Gravitational Redshift, complete Placid Universe Model

Let's build a universe, I guess, since some folks feel this is too basic and difficult to understand. More accurately this is too difficult for me to understand.

Does Redshift express velocity? ‘Why yes dumb Scott it does’, but not how you understand velocity with your subpar intellect and inferior cosmological background…. harrumph, I mean really Scott… distance over time to express velocity? How Verbose!

It is possible fellas, and I quite like the implications, that “cosmologically significant redshift”, is more conveniently attributable to Gravity (more accurately the depression in space-time caused by mass) redshift than it is due to expansion redshift. There is no Dark Energy needed, no paradoxically unique math, and no egocentricity to excuse, or even address.

Is there no one who has an interest in fully exhausting another model, or do we know all we possibly can within the confines of theoretical, cosmological, physics? I think not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gravitational red-shift, as well as Doppler shift, are taken into consideration when figuring the red-shift due to expansion

If you insist. There is a difference between an object moving through spacetime, and two objects receeding from each other due to the expansion of the space between them.

Any other model must accurately explain everything the current model explains and do a better job of it, i.e. more accurate predictions. If it doesn't, there's no point in going further with it, it's already exhausted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is easy for you to say that, given that you are entirely ignorant of the actual evidence. Neither you nor the insane person you cited are even trying to match the available data, let alone address is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Several have cited the apparent time dilation in the light curve of the distant type IA supernovae. That looks really good as far as EU is concerned. I was unaware of this. Most excellent! This surely looks very good for data supporting expansion, in refute of the predictions of PU.

However, you all have conveniently left out the lack of time dilation observed for quasars. No matter how far these are observed and no matter how fast they are relative to the observer (redshifted) they show absolutely no time dilation. The observed data here fits the predictions of a static universe, and refutes emphatically the prediction we expected from EU.

Is that equally paradoxical, or does one of these carry more ‘importance’ because it fits the model we prefer?

We are going to have to find better ways to show EU, or PU for the time being. Time dilation is proven to be too inconsistent to use in support of either model. Until this is sorted, there is no use including it in either model. If anyone has any new data on either case it would be very welcome I'm sure.

 

Citation please, if you have one. The only place I can find GRS in use is with supermassive objects and the light emitted from these sources, at the source. What I am saying is not usually considered, and that is that all of the cumulative masses of all of the objects between the object and the observer, do more than account for the redshift we know as the Hubble Constant, rather than any relative, or inherent velocities we have been attributing. This is exactly some of the math that will need to be worked out to see if predicted results are in fact possible. If light emitted from an object is (redshifted) due to the effects of gravity on wavelengths of that object (proven concept), then all of the objects nearby (near line of site and close enough also to bend light (space-time) as Einstien showed) will also shift the passing light toward red. Does Dark matter show any gravitational affect? If so, this would also add to the redshifting wavelentghs being observed throughout cosmologically significant objects. I'm not sure it is necasary to make up the cumulative results of gravitaional (space-time depressions) made by objects between here and there, but it is possible that this would be part of the equation.

Agreed, though the attributed recessional velocities are exactly the same math in either case. Wether very nearby, or attributed to expansion, the expressed velocities (per the amount of redshift measured in the spectrum) are the same relative to the observer.

Agreed. I think this has not been exhausted.

Thank you for speaking rationally Alex. It's refreshing

 

I usually don't like using Wiki as a source but this article is well written, comprehensive and covers the questions you raise.

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

 

BTW,

The main reason the model is not complete or coherent is due to the fact that electromagnetic energy is gained as it nears a gravitation ‘field’ (for better words), shifting blue, but then shifts red again as it leaves a gravitational field. Net gain is zero as light passes through and around massive objects, or a cumulative effect of many objects, during gravitational lensing.