next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
&
Hi Again Burkhard & All,
With regard to distant objects appearing to move away from us at
speeds greater than light this is also mentioned tangentially in the
Wikipedia Big Bang as follows; "Since the universe has a finite age, and
light travels at a finite speed there may be events in the past whose
light has not had time to reach us." If everything expanded from this
Dragon's egg and the light from one speck of this egg has not had time
to reach us then it would seem that it has been moving away from us at a
speed greater than c.
Or approaching this from a slightly different direction, one way to
account for the condition, whereby in an expanding universe the light of
some past event has not yet reached us, is to conclude that such sources
have moved away from us at speeds greater than light. The light from
this hypothetical source has had more than 10^9 years to get here so it
must have taken the scenic route and paused often to watch sunsets.
I could bore you to tears with first hand accounts of how even in
very simple systems, and in the absence of independent quality control
checks, one can be greatly in error. So in Astronomy/Astrophysics I
suspect there is close to an infinity of opportunities for taking wrong
turns. An interesting subject whatever the truth may be.
YT, DW, Kentville
------ Original Message ------
From: "Burkhard Plache" <burkhardplache@gmail.com>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Sent: 2/21/2019 8:32:28 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Big Bang ?
>Hi David,
>
>the model of the expansion of the universe (Big Bang model) does not
>rely solely on the red shift of light, but on a number of other
>observations.
>See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
>The current model is a consensus, in fair agreement with those
>observations. (As in any model, there are some hm-hm-s.)
>Some observations of the universe (horizon, flatness, addressed a bit
>further down in the wikipedia article) the big bang model does not
>address or explain.
>Thus, the model is considered incomplete, or a work in progress.
>
>In the past, there have been ideas to 'explain away the expansion of
>the universe' by postulating light might be losing energy over
>distance or over time.
>None of those ideas have survived observational scrutiny, esp. since
>with those modifications, the other observations do not fit into a
>larger model.
>Like too many balls to juggle at the same time. Thus, Occam's Razor
>favours the redshift.
>
>Your suggestion that light might interact with light is generally
>valid. Such interactions have been seen in experiments, and are in
>agreement with theory (Quantum Electro Dynamics, to be precise).
>However, the photon-photon interaction probability is (a) extremely
>low, and (b) not a way to systematically lower photon energies (due to
>energy conservation).
>
>Your suggestion that 'the most remote sources [...] appear to be
>receding faster than the speed of light' is simply not correct or a
>misunderstanding.
>Not sure where you got that information. Such statements are often
>repeated, but that does not make them true.
>
>You may also want to read the 'Misconceptions' section in the
>wikipedia article, which addresses your 'In the Beginning' notion.
>
>Sorry to shoot down your suggestions.
>You are not the first one to express such ideas,
>Burkhard
>
>On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:49 PM David <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>> I still have a problem with the big bang model; a modern version of "In the beginning" and wonder if there are alternative interpretations of observations.
>> For example, sound is a wave in gas and sound can be silenced by generating waves which are 90o out of phase with the incoming sound. This is used in choppers e.g. so radio sounds in earphones are not swamped by chopper thub thub noise.
>> Light has properties of a wave and the concept of the big bang and an expanding universe is founded on the observation of greater red shift with greater distance from the observer.
>> This red shift can involve light which has been traveling for billions of years. Frequency of light is a function energy; waves with less energy have longer wavelengths. So any very unlikely parasitic interference which once in say 100,000 years might drain off a bit of energy could be the source of the red shift. I understand that the most remote sources, based on red shift, appear to be receding at speeds greater than the speed of light. And this is a double contradiction; c is the absolute speed limit and if they are speeding away faster than light how could we see them ? There has to be something wrong with this picture.
>> So combining the above, why would it not be possible for light waves from multiple sources to infrequently interfere in ways which somehow drained energy and thereby decreased wavelength of light from a given source, giving rise to an apparent red shift effect ? This would happen not at the source but during travel. This would superficially at least fit the observations. As distance between observer and source increased there would be greater opportunity for this parasitic decrease in wave energy to take place.
>> YT,, DW, Kentville
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects