Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Big Bang

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 4:56:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What are the key points, you may list out that describe the Big Bang specifically?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 8:04:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
From what I have read:
Very high temperature
Very high density
Expansion of space - possibly very rapid in the early stage.
Only fundamental particles - no structures such as a proton
Unified force mediators - gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong force all act as the same force ie there is only one force boson.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 1:34:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 8:04:19 AM, chui wrote:
From what I have read:
Very high temperature
Very high density
Expansion of space - possibly very rapid in the early stage.
Only fundamental particles - no structures such as a proton
Unified force mediators - gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong force all act as the same force ie there is only one force boson.

Thanks for sharing your views.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 2:31:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 4:56:35 AM, Dazz wrote:
What are the key points, you may list out that describe the Big Bang specifically?

Evidenced almost entirely by reference to the red shift of light which is said to be proof of the expansion of the universe. It is by turning the (theoretical) clock backwards that the Big Bang is postulated - the ultimate opposite of expansion being compression.

There is no direct evidence for the Big bang, though the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is said to be a lingering effect of it.

However, there are alternative explanations for both the red-shift and the CMB.

The Big Bang theory seems to enjoy current establishment consensus, much like the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Both are false in my ever-humble opinion. I think they are both popular theories partly because of their biblical proportions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 2:31:31 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/11/2013 4:56:35 AM, Dazz wrote:
What are the key points, you may list out that describe the Big Bang specifically?

Evidenced almost entirely by reference to the red shift of light which is said to be proof of the expansion of the universe. It is by turning the (theoretical) clock backwards that the Big Bang is postulated - the ultimate opposite of expansion being compression.

There is no direct evidence for the Big bang, though the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is said to be a lingering effect of it.

However, there are alternative explanations for both the red-shift and the CMB.

The Big Bang theory seems to enjoy current establishment consensus, much like the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Both are false in my ever-humble opinion. I think they are both popular theories partly because of their biblical proportions.

No, they are popular theories because they are supported by mass amounts of evidence. Science has nothing to do with The Bible.

Additionally, there is nothing other than the Big Bang which can explain the CMB. And all attempts to explain the red-shifting without expansion have been universally rejected as psuedoscience.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 4:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 2:31:31 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/11/2013 4:56:35 AM, Dazz wrote:
What are the key points, you may list out that describe the Big Bang specifically?

Evidenced almost entirely by reference to the red shift of light which is said to be proof of the expansion of the universe. It is by turning the (theoretical) clock backwards that the Big Bang is postulated - the ultimate opposite of expansion being compression.

There is no direct evidence for the Big bang, though the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is said to be a lingering effect of it.

However, there are alternative explanations for both the red-shift and the CMB.

The Big Bang theory seems to enjoy current establishment consensus, much like the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Both are false in my ever-humble opinion. I think they are both popular theories partly because of their biblical proportions.

No, they are popular theories because they are supported by mass amounts of evidence. Science has nothing to do with The Bible.

I am not saying anything about the BBT having to do with the bible. The phrase "biblical proportions" is commonly used to refer to things that are very large, such as the globe or the universe. I am saying that humans, especially those with titles, often enjoy making Large Sweeping Proclamations (LSP) about the whole planet or the origins of the universe, far beyond what they can actually know.

Additionally, there is nothing other than the Big Bang which can explain the CMB. And all attempts to explain the red-shifting without expansion have been universally rejected as psuedoscience.

These are two Large, Sweeping Proclamations that are not quite valid. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with other explanations of the CMB, but to say that nothing else CAN explain it is a bit overwrought. A background radiation was predicted by Eddington long before the BBT was launched and his value was very close to the actual discovered value some decades later. The original BBT calculation made later was far too high and had to be revised way down to match the discovery. Also, it is faulty logic to contend that ONLY the BBT can explain the CMT. Other causes may be discovered and have been proposed.

Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience. There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

There are a number of other interesting problems with the BBT which have required some serious and rather clumsy revisions, such as dark energy and dark matter, both of which are necessary to explain newly-discovered facts, but neither of which has been detected. A theory that requires that kind of magic thinking to stay afloat is suspect.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:58:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/23/2013 4:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 2:31:31 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/11/2013 4:56:35 AM, Dazz wrote:
What are the key points, you may list out that describe the Big Bang specifically?

Evidenced almost entirely by reference to the red shift of light which is said to be proof of the expansion of the universe. It is by turning the (theoretical) clock backwards that the Big Bang is postulated - the ultimate opposite of expansion being compression.

There is no direct evidence for the Big bang, though the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is said to be a lingering effect of it.

However, there are alternative explanations for both the red-shift and the CMB.

The Big Bang theory seems to enjoy current establishment consensus, much like the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Both are false in my ever-humble opinion. I think they are both popular theories partly because of their biblical proportions.

No, they are popular theories because they are supported by mass amounts of evidence. Science has nothing to do with The Bible.

I am not saying anything about the BBT having to do with the bible. The phrase "biblical proportions" is commonly used to refer to things that are very large, such as the globe or the universe. I am saying that humans, especially those with titles, often enjoy making Large Sweeping Proclamations (LSP) about the whole planet or the origins of the universe, far beyond what they can actually know.

Actually scientists enjoyed a static universe. If there wasn't such overwhelming evidence for TBB, scientists would have stuck with a static universe. Not Einstein, or anybody liked TBB; they had to accept it because of the evidence.


Additionally, there is nothing other than the Big Bang which can explain the CMB. And all attempts to explain the red-shifting without expansion have been universally rejected as psuedoscience.

These are two Large, Sweeping Proclamations that are not quite valid. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with other explanations of the CMB, but to say that nothing else CAN explain it is a bit overwrought. A background radiation was predicted by Eddington long before the BBT was launched and his value was very close to the actual discovered value some decades later. The original BBT calculation made later was far too high and had to be revised way down to match the discovery. Also, it is faulty logic to contend that ONLY the BBT can explain the CMT. Other causes may be discovered and have been proposed.

Only the initial expansion could have caused that much radiation. Nothing in the universe can account for the radiation found in the CMB.


Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience.

Yes they have. Every cosmologist knows the universe is expanding.

There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

There are a number of other interesting problems with the BBT which have required some serious and rather clumsy revisions, such as dark energy and dark matter, both of which are necessary to explain newly-discovered facts, but neither of which has been detected. A theory that requires that kind of magic thinking to stay afloat is suspect.

It's not magic. Dark energy and Dark mater have to exist, you just understand science.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 1:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/23/2013 4:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 2:31:31 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/11/2013 4:56:35 AM, Dazz wrote:
What are the key points, you may list out that describe the Big Bang specifically?

Evidenced almost entirely by reference to the red shift of light which is said to be proof of the expansion of the universe. It is by turning the (theoretical) clock backwards that the Big Bang is postulated - the ultimate opposite of expansion being compression.

There is no direct evidence for the Big bang, though the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is said to be a lingering effect of it.

However, there are alternative explanations for both the red-shift and the CMB.

The Big Bang theory seems to enjoy current establishment consensus, much like the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Both are false in my ever-humble opinion. I think they are both popular theories partly because of their biblical proportions.

No, they are popular theories because they are supported by mass amounts of evidence. Science has nothing to do with The Bible.

I am not saying anything about the BBT having to do with the bible. The phrase "biblical proportions" is commonly used to refer to things that are very large, such as the globe or the universe. I am saying that humans, especially those with titles, often enjoy making Large Sweeping Proclamations (LSP) about the whole planet or the origins of the universe, far beyond what they can actually know.

Additionally, there is nothing other than the Big Bang which can explain the CMB. And all attempts to explain the red-shifting without expansion have been universally rejected as psuedoscience.

These are two Large, Sweeping Proclamations that are not quite valid. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with other explanations of the CMB, but to say that nothing else CAN explain it is a bit overwrought. A background radiation was predicted by Eddington long before the BBT was launched and his value was very close to the actual discovered value some decades later. The original BBT calculation made later was far too high and had to be revised way down to match the discovery. Also, it is faulty logic to contend that ONLY the BBT can explain the CMT. Other causes may be discovered and have been proposed.

Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience. There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

There are a number of other interesting problems with the BBT which have required some serious and rather clumsy revisions, such as dark energy and dark matter, both of which are necessary to explain newly-discovered facts, but neither of which has been detected. A theory that requires that kind of magic thinking to stay afloat is suspect.

Also, everyone knows the standard model is incomplete. That doesn't mean there wasn't an initial expansion, or that our universe is still expanding today.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 1:10:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Big Bang cosmology is an implication of Einstein's general theory of relativity. There are solutions to Einstein's general theory of relativity, worked on by physicists since its creation, which are referred to as Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics. These metrics indicate that our universe is isotropic, expanding, and homogenous. They also indicate that the universe at T=0 is an ideal point which is never reached. Rather, there are an infinite number of instantaneous points as one approaches T=0.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:42:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 4:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Only the initial expansion could have caused that much radiation. Nothing in the universe can account for the radiation found in the CMB.

This is a logical error which implies that you know everything that is possible in the universe concerning microwave production. There is no point in debating with someone who knows that much.

...Every cosmologist knows the universe is expanding.

This is both untrue and irrelevant. There is no point in debating with someone who knows what every cosmologist thinks and believes that science is settled by consensus. I assume you are familiar with Arp.

It is interesting that, instead of even addressing my point about the red shift and its relationship to gravity, you merely repeat your absolutist proclamations (there are no other possibilities / everyone agrees with you) as if repeating yourself gains you ground in a debate. Rational Thinker may be your chosen title, but I am not convinced that you clearly understand what that means.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:49:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:42:05 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/23/2013 4:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Only the initial expansion could have caused that much radiation. Nothing in the universe can account for the radiation found in the CMB.

This is a logical error which implies that you know everything that is possible in the universe concerning microwave production. There is no point in debating with someone who knows that much.

It's the only plausible explanation we know of.


...Every cosmologist knows the universe is expanding.

This is both untrue and irrelevant. There is no point in debating with someone who knows what every cosmologist thinks and believes that science is settled by consensus. I assume you are familiar with Arp.


It is interesting that, instead of even addressing my point about the red shift and its relationship to gravity, you merely repeat your absolutist proclamations (there are no other possibilities / everyone agrees with you) as if repeating yourself gains you ground in a debate. Rational Thinker may be your chosen title, but I am not convinced that you clearly understand what that means.

I know that rational people don't think that random non-scientist DDO user can disprove something that virtually the entire scientific community (besides a few crack pots) believe in. I'll talk to you when you get a Nobel Prize.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 5:21:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM, Howardofski wrote:

Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience. There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

While it would be inaccurate to say that gravitational redshift doesn't exist (gravitational redshift is a measurable effect), the effect of gravitational redshift from earth is very small (because the earth is not very massive) and it can't account for the cosmological redshift observed. Other hypotheses don't match observations as well nor as simply as relativistic doppler redshift from the expansion of space.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 5:21:42 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM, Howardofski wrote:

Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience. There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

While it would be inaccurate to say that gravitational redshift doesn't exist (gravitational redshift is a measurable effect), the effect of gravitational redshift from earth is very small (because the earth is not very massive) and it can't account for the cosmological redshift observed. Other hypotheses don't match observations as well nor as simply as relativistic doppler redshift from the expansion of space.

The issue has not to do with the Earth's gravity, but with the gravity of the universe as a whole. This is a cumulative effect and thus relates red shift to distance traveled, but does so without the need to posit Doppler effects at all, though these will also apply whenever the source is significantly approaching or receding.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:01:39 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 5:21:42 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM, Howardofski wrote:

Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience. There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

While it would be inaccurate to say that gravitational redshift doesn't exist (gravitational redshift is a measurable effect), the effect of gravitational redshift from earth is very small (because the earth is not very massive) and it can't account for the cosmological redshift observed. Other hypotheses don't match observations as well nor as simply as relativistic doppler redshift from the expansion of space.

The issue has not to do with the Earth's gravity, but with the gravity of the universe as a whole. This is a cumulative effect and thus relates red shift to distance traveled, but does so without the need to posit Doppler effects at all, though these will also apply whenever the source is significantly approaching or receding.

Then we'd observe gravitational blueshift.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:24:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:01:39 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 5:21:42 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:08:01 AM, Howardofski wrote:

Alternative explanations of the red-shift have not been "universally" rejected as psuedoscience. There are several interesting alternative explanations and a reputable minority of scientists who support them. It is generally (not universally) accepted that gravity affects light and the theory of black holes says that gravity can stretch light.

While it would be inaccurate to say that gravitational redshift doesn't exist (gravitational redshift is a measurable effect), the effect of gravitational redshift from earth is very small (because the earth is not very massive) and it can't account for the cosmological redshift observed. Other hypotheses don't match observations as well nor as simply as relativistic doppler redshift from the expansion of space.

The issue has not to do with the Earth's gravity, but with the gravity of the universe as a whole. This is a cumulative effect and thus relates red shift to distance traveled, but does so without the need to posit Doppler effects at all, though these will also apply whenever the source is significantly approaching or receding.

To account for such redshift, there has to be massive gravitational fields: such a field would not only cause redshift, but also cause gravitational scattering/lensing.

For gravity to cause the significant red shift we see in distant galaxies it would be more than sufficient for it to also scatter light from a single source something like 5/10 degrees, which would make the entire universe look fuzzy.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:38:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM, Enji wrote:

Then we'd observe gravitational blueshift.

Gravity only pulls - it does not push. A blue shift would require light wave compression - something that will only occur in the Doppler case of an approaching source.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:45:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:38:34 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM, Enji wrote:

Then we'd observe gravitational blueshift.

Gravity only pulls - it does not push. A blue shift would require light wave compression - something that will only occur in the Doppler case of an approaching source.

In the case of gravity causing red shift, it would require a source of gravitational attraction to be behind the light source. (Having the equivalent of "pulling" the light back: It isn't actually like that, but it's as easy an analogy as I can think of right now)

In an equally distributed universal mass, one would expect there to be scenarios where the mass is in a different location (EG: behind the observer of the light), which would cause a gravitational blue shift.

In reality, with an relatively equally distributed mass within the universe, the effects of this mass would have a cancelling affect in all but the most localized scenario.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:53:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:24:10 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

The issue has not to do with the Earth's gravity, but with the gravity of the universe as a whole. This is a cumulative effect and thus relates red shift to distance traveled, but does so without the need to posit Doppler effects at all, though these will also apply whenever the source is significantly approaching or receding.

To account for such redshift, there has to be massive gravitational fields: such a field would not only cause redshift, but also cause gravitational scattering/lensing.

For gravity to cause the significant red shift we see in distant galaxies it would be more than sufficient for it to also scatter light from a single source something like 5/10 degrees, which would make the entire universe look fuzzy.

It is a cumulative effect, increasing over time and distance, so does not require more than actual gravity. It would increase both the lateral divergence and the linear expansion of the light wave. Since the light wave is already diverging from its source, all this would do is add to the divergence. That would not cause blur, merely increased dimming.

So I am suggesting that gravity alone - over time and distance - will cause both red shift and dimming. Relative motion is not necessary between source and viewer.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:56:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:45:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:38:34 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM, Enji wrote:

Then we'd observe gravitational blueshift.

Gravity only pulls - it does not push. A blue shift would require light wave compression - something that will only occur in the Doppler case of an approaching source.

In the case of gravity causing red shift, it would require a source of gravitational attraction to be behind the light source. (Having the equivalent of "pulling" the light back: It isn't actually like that, but it's as easy an analogy as I can think of right now)

In an equally distributed universal mass, one would expect there to be scenarios where the mass is in a different location (EG: behind the observer of the light), which would cause a gravitational blue shift.

In reality, with an relatively equally distributed mass within the universe, the effects of this mass would have a cancelling affect in all but the most localized scenario.

To red shift light, you would need a massive amount of gravity. To avoid lensing and scattering, the gravitational distribution around the cosmos would have to be equal.

If this is the case, the gravitational attraction at the destination will be equal to the gravitational attraction of the source; thus cancelling out any red shift.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 11:12:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:56:02 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:45:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:38:34 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM, Enji wrote:

Then we'd observe gravitational blue shift.

Gravity only pulls - it does not push. A blue shift would require light wave compression - something that will only occur in the Doppler case of an approaching source.

In the case of gravity causing red shift, it would require a source of gravitational attraction to be behind the light source. (Having the equivalent of "pulling" the light back: It isn't actually like that, but it's as easy an analogy as I can think of right now)

In an equally distributed universal mass, one would expect there to be scenarios where the mass is in a different location (EG: behind the observer of the light), which would cause a gravitational blue shift.

In reality, with an relatively equally distributed mass within the universe, the effects of this mass would have a cancelling affect in all but the most localized scenario.

To red shift light, you would need a massive amount of gravity.
I repeat, the effect would be cumulative, so you do not need anything more massive than you now have. You only need great distance and time for the effect to accumulate to a detectable level

To avoid lensing and scattering, the gravitational distribution around the cosmos would have to be equal.
Over great time and distance, it is equal - on average.

If this is the case, the gravitational attraction at the destination will be equal to the gravitational attraction of the source; thus cancelling out any red shift.

No matter where the gravitational force is, the result will be greater on the closer and lessor on the further points of the effected object, whether that is a solid object or a moving light wave. This is usually referred to as "tidal" forces. The moon, for instance, pulls with greater force on the closer surface of the Earth and with less force on the farther surface, stretching the Earth (and even more its oceans) slightly into an oblong. Thus both the gravity of the source and the gravity of the surrounding universe are working to stretch the light as it travels outward from that source. They do not at all need to be equal. They independently do the same thing - their effects are additive not opposed.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 11:25:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 11:12:56 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:56:02 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:45:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:38:34 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM, Enji wrote:

Then we'd observe gravitational blue shift.

Gravity only pulls - it does not push. A blue shift would require light wave compression - something that will only occur in the Doppler case of an approaching source.

In the case of gravity causing red shift, it would require a source of gravitational attraction to be behind the light source. (Having the equivalent of "pulling" the light back: It isn't actually like that, but it's as easy an analogy as I can think of right now)

In an equally distributed universal mass, one would expect there to be scenarios where the mass is in a different location (EG: behind the observer of the light), which would cause a gravitational blue shift.

In reality, with an relatively equally distributed mass within the universe, the effects of this mass would have a cancelling affect in all but the most localized scenario.

To red shift light, you would need a massive amount of gravity.
I repeat, the effect would be cumulative, so you do not need anything more massive than you now have. You only need great distance and time for the effect to accumulate to a detectable level

If you looked at the Schwarzchild equations, it doesn't work like this. Gravitational redshift is dependant on the gravitational strength of the source, and the observer. A red shift would only "accumulate", if there is a significant gravity differential between the two points.

To avoid lensing and scattering, the gravitational distribution around the cosmos would have to be equal.
Over great time and distance, it is equal - on average.

If this is the case, the gravitational attraction at the destination will be equal to the gravitational attraction of the source; thus cancelling out any red shift.

No matter where the gravitational force is, the result will be greater on the closer and lessor on the further points of the effected object, whether that is a solid object or a moving light wave. This is usually referred to as "tidal" forces. The moon, for instance, pulls with greater force on the closer surface of the Earth and with less force on the farther surface, stretching the Earth (and even more its oceans) slightly into an oblong. Thus both the gravity of the source and the gravity of the surrounding universe are working to stretch the light as it travels outward from that source. They do not at all need to be equal. They independently do the same thing - their effects are additive not opposed.

Gravitational redshift is not additive. It depends on whether the light is traveling towards or away from a gravitational source. Light traveling from one galaxy to an equivalent galaxy that is stationary relative to the other will experience no redshift; as the gravity differential between the two will be 0.

Asside from the mass of bodies emitting the light (which have negligble contribution to observed redshift), the only mass that is available to red shift the light is the mass around the emitter. At longer distances, the red and blue shifts sum to nothing.

As I said, if this mass was significant enough to cause such a red shift; this mass will lense and scatter other light causing blur (for example a massive galaxy should lense or scatter light coming from behind it if a significant red shift was present).

At longer distances the gravitational effects are effectively neutral, with as much pull back as there is pull forward caused by the fairly equal mass distribution of the universe. And very much neutral.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 1:11:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 11:25:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 11:12:56 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:56:02 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:45:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 9:38:34 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:05:43 PM, Enji wrote:

Then we'd observe gravitational blue shift.

Gravity only pulls - it does not push. A blue shift would require light wave compression - something that will only occur in the Doppler case of an approaching source.

In the case of gravity causing red shift, it would require a source of gravitational attraction to be behind the light source. (Having the equivalent of "pulling" the light back: It isn't actually like that, but it's as easy an analogy as I can think of right now)

In an equally distributed universal mass, one would expect there to be scenarios where the mass is in a different location (EG: behind the observer of the light), which would cause a gravitational blue shift.

In reality, with an relatively equally distributed mass within the universe, the effects of this mass would have a cancelling affect in all but the most localized scenario.

To red shift light, you would need a massive amount of gravity.
I repeat, the effect would be cumulative, so you do not need anything more massive than you now have. You only need great distance and time for the effect to accumulate to a detectable level

If you looked at the Schwarzchild equations, it doesn't work like this. Gravitational redshift is dependant on the gravitational strength of the source, and the observer. A red shift would only "accumulate", if there is a significant gravity differential between the two points.

To avoid lensing and scattering, the gravitational distribution around the cosmos would have to be equal.
Over great time and distance, it is equal - on average.

If this is the case, the gravitational attraction at the destination will be equal to the gravitational attraction of the source; thus cancelling out any red shift.

No matter where the gravitational force is, the result will be greater on the closer and lessor on the further points of the effected object, whether that is a solid object or a moving light wave. This is usually referred to as "tidal" forces. The moon, for instance, pulls with greater force on the closer surface of the Earth and with less force on the farther surface, stretching the Earth (and even more its oceans) slightly into an oblong. Thus both the gravity of the source and the gravity of the surrounding universe are working to stretch the light as it travels outward from that source. They do not at all need to be equal. They independently do the same thing - their effects are additive not opposed.

Gravitational redshift is not additive. It depends on whether the light is traveling towards or away from a gravitational source. Light traveling from one galaxy to an equivalent galaxy that is stationary relative to the other will experience no redshift; as the gravity differential between the two will be 0.

Asside from the mass of bodies emitting the light (which have negligble contribution to observed redshift), the only mass that is available to red shift the light is the mass around the emitter. At longer distances, the red and blue shifts sum to nothing.

As I said, if this mass was significant enough to cause such a red shift; this mass will lense and scatter other light causing blur (for example a massive galaxy should lense or scatter light coming from behind it if a significant red shift was present).

At longer distances the gravitational effects are effectively neutral, with as much pull back as there is pull forward caused by the fairly equal mass distribution of the universe. And very much neutral.

I am unfamiliar with your equation so will not comment. I am convinced that the phenomenon of "tidal" forces refutes your view that one source of gravity cancels another. Both are pulling on one side more than the other side of the subject in question, be that an object or a light wave. The implication is that even though the light from a source traveling toward you is being blue shifted due to the movement of the source, it is also being red shifted due to tidal forces from both the source and the destination (and the universe in general). The sum of the two would determine the resulting color shift. Where there is no source movement, red shifting would be the only factor. At very great distances, red shifting could outweigh blue shifting.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 1:34:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 1:11:39 PM, Howardofski wrote:
I am unfamiliar with your equation so will not comment. I am convinced that the phenomenon of "tidal" forces refutes your view that one source of gravity cancels another. Both are pulling on one side more than the other side of the subject in question, be that an object or a light wave. The implication is that even though the light from a source traveling toward you is being blue shifted due to the movement of the source, it is also being red shifted due to tidal forces from both the source and the destination (and the universe in general). The sum of the two would determine the resulting color shift. Where there is no source movement, red shifting would be the only factor. At very great distances, red shifting could outweigh blue shifting.

Tidal forces are actually the disparity of force on a body at two different points due to the differential power in gravity; it's not really applicable here as light is not redshifted due to tidal forces but for very different reasons.

The cause of red shift is due to time and distance dilation; NOT due to tidal forces. As light is emitted from a gravitational well when time is ticking more slowly, when it reaches another point where spacetime is differently dilated, in order for energy to be conserved AND for the speed of light to be maintained the wavelength changes in proportion to the dilation:

Frequency = c * Wavelength

In a high dilation, meters get smaller, and time gets slower: Thus the wavelength is higher and frequency higher than if there was lower dilation. As c is constant, when moving from one to another the light has to shift wavelength as meters and seconds are now differnt. Frequency changes relative to an observer (as it is utilising time) and wavelength changes for the same reason (as wavelength is measured in meters); moving from a higher to lower dilation causes a change in wavelength (IE: red/blue shifts).

The reason traveling fast, and gravity red/blue shift light is essentially for the same reason (spacetime dilation), but under subtly different mechanisms (and incidently one of differences between special and general relativity)

If you are going from low to high dilation, you get red shift, and for the reverse you get blue shift. Light falling into a black hole, for example would appear significantly blue shifted as the light is falling from a frame of reference with far less dilation. When light escapes from just outside the event horizon, it would appear red shifted as the light is going from a frame of reference with high dilation to one with less.

Such red/blue shifts are not additive; it simply depends on your relativistic frame of reference. To red shift, you simply require a large gravitational differential between source and reciever. Whether the light passes by a single massive body in between, or 1000, the red shift does not cumulatively increase or decrease as a result; it solely depends on the frame of reference of source and receiver (This is what the schwarzchild equations demonstrate).

So, in order to red shift light the source must be at a far higher gravitational potential than the observer (IE: operating under far high time dilation). This same space time distortion caused by large massses is what causes light to deflect and thus scattering/lensing

This yeilds the point I made at the beggining. To cause such a red shift, source and receiver need to be at different gravitational frames of reference, requiring one to be in a far stronger gravitational field than the other (While this is demonstratably, or arguably true for black holes, the effect for normal mass stars, is minimal).

For gravitational red-shift to explain the dopler equations, then all galaxies need to be far more massive than they are to explain the different gravitational potential, and our galaxy would have to be somehow significantly lighter. Alternatively, you would see a correlation between galaxy size and red shift amount (which is not the case).
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 1:34:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 1:11:39 PM, Howardofski wrote:
I am unfamiliar with your equation so will not comment. I am convinced that the phenomenon of "tidal" forces refutes your view that one source of gravity cancels another. Both are pulling on one side more than the other side of the subject in question, be that an object or a light wave. The implication is that even though the light from a source traveling toward you is being blue shifted due to the movement of the source, it is also being red shifted due to tidal forces from both the source and the destination (and the universe in general). The sum of the two would determine the resulting color shift. Where there is no source movement, red shifting would be the only factor. At very great distances, red shifting could outweigh blue shifting.

Tidal forces are actually the disparity of force on a body at two different points due to the differential power in gravity; it's not really applicable here as light is not redshifted due to tidal forces but for very different reasons.

The cause of red shift is due to time and distance dilation; NOT due to tidal forces. As light is emitted from a gravitational well when time is ticking more slowly, when it reaches another point where spacetime is differently dilated, in order for energy to be conserved AND for the speed of light to be maintained the wavelength changes in proportion to the dilation:

Frequency = c * Wavelength

In a high dilation, meters get smaller, and time gets slower: Thus the wavelength is higher and frequency higher than if there was lower dilation. As c is constant, when moving from one to another the light has to shift wavelength as meters and seconds are now different. Frequency changes relative to an observer (as it is utilizing time) and wavelength changes for the same reason (as wavelength is measured in meters); moving from a higher to lower dilation causes a change in wavelength (IE: red/blue shifts).

The reason traveling fast, and gravity red/blue shift light is essentially for the same reason (spacetime dilation), but under subtly different mechanisms (and incidently one of differences between special and general relativity)

If you are going from low to high dilation, you get red shift, and for the reverse you get blue shift. Light falling into a black hole, for example would appear significantly blue shifted as the light is falling from a frame of reference with far less dilation. When light escapes from just outside the event horizon, it would appear red shifted as the light is going from a frame of reference with high dilation to one with less.

Such red/blue shifts are not additive; it simply depends on your relativistic frame of reference. To red shift, you simply require a large gravitational differential between source and receiver. Whether the light passes by a single massive body in between, or 1000, the red shift does not cumulatively increase or decrease as a result; it solely depends on the frame of reference of source and receiver (This is what the Schwarzchild equations demonstrate).

So, in order to red shift light the source must be at a far higher gravitational potential than the observer (IE: operating under far high time dilation). This same space time distortion caused by large masses is what causes light to deflect and thus scattering/lensing

This yields the point I made at the beginning. To cause such a red shift, source and receiver need to be at different gravitational frames of reference, requiring one to be in a far stronger gravitational field than the other (While this is demonstrably, or arguably true for black holes, the effect for normal mass stars, is minimal).

For gravitational red-shift to explain the Doppler equations, then all galaxies need to be far more massive than they are to explain the different gravitational potential, and our galaxy would have to be somehow significantly lighter. Alternatively, you would see a correlation between galaxy size and red shift amount (which is not the case).

You have explained in detail the standard model of the red shift, but I am not questioning the possibility that receding bodies will red shift their light (though I do question expanding space as a cause of receding). I am offering the possibility of tidal forces as an ADDITIONAL cause of red-shift, affecting bodies that are not moving relative to one another (as well as those that are).

You correctly describe tidal forces, then claim that they don't apply to light. But that would require that a gravitational field would have the same effect on all photons without regard to distance - not likely. We do know, from direct observation, that light is affected by gravity to a greater or lesser degree depending on it's proximity to the source of the gravitational field. It must be subject, therefore to tidal forces. Your description of light near the event horizon of a black hole implies a linear vector effect.

You explain to me that gravity could not cause a Doppler shift. I never suggested it could. Doppler is about relative motion of emitter and receiver, not gravity.

You argue that, were I correct, we would see a correlation between galaxy size and red shift amount (which is not the case). But the size of the emitting galaxy is irrelevant to the tidal red shift after the light has traveled some distance from it. What the "redness" is measuring is the distance (time) traveled, not the size of the emitter. Light is "reddened" by travel through a galaxy full of gravity. Red appearing galaxies are distant, but not traveling away from us due to expanding space. I think expanding space is a fiction.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 5:29:40 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/25/2013 1:34:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/25/2013 1:11:39 PM, Howardofski wrote:
You have explained in detail the standard model of the red shift, but I am not questioning the possibility that receding bodies will red shift their light (though I do question expanding space as a cause of receding). I am offering the possibility of tidal forces as an ADDITIONAL cause of red-shift, affecting bodies that are not moving relative to one another (as well as those that are).

Gravitational redshift which I am explaining is not the same as dopler red-shift.

You correctly describe tidal forces, then claim that they don't apply to light. But that would require that a gravitational field would have the same effect on all photons without regard to distance - not likely. We do know, from direct observation, that light is affected by gravity to a greater or lesser degree depending on it's proximity to the source of the gravitational field. It must be subject, therefore to tidal forces. Your description of light near the event horizon of a black hole implies a linear vector effect.

Light is definitely affected by gravity; in fact, it is this very effect that causes gravitational red-shift. This form of redshift as I described it already takes into consideration the relative distance from the massive body by virtue of the gravitaitonal differential (which is greater the further away you are from a massive body).

At no point is gravity required to be non linear, but the red shift is a product of the relative gravity at source and observer; this inherently takes into consideration the distance (as to calculate the relative gravity between two points you need to know the distance and how it applies with the inverse square law).

You also seem to be confusing what tidal force is: Gravity itself is an inverse square field; double the distance and the force drops by a factor of 4.

Tidal force is something very different and only affects things with a larger than quantum size: As it describes the differerntial force between the closest and furthest part of a non-zero sized objects. As light is really a quantumn mechanical size, (if it has one at all) tidal force simply does not apply. Conflating the tidal force with the inverse square law is incorrect: my statements about gravity do not in any way assume a linear gravitational effect. Indeed all the calculations take need to take this into account to accurately gauge the gravitational differential between two points.

You explain to me that gravity could not cause a Doppler shift. I never suggested it could. Doppler is about relative motion of emitter and receiver, not gravity.

I mispoke; for "Gravitational Red shift" to explain "Hubbles law".

You argue that, were I correct, we would see a correlation between galaxy size and red shift amount (which is not the case). But the size of the emitting galaxy is irrelevant to the tidal red shift after the light has traveled some distance from it. What the "redness" is measuring is the distance (time) traveled, not the size of the emitter. Light is "reddened" by travel through a galaxy full of gravity. Red appearing galaxies are distant, but not traveling away from us due to expanding space. I think expanding space is a fiction.

Firstly, it's not tidal red shift; the terminology is wholly inappropriate. For gravitational redshift, the mass of the object is pretty much the ONLY thing that affects how much red shift occurs.

If you have an massive object emitting light and an equally massive object receiving the light; there will be no red shift as there is no gravitational differential. There is relativistic time dilation between the two massive objects for the gravitational redshift to occur. This is the same whether the objects are a million km away, or a million light years.

In your scenario, light will indeed be red shifted "from the perspective of a neutral observer not in the influence of a gravitational field" as the source is time dilated relative such an observer; however, as the light moves to the destination: us, the fact we are part of the milky way causes our time to be dilated due to galactic gravity; thus causing the light to be blue shifted relative to what the same observer saw due to the increasing gravitational potential.

Please look at the Schwarzchild equations as these would clear up the confusion. What is important for gravity red shift is essentially the time dilation of the source (due to gravity) and the time dilation of the receiver (due to gravity). It is this difference in dilation that actually causes gravitational red shift. Distance itself doesn't cause any red-shift other than causing a difference in time dilation.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:02:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I want to just clarify. Gravitational Red and Blue shift are relative effects; and occur because distance and time are different between source and observer due to the influence of gravity within General Relativity.

At large distances; the gravity of the source and the observer are essentially decoupled (the gravity of the source does not consequentially effect the observer and vice versa).

This means, the only thing governing time dilation of the source observer are the gravity the source and observer experience.

This means if the source is more massive than the observer, then there will be a red shift; and if the converse is true there will be a blue shift; regardless of the distance between them.

This is simply because red shift occurs as a result of the relative time dilation between two locations.

This means, if the red shift we see is gravitational red shift, then all galaxies we see must be more massive than our own (which is demonstrably false).
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 7:50:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And it might be relevant to add that gravitational redshift is a theoretical consequence of the conservation of energy (and mass-energy equivalence). Photons must expend energy to escape from a gravitational well (or gain energy when going the other way), and since energy is conserved that energy must have come from somewhere else; since photons always travel at the speed of light, the change in energy must be associated with a change in frequency which implies a change in wavelength.

This is why the relative difference in gravitational force between the source and the observer is relevant to determining gravitational redshift rather than cumulative effects in between; it doesn't matter if the photon has to climb up a mountain and back down again on its way from some star to earth because the net change in energy from climbing that mountain will be 0.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:01:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 7:50:17 PM, Enji wrote:
And it might be relevant to emphasize that gravitational redshift is a theoretical consequence of the conservation of energy (and mass-energy equivalence). Photons must expend energy to escape from a gravitational well (or gain energy when going the other way), and since energy is conserved that energy must have come from somewhere else; since photons always travel at the speed of light, the change in energy must be associated with a change in frequency which implies a change in wavelength.

This is why the relative difference in gravitational force between the source and the observer is relevant to determining gravitational redshift rather than cumulative effects in between; it doesn't matter if the photon has to climb up a mountain and back down again on its way from some star to earth because the net change in energy from climbing that mountain will be 0.

http://www.debate.org...
Shows how much I've been reading.. Ram's already covered this.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 3:43:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:02:23 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
I want to just clarify. Gravitational Red and Blue shift are relative effects; and occur because distance and time are different between source and observer due to the influence of gravity within General Relativity.

At large distances; the gravity of the source and the observer are essentially decoupled (the gravity of the source does not consequentially effect the observer and vice versa).

This means, the only thing governing time dilation of the source observer are the gravity the source and observer experience.

This means if the source is more massive than the observer, then there will be a red shift; and if the converse is true there will be a blue shift; regardless of the distance between them.

This is simply because red shift occurs as a result of the relative time dilation between two locations.

This means, if the red shift we see is gravitational red shift, then all galaxies we see must be more massive than our own (which is demonstrably false).

I do not recognize the possibility of gravity-induced blue shift. Gravity only pulls - it does not push. It can pull light apart by applying uneven forces to the leading and trailing photons in a train of light but cannot push them together.

Claiming that the gravity induced red shift is the result of distortions of space or time, rather than distortions of light waves seems like a serious violation of Occam's razor to me.

I do not accept any concepts like "time dilation" or "space distortion" since they are rhetorical impossibilities for which there are no adequate definitions. The terms "space" and "time" were (originally) both contextual concepts against which objective measurements of location and duration were given meaning. To speak of space and time themselves being distorted begs the question of what they are distorted relative to. The statements are meaningless because they rob location and duration of any objective fixed meaning. It is a rhetorical issue, not a physics issue. I'm well aware of the establishment consensus, but I doubt its validity anyway. I am not a fan of Einstein's word-gaming.

Ramshutu, I'm done presenting my position and I thank you for your patience and courtesy. I wish everyone on these forums would discuss issues the way you do.