Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475821 > unrolled thread

Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 16:25 +0000
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-10-29 09:41 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Ulka Górski <dug@jewandass.cu> - 2018-10-29 17:25 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-10-29 10:49 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Ulka Górski <dug@jewandass.cu> - 2018-10-29 18:51 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 18:14 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 11:20 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 18:48 +0000
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 11:15 -0700
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-29 20:34 +0100
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-29 13:00 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-29 14:43 -0700
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 18:40 +0100
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-30 11:30 -0700
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 20:18 +0100
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-10-30 13:29 -0700
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-10-30 22:57 -0700
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 04:20 +0100
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 11:26 +0100
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-03 11:55 -0700
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-03 21:34 +0100
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-03 14:11 -0700
                          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 17:34 +0100
                            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-04 09:10 -0800
                              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 18:25 +0100
                                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-04 10:30 -0800
                                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 02:34 +0100
                                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-04 18:03 -0800
                                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 03:17 +0100
                                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-05 09:29 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-03 10:52 -0700
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 03:06 +0100
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-05 09:08 -0800
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 22:00 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 09:52 -0600
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:33 -0500
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-05 12:15 -0800
    Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-29 18:59 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:47 +0000
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-30 05:49 -0700
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-10-30 22:59 -0700
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-31 08:11 -0700
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-10-31 16:12 -0700
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-01 03:29 -0700
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-11-01 10:31 -0700
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 16:20 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-30 18:48 +0100
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 15:42 +0000
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-04 16:51 +0100
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-04 15:00 -0800
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:58 -0800
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:54 -0500
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-05 05:13 +0100
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 05:06 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 16:50 -0800
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-09 16:56 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4ow.nv> - 2018-11-11 16:01 +0000
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 19:12 +0000
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-11 12:55 -0800
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 00:24 +0000
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:19 +0000
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:10 -0800
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:18 -0800
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:20 -0800
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:25 -0800
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:00 +0000
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 06:29 -0800
                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 23:19 +0000
                  Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 15:37 -0800
                    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 07:57 +0000
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 13:08 +0100
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 04:30 -0800
                      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 04:45 -0800
                        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 04:59 -0800
                          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 09:46 -0800
                            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-10 10:08 -0800
                              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-10 13:30 -0800
                            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 19:58 +0000
                              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 22:17 +0100
                                Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 21:48 +0000
    Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:36 +0000
      Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 08:20 +0100
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 11:28 +0000
          Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 22:30 +0100
            Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 00:30 +0000
              Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-07 06:21 -0800
        Re: Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-06 10:09 -0800

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#475821 — Alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts

Summary:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"


Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

     K ~= 10^-10 /year
     t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"
********************************************************************

**********************************************************************
         A GOOD QUESTION

When light slows down by entering a more dense medium such as glass, or
water, the frequency stays the same and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

So how is it that when light slows down traveling across intergalactic 
space,the the WAVELENGTH INCREASES ?

good question!

when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
was higher than it is now.

The frequency generated by any given atomic transition, even on distant 
galaxies many billions of years ago, is exactly the same as that on 
Earth today. The wavelength is proportional the the velocity of light AT 
THE TIME IT WAS EMITTED, and This increased wavelength is faithfully 
transmitted through space, where it is measured in our observatories.

keith stein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#475823

Dear Keith Stein:

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> Summary:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble
> Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of light
> is slowing down, then this will necessarily lead to
> increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as
> observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

No, this would cause blue shifting.  Think of what happens to ocean waves as they approach regions of lower depth, the wave speed is reduced, and waves "crash".  More energy is compressed in each wave... blue shifting.

I think you have a sign reversed.

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475824

dlzc wrote:

> Dear Keith Stein: 
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
>> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
>> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
>> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> No, this would cause blue shifting.  Think of what happens to ocean
> waves as they approach regions of lower depth, the wave speed is
> reduced, and waves "crash".  More energy is compressed in each wave...
> blue shifting.I think you have a sign reversed.David A. Smith

I strongly believe this is a deprecated obsolete approach. The water waves 
are surface waves. Down there, there is of course something due the 
difference in weight (compression) but it is infinitesimal. Safely 
neglected, as of a nature of something completely else. Just think.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475831

Dear Ulka Górski:

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 10:25:48 AM UTC-7, Ulka Górski wrote:
> dlzc wrote:
> 
> > Dear Keith Stein: 
> >> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble
> >> Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of
> >> light is slowing down, then this will necessarily lead
> >> to increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as
> >> observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> > 
> > No, this would cause blue shifting.  Think of what
> > happens to ocean waves as they approach regions of
> > lower depth, the wave speed is reduced, and waves
> > "crash".  More energy is compressed in each wave...
> > blue shifting.I think you have a sign reversed.
> 
> I strongly believe this is a deprecated obsolete
> approach. The water waves are surface waves. Down
> there, there is of course something due the 
> difference in weight (compression) but it is
> infinitesimal. Safely neglected, as of a nature of
> something completely else. Just think.

This approach et al, is deprecated.  But the OP brought it up again anyway.  And what he requires, a slower speed of light, delivers more energy per second... not LESS.  Less often to arrive, but more energy per arrival.

c is constant over all of displayed history.  Nothing else fits.  I just wanted to point out what he was trying to arrive at, did not resolve that way.

David A. Smith

David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475839

dlzc wrote:

>> I strongly believe this is a deprecated obsolete approach. The water
>> waves are surface waves. Down there, there is of course something due
>> the difference in weight (compression) but it is infinitesimal. Safely
>> neglected, as of a nature of something completely else. Just think.
> 
> This approach et al, is deprecated.  But the OP brought it up again
> anyway.  And what he requires, a slower speed of light, delivers more
> energy per second... not LESS.  Less often to arrive, but more energy
> per arrival.
> c is constant over all of displayed history.  Nothing else fits.  I just
> wanted to point out what he was trying to arrive at, did not resolve
> that way.

I'm still not very sure. A higher frequency of light behaves particle-
like, and delivers more energy to a target it hits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475832

On 29/10/2018 16:41, dlzc wrote:
> Dear Keith Stein:
> 
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 9:25:12 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>> Summary:
>>       1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>>       2. There was no "Big Bang"
>>       3. There was no "Inflation"
>>       4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>>       5. There is no "Dark Energy"
>>
>>
>> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble
>> Red Shifts, it occurred to me that if the speed of light
>> is slowing down, then this will necessarily lead to
>> increasing red-shift with increasing distance, as
>> observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> No, this would cause blue shifting.  Think of what happens to ocean waves as they approach regions of lower depth, the wave speed is reduced, and waves "crash".  More energy is compressed in each wave... blue shifting.
> 
> I think you have a sign reversed.

No David i have certainly not got a sign reversed, and if you had
read beyond the first paragraph you would have seen that i did
indeed explain why the slowing of the speed of light causes a
red shift rather than a blue shift.

"when light slows down entering a more dense medium, the front of the 
wave train hits the more dense medium first. The front therefore slows 
before the rear of the wave train, resulting in the rear of the wave 
catching up to some extent with the front. Thus the wave train 
compresses and the WAVELENGTH REDUCES.

When light slows down in intergalactic space, on the other hand, there 
is no difference in the conditions at the front or back of the wave 
train. At any one time the front and back are indeed traveling at the 
same speed, and therefore the length of the wave train stays constant as 
it travels through intergalactic space.

So "How is it that the wavelength of light from distant galaxies is 
INCREASED ? " you might ask, and i would reply that it is NOT that light 
is stretched as it travels through intergalactic space, but rather that 
it was emitted with an increased wavelength, when the velocity of light 
was higher than it is now."


Do hope that is clear now David, but don't hesitate to come back again
if it is still not clear, because i myself am completely convinced that
a slowing of light by just one part in fourteen billion per year would
fully explain the Hubble RED shifts eh!

keith stein

> David A. Smith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475833

Traveling for billions of years through the expanding universe expands light's wavelength... maximum red shifting its energy. Expansion is everywhere.

There is no preferred scale.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475838

On 29/10/2018 18:20, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Traveling for billions of years through the expanding universe expands light's wavelength... maximum red shifting its energy. Expansion is everywhere.

or nowhere eh!

> There is no preferred scale.
> 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476155

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 29/10/2018 18:20, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Traveling for billions of years through the expanding universe expands light's wavelength... maximum red shifting its energy. Expansion is everywhere.
> 
> or nowhere eh!
> 
> > There is no preferred scale.
> > 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> >

Light redshifts everywhere passing through expanding space.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475847

Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> Summary:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.

It is not.  There is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

>      2. There was no "Big Bang"

There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

>      3. There was no "Inflation"

There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>

>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.

They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
gravitationally bound) away with it.

This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
discovery:

<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>

In terms that you can understand (if you want to):

<https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>

>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"

There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
(see above).

> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]

Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
*refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.

For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.

The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
|
| […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
| cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
| falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
| science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
| years ago".[5]

End of story.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475851

On Monday, 29 October 2018 20:34:34 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:

> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

Or, at least, some fanatic morons deeply believe
it is an evidence. A sort of the same thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475870

W dniu poniedziałek, 29 października 2018 20:34:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 

> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.

You are strongly fooled - misinformed.

The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
about 100 years ago already.
 
> >      3. There was no "Inflation"
> 
> There was.  The “Planck” probe’s mission confirmed it once again:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results>
> 
> >      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
> 
> They are not, indeed.  Instead, space is expanding with increasing speed,
> carrying *distant* galaxies (not those of the Local Group, which are
> gravitationally bound) away with it.
> 
> This is evident not only in the redshift, but also in the *cosmological time
> dilation*, and the otherwise inexplicable *fading of light* observable in
> distant processes like supernovae.  (Time dilation is the greater the
> greater the apparent relative velocity is; light intensity is inversely
> proportional to the square of the distance to the light source.)
> 
> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded for this *unexpected* 1997/1998
> discovery:
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/>
> 
> In terms that you can understand (if you want to):
> 
> <https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/popular-physicsprize2011-1.pdf>
> 
> >      5. There is no "Dark Energy"
> 
> There is; the energy content of our universe is approximately 70 % dark
> energy.  Confirmed once again by the “Planck” probe’s mission’s results
> (see above).
> 
> > Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
> > occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, […]
> 
> Good morning, sunshine.  This idea is called “tired light” and has been
> *refuted* – in all its variants – *decades ago*.
> 
> For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) has a much greater mass than the
> Milky Way and so, if the “tired light” idea had any substance, would have to
> slow down the light emitted by its stars, and cause a redshift.
> 
> The light is blueshifted instead, because that galaxy and the Milky Way are
> approaching each other, to merge in ca. 2 billion years.
> 
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
> |
> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
> | years ago".[5]
> 
> End of story.

Yes. 
The fantastic stupidity is just neverending story in the mainstream astrology. haha!

Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.

the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475897

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 29 października 2018 20:34:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 
>> There was.  The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (accidentally
>> discovered in 1964, predicted before that) is evidence of it;
>> so are cosmological redshift, time dilation, and fading light.
> 
> You are strongly fooled - misinformed.
> 
> The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
> about 100 years ago already.

Given that about 100 years ago nobody even knew that there are other
galaxies, that is an extraordinary claim.

Present the extraordinary evidence to support that claim.

>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
>> |
>> | […] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in
>> | cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being
>> | falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by
>> | science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30
>> | years ago".[5]
>>
>> End of story.
> 
> Yes. 
> The fantastic stupidity is just neverending story in the mainstream astrology.

The mainstream *what*?

> haha!

Get well soon.

> Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.
> 
> the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
> and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.

No, it is not.  Intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance (see my other follow-up), and does _not_ fall off exponentially
with distance. --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475906

W dniu wtorek, 30 października 2018 18:40:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> > You are strongly fooled - misinformed.
> > 
> > The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
> > about 100 years ago already.
> 
> Given that about 100 years ago nobody even knew that there are other
> galaxies, that is an extraordinary claim.


Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,
could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.

https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Apeiron-V2-p79-84(1995).pdf

 
> > Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.
> > 
> > the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
> > and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.
> 
> No, it is not.  Intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
> distance (see my other follow-up), and does _not_ fall off exponentially
> with distance.

This is just that - perfectly.

The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

You claim the energy is never dissipated,
even in the billions-of-years journey - in the open space,
where are plenty of obstacles along, 
so, very big congratulations for the giant fantasy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475909

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 30 października 2018 18:40:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>>> You are strongly fooled - misinformed.
>>>
>>> The CMB radiation has been provided, discovered and calculated
>>> about 100 years ago already.
>>
>> Given that about 100 years ago nobody even knew that there are other
>> galaxies, that is an extraordinary claim.
> 
> Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,
> could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.

That is another extraordinary claim for which you will also not be able to
present the required extraordinary evidence.

JFYI & JFTR: In the Middle Ages (which for historians ends just before the
beginning of the 16th century CE, 1501 CE) people did not even know they
were located *in* a galaxy.

    [The Ancient Greeks thought that the Milky Way – the galaxy, from the
     Ancient Greek word for “milk” – that they could easily see in the night
     sky (there was no light pollution back then) would be the milk spilled
     by the goddess Hera, wife of the god Zeus, when she discovered that
     Zeus had put the half-mortal baby Heracles, product of his extramarital
     affair with the mortal Alkmene, on her breast while she was sleeping.
     Arabian astronomers of course did not subscribe to that interpretation,
     but they still did not realize that what they saw was what one sees
     if one is inside a spiral galaxy and looks along its edge.]

The first working telescope was built by Galileo Galilei (based on what he
heard about Lipperhey’s invention) between 1592 CE and 1610 CE.  He
realized, using his telescope, that the Milky Way consisted of many stars,
but (AFAIK) did not realize that he was located in it.

It was only in 1750 that Thomas Wright did.

> https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Apeiron-V2-p79-84(1995).pdf

Unsurprisingly, your source does not corroborate your claim.  In the
abstract it already says “We present the history of estimates of the
temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume
and Eddington […]”.  Those two scientists lived at the beginning of
the 20th century:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_%C3%89douard_Guillaume>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington>

>>> Energy = E0 exp(-t/tau); tau = 1/H.
>>>
>>> the so-called cosmo-redshift is a simple
>>> and universal consequence of a dissipation of energy.
>>
>> No, it is not.  Intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the
>> distance (see my other follow-up), and does _not_ fall off exponentially
>> with distance.
> 
> This is just that - perfectly.

No, it is not.  So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).

> The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).

Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
40 years ago” did you not understand?
 --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475913

W dniu wtorek, 30 października 2018 20:18:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas > > Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,

> > could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.
> 
> That is another extraordinary claim for which you will also not be able to
> present the required extraordinary evidence.
> 
> JFYI & JFTR: In the Middle Ages (which for historians ends just before the
> beginning of the 16th century CE, 1501 CE) people did not even know they
> were located *in* a galaxy.
> 
>     [The Ancient Greeks thought that the Milky Way – the galaxy, from the
>      Ancient Greek word for “milk” – that they could easily see in the night
>      sky (there was no light pollution back then) would be the milk spilled
>      by the goddess Hera, wife of the god Zeus, when she discovered that
>      Zeus had put the half-mortal baby Heracles, product of his extramarital
>      affair with the mortal Alkmene, on her breast while she was sleeping.
>      Arabian astronomers of course did not subscribe to that interpretation,
>      but they still did not realize that what they saw was what one sees
>      if one is inside a spiral galaxy and looks along its edge.]
> 
> The first working telescope was built by Galileo Galilei (based on what he
> heard about Lipperhey’s invention) between 1592 CE and 1610 CE.  He
> realized, using his telescope, that the Milky Way consisted of many stars,
> but (AFAIK) did not realize that he was located in it.

I don't need any telescopes, nor any special evidences
to detect the obvious fact:
the bigger energy exists/flows around us,
then the bigger warm must be around us too!

Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
because they are still proudly claiming:
the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
hyper explosion for billions of years ago! 

> > This is just that - perfectly.
> 
> No, it is not.  So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
> comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).
> 
> > The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).
> 
> Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
> 40 years ago” did you not understand?

I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.

Energy doesn't tired at all, it just dissipates around... thus warms the environment!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#475931

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> 
> W dniu wtorek, 30 października 2018 20:18:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas > > Anybody with a one bit of a rational reasoning only,
> 
> > > could easily predict this radiation in the middle ages already.
> >
> > That is another extraordinary claim for which you will also not be able to
> > present the required extraordinary evidence.
> >
> > JFYI & JFTR: In the Middle Ages (which for historians ends just before the
> > beginning of the 16th century CE, 1501 CE) people did not even know they
> > were located *in* a galaxy.
> >
> >     [The Ancient Greeks thought that the Milky Way – the galaxy, from the
> >      Ancient Greek word for “milk” – that they could easily see in the night
> >      sky (there was no light pollution back then) would be the milk spilled
> >      by the goddess Hera, wife of the god Zeus, when she discovered that
> >      Zeus had put the half-mortal baby Heracles, product of his extramarital
> >      affair with the mortal Alkmene, on her breast while she was sleeping.
> >      Arabian astronomers of course did not subscribe to that interpretation,
> >      but they still did not realize that what they saw was what one sees
> >      if one is inside a spiral galaxy and looks along its edge.]
> >
> > The first working telescope was built by Galileo Galilei (based on what he
> > heard about Lipperhey’s invention) between 1592 CE and 1610 CE.  He
> > realized, using his telescope, that the Milky Way consisted of many stars,
> > but (AFAIK) did not realize that he was located in it.
> 
> I don't need any telescopes, nor any special evidences
> to detect the obvious fact:
> the bigger energy exists/flows around us,
> then the bigger warm must be around us too!
> 
> Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
> because they are still proudly claiming:
> the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
> hyper explosion for billions of years ago!
> 
> > > This is just that - perfectly.
> >
> > No, it is not.  So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
> > comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).
> >
> > > The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).
> >
> > Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
> > 40 years ago” did you not understand?
> 
> I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.
> 
> Energy doesn't tired at all, it just dissipates around... thus warms the environment!



Energy doesn't ...dissipates.


It tranforms.


You must be the  'new scientists' I've been hearing about...don't know
notin..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476124

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> I don't need any telescopes, nor any special evidences
> to detect the obvious fact:
> the bigger energy exists/flows around us,
> then the bigger warm must be around us too!

That is correct, in a sense.

> Therefore the mainstream is in fact a horde of total imbeciles,
> because they are still proudly claiming:
> the source of the CMB energy is some fantastic
> hyper explosion for billions of years ago! 

No, you are just ignorant of the fact that our universe is expanding, and
that its temperature decreases as it expands.

This is as true for our universe as it is true for anything in it.  Look up
“thermodynamic equation of state”:

  p V = n k_B T


For example, if you have a air pump for bicycles, load it with air, press
your finger on the valve and push the piston.  You will feel that the air in
the pump becomes warmer as it is compressed, and gets colder again when it
expands.  (This process is called adiabatic compression/expansion, and it
also used in fridges.)

When the CMBR was released, after recombination and photon decoupling (ca.
370'000 years after the Big Bang event), the temperature of the universe was
ca. 3000 K.

That is approximately the temperature at and below which it is possible that
a proton and an electron can form a hydrogen atom (because, put simply, the
electron is then slow enough to be captured by the proton, but still fast
enough not to merge with it – the two particles carry opposite electric
charges, therefore attract each other electromagnetically).

Before that, in a plasma (where the particles of matter move too fast to
bind to each other), any photons (which were produced in electron–positron
annihilation before that, and are emitted by electrons returning to lower
energy states) almost immediately interact with other free electrons.

The average temperature of the cosmic vacuum, which is also the temperature
of the CMBR as we measure it *now, ca. 13.8 billion years later*, is only
ca. 3 K because in those ca. *13.8 billion years* our universe has expanded
to a gazillion times its former size.

So the CMBR and its near isotropy is living evidence of the Big Bang event.

>>> This is just that - perfectly.
>>
>> No, it is not.  So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
>> comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).
>>
>>> The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).
>>
>> Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
>> 40 years ago” did you not understand?
> 
> I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.

Yes, you do.  You claim that our universe does not expand (despite all
evidence to the contrary) and that the low frequency/energy of the CMBR is
caused by "dissipated along a transmission path".

But with that assumption you cannot explain the near-*isotropy* of the CMBR.
 Because, what would be the so very equally distributed sources of
electromagnetic radiation that would all have to be in so almost equal
distances *to us*, arranged on a huge sphere, so that the "dissipation of
energy" is almost the same *in every direction*?  Or, IOW, why can’t we
*see* them?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476127

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>>>> This is just that - perfectly.
>>>
>>> No, it is not.  So we have ascertained now that you are unable to read
>>> comprehensively *and* (unsurprisingly) you are unable to calculate (too).
>>>
>>>> The energy is simply lost - dissipated along a transmission path (hence the CMB exists!).
>>>
>>> Which part of ”‘tired light’ has been refuted by observations more than
>>> 40 years ago” did you not understand?
>>
>> I don't promote any of 'tired light' concept.
> 
> Yes, you do.  You claim that our universe does not expand (despite all
> evidence to the contrary) and that the low frequency/energy of the CMBR is
> caused by "dissipated along a transmission path".
> 
> But with that assumption you cannot explain the near-*isotropy* of the CMBR.
>  Because, what would be the so very equally distributed sources of
> electromagnetic radiation that would all have to be in so almost equal
> distances *to us*, arranged on a huge sphere, so that the "dissipation of
> energy" is almost the same *in every direction*?  Or, IOW, why can’t we
> *see* them?

With that written (late at night, in a working, but tired state of mind),
your mistake there is more fundamental.

Because it is simply NOT so that the frequency of the radiation, and
therefore the energy of one photon of the radiation, E = ℎ f, is reduced
proportional to the distance from the source of the radiation: energy (here:
the energy of a photon) is a conserved quantity (the conservation of the
total energy of an isolated system one of the fundamental principles of
physics).

Instead, what changes with distance is the *number* of photons of the
radiation (in general: radiation particles) that (can) hit the observer’s
detector/eye per unit time.  So the radiation’s/light’s *intensity*, or
*brightness*, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the
source instead¹ (which we can use to determine distances to celestial
objects whose luminosity we can calculate):

                  `-._         `.    \     :     /
                      `-._       `.   \    :    /
                  _       `-._     `.  \   :   /
                   ''--..__   `-._   `. \  :  / .'
                           ''--.._`-._ `.\ : /.' _
                                   ''-`-.`\:/_.-'
                  (T)----(V)---(M)--------(S)-----
                                  __..-_.-'/:``-._
                          __..--'' _.-'.' / : \`. `
                   _..--''     _.-'  .'  /  :  \ `.
                           _.-'    .'   /   :   \
                       _.-'    __ '    /    :    \
                   _.-'       |PE     /     :     \

From this sketch it should be obvious that there are more light rays coming
from Sol (S) that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Mercury (M) or
Venus (V) than that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Terra (T).
Thus, Sol appears *brighter* (NOT: more bluish) on Mercury than on Terra (in
astronomy, one speaks of Sol’s apparent brightness/magnitude), and the
intensity of the sunlight, the power received per unit area (I̅ = P̅/A)
actually is greater on Mercury than on Terra (which is one reason why
Mercury and Venus are fried on up to 700 K = 426.85 °C, while on Terra the
maximum surface temperature [so far] is only 56.9 °C = 330.05 K).¹  (Only
distances to Sol are approximately to scale.)

   [You can do the experiment on-planet: A bright flashlight will appear
    dimmer, and a sheet of paper on which that light falls, will be less
    radiated, the greater the distance from the flashlight.  If you have
    a light meter as used in photography, you can measure this
    quantitatively.]

So the reason that the frequency of the *Cosmic* *Microwave* Background
Radiation (CMBR) is in the microwave range *now*, relatively low frequency
and, correspondingly relatively long wavelengths, is NOT that it has
traveled far to us.  Rather, in a sense, it has been here all the time.
(Terra did not exist back then, but the space in which it exists now already
existed; the space just was a lot smaller than it is now.)

The actual reason is the expansion of our universe which caused the
radiation to be produced in the first place (AISB): Put simply, in expanding
space, electromagnetic waves "expand" as well, i.e. their wavelength λ
increases and their frequency f decreases, correspondingly.  Which means for
photons of that radiation that their energy E = ℎ f decreases.

_______
¹  AISB, this can be easily derived if one considers that the total radiated
   area at a distance r from the source (here: Sol) is the area of a sphere,
   which is A = 4π r².  So I̅(r) = P̅/A = P̅/(4π r²) = 1/r² × P̅/4π → I̅ ~ 1/r².
   (The overline indicates the arithmetic mean of a quantity, so *mean*
   intensity aso.)
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476158

W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2018 11:26:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn 

> With that written (late at night, in a working, but tired state of mind),
> your mistake there is more fundamental.
> 
> Because it is simply NOT so that the frequency of the radiation, and
> therefore the energy of one photon of the radiation, E = ℎ f, is reduced
> proportional to the distance from the source of the radiation: energy (here:
> the energy of a photon) is a conserved quantity (the conservation of the
> total energy of an isolated system one of the fundamental principles of
> physics).

This is correct, but for the stationary case only.

In case of an expansionding version the radiation energy is lost - for the expansion just.

But now we don't observe any losts of energy,
because the total energy is conserved: CMB-energy + helium = 100% still,
thus no expansion possible!

 
> Instead, what changes with distance is the *number* of photons of the
> radiation (in general: radiation particles) that (can) hit the observer’s
> detector/eye per unit time.  So the radiation’s/light’s *intensity*, or
> *brightness*, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the
> source instead¹ (which we can use to determine distances to celestial
> objects whose luminosity we can calculate):
> 
>                   `-._         `.    \     :     /
>                       `-._       `.   \    :    /
>                   _       `-._     `.  \   :   /
>                    ''--..__   `-._   `. \  :  / .'
>                            ''--.._`-._ `.\ : /.' _
>                                    ''-`-.`\:/_.-'
>                   (T)----(V)---(M)--------(S)-----
>                                   __..-_.-'/:``-._
>                           __..--'' _.-'.' / : \`. `
>                    _..--''     _.-'  .'  /  :  \ `.
>                            _.-'    .'   /   :   \
>                        _.-'    __ '    /    :    \
>                    _.-'       |PE     /     :     \
> 
> From this sketch it should be obvious that there are more light rays coming
> from Sol (S) that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Mercury (M) or
> Venus (V) than that intersect a detector on the daylit side of Terra (T).
> Thus, Sol appears *brighter* (NOT: more bluish) on Mercury than on Terra (in
> astronomy, one speaks of Sol’s apparent brightness/magnitude), and the
> intensity of the sunlight, the power received per unit area (I̅ = P̅/A)
> actually is greater on Mercury than on Terra (which is one reason why
> Mercury and Venus are fried on up to 700 K = 426.85 °C, while on Terra the
> maximum surface temperature [so far] is only 56.9 °C = 330.05 K).¹  (Only
> distances to Sol are approximately to scale.)

The Earth surface temperature is about 300K,
because this is just the thermodynamic equilibrium temperature
of the two bodies: Sun - Earth.
 
In the case of the whole Galaxy the equilibrium temperature is 3K only -
the same as the global temperature - CMB.

And this is obvious because every galaxy have to about the 3K -
no more, no less, because these all galaxies are
the parts of the system in the equilibrium state!

> So the reason that the frequency of the *Cosmic* *Microwave* Background
> Radiation (CMBR) is in the microwave range *now*, relatively low frequency
> and, correspondingly relatively long wavelengths, is NOT that it has
> traveled far to us.  Rather, in a sense, it has been here all the time.
> (Terra did not exist back then, but the space in which it exists now already
> existed; the space just was a lot smaller than it is now.)
> 
> The actual reason is the expansion of our universe which caused the
> radiation to be produced in the first place (AISB): Put simply, in expanding
> space, electromagnetic waves "expand" as well, i.e. their wavelength λ
> increases and their frequency f decreases, correspondingly.  Which means for
> photons of that radiation that their energy E = ℎ f decreases.

The spectrum of sun radiation is a black body spectrum with T = 6000K;
The Earth's atmosphere has 300K only, and it's a black body spectrum too.

The Milky Way mean temperature (effective) is 3K only,
because any galaxy has just the same 3K - this is just of the general equilibrium condition!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web