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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #454792

Re: RADICAL COSMOLOGY ii

Show all headers | View raw

Fred McKenzie wrote:

>  Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
> 
> Keith-
> 
> I agree with most of your statements. 

I pity you, because it is utter nonsense.  *All* of it.

> However light may not be slowing down.

*May* not?  It *definitely* *does* not.

> I believe it is possible that the frequency is decreasing, resulting in
> a red shift.

In _redshift_ (*one* word), the *observed* frequency is less than the 
*source* frequency, because the object emitting the EM radiation is moving 
*away*.  This is called the (relativistic) Doppler effect.

> The effect can only be observed when light has traveled at a great
> distance, so that shift should be a measurement of both distance
> traveled and relative velocity.

The idea that traveled distance has something to do with the redshift
is called <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>, and it has been 
falsified (through observation; details in that article).

The relative (peculiar) _speed_ of the source is only relevant within the 
Local Group.  Which is why the light of stars in the Andromeda Galaxy is 
actually *blueshifted* (that galaxy and the Milky Way are approaching each 
other faster than spacetime expands at those distances).

The magnitude of the peculiar speed of distant galaxies is negligibly small 
compared to the magnitude of the (apparent) recession speed due to the 
expansion of the universe, because by contrast to the former, the latter is 
multiples of the speed of light.  (Hubble’s Law shows this approximately.  
And no, that is _not_ a contradiction.  In general relativity, space[time] 
itself can expand at *any* speed.)
 
> The "Big Bang" explanation of red shift matches a theory of creation.

The Big Bang is _not_ validation of a creation (or a creator) in any way, 
*especially* redshift has absolutely nothing to do with that.

In fact, the observations in cosmology support the idea that a supernatural 
creator is not necessary to explain the universe as we observe it, because 
quantum fluctuations can have produced it randomly.  Also, there is no 
“theory of creation” (in science).  

See also what Georges Lemaître, the Catholic Priest and astronomer who 
created the Big Bang theory, wrote to Pope Pius ⅩⅡ in 1951, when the latter 
tried to claim the same as you.

> Perhaps an infinite universe has always existed.

Perhaps you have no clue about physics and cosmology.  The Big Bang theory 
actually supports the idea that the universe has not always existed.  But 
that does not mean that it was created either.
 
> Regardless, velocity of propagation may still be constant in a given
> medium, independent of distance traveled.

It *is* constant.  *Measurably*.  Looked at in another way, the (confirmed) 
constancy of phase speed c of EM radiation is the *reason* why we observe 
Doppler redshift in the first place: *Only* if c = λ f = const., then if the 
observed wavelength λ increases (which it does if the source moves away, see 
my previous postings), the observed frequency f *must* decrease in the same 
way.

And human eyes are tuned to the *frequency* of visible light (_not_ to the 
wavelength, although you can find those claims online) because the 
photoreceptor cells in our retina that are responsible for color vision 
(cone cells; short: cones) are (chemically) tuned to specific ranges of 
activation energies that are provided by incoming photons, which are E = ℎ f 
for each photon.  That is, the more the peak frequency of the radiation 
decreases, the more L-type cone cells are activated than S and M cones, 
which the human brain interprets as light that appears more reddish.
(The main reason of color vision deficiency is that most of the cones 
corresponding to perception of a color have been replaced by cones of other 
types.)

So not only has this been experimentally confirmed a thousandfold, the 
mechanism is also very simple to understand: it is *simple* *arithmetic*.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

RADICAL COSMOLOGY ii Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 19:09 +0100
  Re: RADICAL COSMOLOGY ii Fred McKenzie <fmmck@aol.com> - 2018-04-04 15:21 -0400
    Re: RADICAL COSMOLOGY ii Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 21:10 +0100
    Re: RADICAL COSMOLOGY ii Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-04-05 03:52 +0200
      Re: RADICAL COSMOLOGY ii Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 08:28 +0100

csiph-web