how light is influenced by hydrogen (as well as numerous other every day elements and composite compounds, lab tested). Measure a distance object. Look for the redshift of the spectrum, calibrate the image by removing the redshift Influence, then measure the CMB temperature.

 

Redshift causes temperature reading errors so must be calibrated out. (Its also a good way to look for gravitational lenses and gravity wells. You stated we can't test redshift. Quite frankly your wrong.

 

We test redshift data with every measurement we make of our universe. It's fundamental to account and make neasurement corrections due to redshift. As such we use a huge variety of methods to detect and account for redshift. Parallax is merely one method. I just described another. Google Hershals map sometime.

 

The hydrogen spectral series is commonly used in cosmology

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series

 

You'd be surprised just how many theories, principles goes into the BB model. To list a few GR, high energy particle physics, thermodynamic laws,

QM, QED, QCD, QFT (yes BB involves these Good example of QM related and BB is inflation itself.)

 

LCDM (hot big bang with cold dark matter) is the leading model. It isn't based on a mere few theories but a huge collection of various theories applied to both test and attempt to disprove the LCDM model.

 

It's still around as it is still the best model for to observational evidence. ( not because of some funding popularity contest)

[shmengie]

Explaination for redshift, other than recession goes directly against BB/inflation. Matter welling cause redshift, would prove problematice for most of BB.

 

We don't have that experience on Earth, which leaves the doppler effect as preferred conclusion.

 

I'm a crackpot, because I don't agree with BB, don't have rigerous objection nor alternatives. Though I'm 95% sure matter contraction/welling is a significant source of redshift, in cosmological measurements. There are no earthly means to test the hypothesis. Any equation, would rely on a lot of guess work, so it seems pointless. BB is the best model we have, breaking it (if possible) would be counterproductive.

 

I don't like being labeled crackpot, but I can live with it. If I was a phycisist, I suppose it would be more problematic... And I'd bite my tounge more often.

 

To develop an equation for this postulation, equations of GR would need to be expanded. GR doesn't deal well with changing masses and that math is already complex. The vector of a photon would varry, as well as wavelength. I estimate two or more tensors need to be added, and I don't comprehend GR...

 

I apologize that my depression, around this state affairs, causes me to lash out in frustration. There's little comfort, knowing few others face the same perplexity.

 

Though familiar with [some] predictions of BB that later coinside with observation. I take that w/a grain of salt, since they already targeted logical hypothesis. Agreement between hypothesis and observation is encouraging, but they conclude Dark Energy, which seems highly improbable (IMO)...

 

Doubt that welling would erradicate Dark Energy, but it would be a step in defining stable aether. That I would find more agreeable, not that I believe in aether...

[swansont]

I'm a crackpot, because I don't agree with BB, don't have rigerous objection nor alternatives. Though I'm 95% sure matter contraction/welling is a significant source of redshift, in cosmological measurements. There are no earthly means to test the hypothesis.

I agree with your diagnosis, although you left out the symptom of not having a reasonable grasp of the theory you reject.

[Strange]

Explaination for redshift, other than recession goes directly against BB/inflation. Matter welling cause redshift, would prove problematice for most of BB.

 

So if you can produce a model that supports this, you could get a Nobel Prize. Go for it.

 

We don't have that experience on Earth, which leaves the doppler effect as preferred conclusion.

 

The Doppler effect is very definitely not the preferred model. It gives the wrong results.

 

There are no earthly means to test the hypothesis.

 

Then it is not science (and is crackpottery).

 

But, actually, I disagree. I'm sure this could be tested. All you need to do is come up with a model.

 

BB is the best model we have, breaking it (if possible) would be counterproductive.

 

Breaking it on a scientific basis would be very, very productive.

 

GR doesn't deal well with changing masses

 

I don't see why not.

 

I estimate two or more tensors need to be added, and I don't comprehend GR...

 

Then how can you possibly say what needs to be added.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Strange