Where science and religion become indistinguishable...

@marv
While I appreciate you are not a scientist, it would be helpful to read the article about the Hubble constant.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/wwwlabs/hdfSize/hdfSize_top.html

Blue shifted galaxies have not been discovered further and further in the distance, you have to provide a link for such an over-generalization. If you had meant red shifted galaxies then that does not contradict an expanding universe.

i would consider these types of theories to be quite conventional, in that, that experiments / observation can disprove or confirm aspects of them. (They are after all decades old now)

The real forefront of science nowadays does deal with esoteric terms such as beauty or simplicity; these are new tools that are at the very boundary of conventional science.
Wither string theory is correct or false, it’s still too early to say.
Moreover, new mathematical theories may have to be discovered before we can progress further, but the rewards if it proves to be correct just out weigh the lack of constructible experiments that can be used today to verify it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry Marv about getting your name wrong. My questions are based upon simularities and not exact identical reproductions on a larger scale.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

blobrana, one correction I should make is that instead of "galaxies", I should have simply said "objects".

Also, the "surface of an expanding balloon" model of an expanding universe becomes questionable when blue shifted objects are seen at distances further than red shifted objects.

A new point could be mentioned here. That is the difference between "old" stars and first generation stars (formed immediately after the Big Bang); their spectra being different. The further we see, i.e., into the past, the ratio of first generation stars should increase. No one seems to have addressed this point. Why?

Additionally, the frequency of light will change over distance as does the frequency of sound. Light waves eminating from a source have been described both as compression waves and circular waves. Unfortunately, the two-dimensional chalkboard in the classroom is a poor tool for describing light waves.

...was the best I could GOOGLE up on short notice at http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/waves.htm. Their page on light waves only discusses the effects and describes almost nothing of the nature of the wave form. And that's the point I'm getting to if you bear with me.

If a circular waveform, as when a pebble is dropped into a still pond, were translated into three dimensions in space in the form of light, the peaks represent the greatest concentration of photons while the troughs represent the least concentration. But instead of circles on water, there would be spheres in space.

As the waves on water spread out, the amplitude decreases and the wavelength increases because energy is being spread in ever widening circles. The same would be true with light waves except the energy is being spread in ever larger "spheres" of lesser density. To me, this means that the farther a fixed light source is, the more red and more dim the object would appear.

In other words, recession is not the only cause of red shift. I think I've described the "tired wave" theory. The one thing to consider is that the effect on frequency is miniscule compared to the effect on signal strength.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hum,
A bit off topic, but,
It seems to me that, given that light was affected <i>were</i>true, the red shift would just appear as a linear as before…
(but an intresting link though)
But,
The tired light hypothesis can be <b>discarded</b> because there is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum. The distant object would appear `blurred`, and that is not observed. The Compton shift in particular wouldn`t work.
In addition, high red shift supernova light curves would be different from what is observed.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0208117
You must remember that most scientists <i>believe</i> that it’s space that is expanding, so it’s not just a simple Doppler affect that determines the red shift.

As for the first generation stars, well they were probably massive, and would evolve into supernova in much less than 1 million years. I believe the Hubble space telescope showed that the early universe did contain heavy elements that you probably already know, could only have been produced within supernova. i could also mention the ionisation etc.

So the simple answer is that they blew up...

A better explanation than explaining how heavy elements could survive past/through the intense radiation era beyond the surface of last scattering.

As for the number count, i don’t know. Is there a discrepancy?

And again, I will state, I am unaware of <b>any</b> distant blue shifted objects.

 

Yah, it's off topic, but it's serendipity, and that's always fun. As to the PDF file, I've downloaded it but I'll have to wait 'til later to print and study it. (PDF files are a real pain in the ass.) Okay....

The photons don't travel a straight line from the source to your eye or the telescope lens. If they did, the dispersion would be so great that....well you can see where that goes. And distant objects wouldn't be just blurred, we simply couldn't detect them. I see the photons behaving like gas molecules in a compression waveform similar to the production of sound waves.

As to the Compton Shift and Doppler effect, I found an interesting thread on the Bad Astronomy site. But again, it'll take me time to go through it. But in the meantime, I'll share this bookmark.

Now I don't think it can be said that the Hubble telescope showed heavy elements in the early universe since we really don't know how "early" the Hubble was looking back. IOW, we can't say how early something is until we can say we've seen the beginning. So "early" is a relative term.

And, according to the conventional BB theory, it stands to reason that until we see a high proportion of first generation objects, we're not close to the BB. I would go so far to say that it would take a galaxy of predominately first generation stars to begin a demonstration of the BB.

One disturbing thing for BB enthusiasts should be the existence of galaxies at a distance calculated to be close to or at the age of the laboratory calculated age of BB's universe.

I've seen and read little blurbs on TV and in magazines about distant blue shifted object, so I'll try to see if I can GOOGLE up something reliable.

 

Hm m. Very interesting thread. Especially Marv's opening post.I'l wait for some more post, before deciding whether to comment or add anything to the discussion.

Regards APOLO

 

Nasor wrote:

I'm a visitor from another board and wanted to add my 2 cents.
My Dad was born in 1914, went to college in the 30's and he told me that they taught him in college that no man-made vehicle would ever be able to go faster than the speed of sound. Where I come from when something is taught in college it has gone beyond urban myth. He was in pre-law so his science class was a 101 Intro to PhySci type course at the University of Pittsburgh (PA). I don't know what the serious students were being taught.

My observation is that this would not be the first time the professionals were embarrassed by their lack of understanding, or dissemination of false information, and spent a long time doing damage control to contain the embarrassment.

I realize that NASA should have better credentials than Nova, but here is my reference.

I welcome any comments about my admittedly anecdotal evidence.

Once I sign up on a board I stay around a few months or longer. I like this board and will return. One of my favorite boards is Debating Christianity and Religion. Some of you may find it interesting.

 

Um, may I point out that that says nothing about the reason for this impossiblity.

Does he mention the reason being a physical impossiblity: ie. the laws of physics prevent the surpassing of the speed of sound.

Or is the impossiblity merely from an engineering standpoint: ie. nothing could withstand the stresses that the plane etc would sustain?

 

This was some years ago, but as I remember, no particular law of physics stood in the way. A "brick wall" stood in the way. Dad did not use that term, but he said ANY vehicle would just fly apart as sood as it surpassed the sped of sound. Not that there was inadequate engineering ability.

 

Fred Hoyle was right.

 

Muskets had been firing ball and bullet faster than the requisite 1114.7fps (at sea level) as early as the 1500's. Yet the projectiles didn't break apart. The solution lay in aeronautical design and engineering, something serious scientists believed impossible even into the forties. The scientists were looking at the wrong cause when concluding that there was no solution.

As an aside, my mother, born in 1910, was convinced that man would never walk on the moon. After all, she would say, "If man was meant to be on the moon, God would have put him there." She lived to witness all of the manned Lunar missions.