...Which explanation would you think would be the right one?, i mean some alternatives would be that "tired light" or compton effect, there are other alternatives? -some were posted on this forum-, but really IF we discover that the expansive red shift isnt more a fact, then which is the most probable explanation?

__________________
Old Grammar teachers have power in this forum!!...i tell u!! :D

Here's a slightly different question:

If the moon were made of cheese, what kind of cheese would it be? (thanks Pharyngula commenters!)

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Well im asking that, because there is a competence between alternative theories of the expansive red shift. just wondering which of all these is the most probable

Of course this isnt a question for Bigbangers, so...

__________________
Old Grammar teachers have power in this forum!!...i tell u!! :D

I believe that the distance somehow due to an increase in gravity make light travel farther ( moving away )

Bold Mine:
And that's the key to the issue isn't it?

The issue is that we don't know the properties of light when it has traveled so far, for so long and from a place that has unknowns beyond it.

For example

Suppose we see a source red shifted almost to the point of apparently (according to big bang) moving away relative to us at nearly the speed of light. Suppose there is another mass beyond the source we can see that is red shifted to infinity (ie is "moving away" faster than light). Relative to the source we can see the second mass is not red shifted to infinity. Its mass and gravity is affecting the source we can see by red shifting the light that is coming to us. (Light coming from a large mass is red shifted more than light coming from a small mass. Light coming from a black hole is red shifted to infinity.). So the light from the source we can see is red shifted by gravity of its own mass plus the gravity of the mass we can't see.

Suppose on any line there is infinite mass more or less evenly distributed to infinity. We can't see it because it is red shifted to infinity due to the infinite mass beyond. However at around 14 billion light years sources are close enough to us that their light is not red shifted to infinity. The closer they are to us the less red shifted they are the closer they are to 14 billion light years the more red shifted they are. this will hold true where ever in the universe the observation is made. That is to say, light sources 14 billion light years from anywhere will be red shifted relative to the observation point. Obviously this also allows there to be no center to the apparent expansion because there is no real expansion.

The problem is that there is no way to even model an observation that could distinguish between the above described "steady state" model from an "expanding" model.

To whit. Suppose you had a spacecraft near a source that is red shifted at 14 billion light years from us. The pilot of the spacecraft could tell us verbally, without the distance and time between the source from us being an issue, what he sees, whether red shift (expanding universe or he's moving away from the source) no shift (steady state universe or he's moving with the source) or blue shift (he is moving toward the source or the source is moving toward him).

The only way to know if his observation is valid relative to us and distinguish which of the "ors" is in operation is to know for sure that his spacecraft is motionless relative to us. How could we do that? Lets say we have a laser pointed at him. If he detects a red shift in the laser he moves toward us to blue shift the laser to the "correct" (transmitted) frequency. If its blue shifted he moves away to the "correct" frequency. If the universe is steady state and the light is red shifted by mass effects as above described then the light coming from the Earth will be red shifted to him. he will move toward us to blue shift it to the "correct" frequency. He will look at the source that is red shifted relative to us and see it erroneously red shifted to him as well. If the universe is expanding and nothing is happening to the light between here and there the result will be the same. He and we could'nt distinguish between the effect of expansion red shift and distant infinite mass red shift.

Moon Cheese of course

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

I’ll toss out two possibilities. Take your pick of weirdness.

Perhaps the universe isn’t expanding and the cosmological redshift isn’t a redshift at all. This possibility was suggested by Eddington and Russell Rieerson worked out the math. In Rierson’s view called "inverse expansion", the universe remains the same immense size while its material contents grow smaller. The galaxies grow smaller, stars grow smaller, mountains grow smaller, we grow smaller, atoms grow smaller and all the way down. The universe appears to grow larger because we and everything else is growing smaller. What about the redshift? Since there is no expansion of the universe, there is no "stretching" of space to alter the condition of old light coming from distant sources so distant light reaches us in its original unshifted condition. Old light only appears redshifted because, as our atomic world grows smaller, wavelengths of light from modern sources grow proportionally shorter. So old light hasn’t redshifted… new light has blueshifted.

Heating and acceleration are characteristic of contraction (The collapse of the WTC is one example that comes to mind.) while cooling and slowing are characteristic of expansion. If our universe is expanding, we should observe the universe growing colder and its expansion slowing but this is the opposite of what we see. In theory, the universe is growing colder but observations indicate a universe that is growing warmer starting with a primal temperature of 2.73K and warming from there. Expansion theory explains perfectly well why hot looks cold and cold looks hot but I prefer explanations where what you see is what you get. Also, the observed accelerated expansion of the universe makes more sense with Rierson’s theory because acceleration is characteristic of contraction.


Another possible explanation for the cosmological redshift comes from general relativity. There is a phenomenon known as "frame dragging" where a large massive body in motion accelerates a smaller test particle. The most familiar example is the acceleration of the planet Mercury by the rotation of the sun. But the opposite should also hold true. A small, rapidly moving test particle should experience a negative acceleration "slowing" in the presence of a non-moving ponderous mass. This possibility was suggested by Sciama in the 1950’s but the theoretical effect has always been too small to test experimentally. We may now have some evidence for this effect with the unanticipated acceleration "slowing" of the Pioneer satellites as they leave the solar system. If this effect is real, then small test particles "photons" passing through the essentially static, total mass of the universe should be redshifted by this sort of cosmic "frame dragging".

The people at Pharyngula are pulling your leg. The moon is a Cephalopod. Take a good look at the craters. Those things are suckers.

The redshift is mis-understood. The universe is not expanding it is in equilibrium. The redshift is an indicator of the equilibrium. The mathematics is this:
Gravitational energy E= -mu/R + mcv the central forces are two: mv^2/R - mcDel.v.

The first force is the centripetal gravitational force and the negative force is the centrifugal force. When they sum to zero there is equilbrium, thus:
mv^2/R =mcV/Rcos g this gives cos rv = v/c=z= sqrt(GM/Rc^2) the redshift! The redshift is positive when cos rv is positive or the angle between the radius to the center of gravity and the velocity v, rv, is within plus or minus 90 degrees, that means moving away form the center. The angle of the redshift is determined by the ratio of the gravitational velocity and the speed of light, cos rv = v/c.

The the redshift is zero if the angle is 90 degrees, no gravitational acceleration g. There is a blue shift if the the angle is greater than 90 degrees.

The redshift is evidence of the universe being stable and in equilibrium. The centripetal acceleration of gravity is balanced by the centrifugal (center fleeing) acceleration of the moving masses.

Newton and Einstein, developed their gravity Theory based on only the potential energy E=-mu/R and did not consider the vector energy mcv for E=-mu/R + mcv.

When both energies are considered, the universe follows conservation of energy and is in equilibrium. The Universe is thus bounded. Conservation of energy is the first derivative set to zero which is also the limit condition, the continuity condition and the equilibrium condition.

The size of the universe can be estimated. My numbers are Size Radius=158E24 m; Mass= 2.133E53 kg; Cycletime T=16.5 Billion Years; the Shape is likely that of a cuboctahedron, Buckminster Fullers Vector Equilibrium.

I derived this estimate from the Garavitational Constant G. At Equilbrium Condition relationship is GM/R^2= cv cos rv/R or GM/R=c^2 at the speed of light. This relation using Einstein's E=mc^2 gives the Power of the Universe: GM/Rc^2=1=GE/RC^4=GF/c^4=GP/c^5 = 1 therefore P=c^5/G = 3645E49 watts!

The Universe is not expanding and the cosmological redshift is evidence of its equilibrium. the redshift is z=v/c=cos g = sqrt(GM/rc^2). The so-called dark energy is the centrifugal acceleration of moving masses. Newton and Einstein left out the vector energy mcv; E= -mu/R + mcv. This gives centripetal and centrifugal accelerations. The universe is finite and has Power P=c^5/G= 3645E49 watts. See my post

Hubble did not believe the redshift represented expansion. He called it "an hitherto unknown principle of nature". He is right, it is an unknown principle. It comes form the conservation of energy when Newton';s Law of gravity is updated with the energy of moving masses. E= -mu/R + mcv; mcv is the vector energy associated with gravity. This introduces the sum of a real energy and a vector energy which is a quaternion energy. As some may know quaternions represent a non-commutative mathematics. Quaternions are the ideal mathematics for four dimensional space-time. Using quaternions the mystery of the redshift is resolved.

The redshift is the solution of the equilibrium between the gravitational centripetal (center seeking) and the centrifugal (center fleeing) accelerations or forces. The centrifugal forces are the so-called "dark energy". There is no dark energy, it is the moving masses giving the redshift and balancing the gravity. Einstein called in the cosmological constant to combat gravitational collapse. The cosmological constant is the centrifugal forces of moving matter.

Hubble's relation that the farther away the greater the redshift is true. it is the reult of the further towards the boundary of the universe the greater the mass projection at center and the greater the redshift. At the boundary of the universe the redshift is 1 and the speed is at the speed of light.

The reshift formula is mg=mcDel.v ; v^2.R = cV/R cos rv thus
cos rv=v/c=z=sqrt(GM/Rc^2).

A test of this theory would be Einstein's deflection of light. There should be a redshift of light glancing the sun is 89 degrees 54' 59.93''. This is a deflection of 5' 0.07" ( five arcminutes and 0.07 arcseconds) shift away from the sun, not towards the sun.

The redshift is key to understanding the universe but it is mis-understood. It is z=v/c=cos rv = sqrt(GM/c^2R) = sqrt(GP/c^5) where c^5/G is power of the universe. Thus z^2 = GP/C^5 or P=z^2(c^5/G) the redshift measure is a measure of power and the redshift measure is a measure of the proximity to the boundary of the universe; z=v/c =r/R= cos rv, where R = radius of universe, R is approximately 158E24meters.

Do you have to post this in every thread?

If you have an idea you want to spread start your own thread.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

i dont want to be a bag guy :P, but mate just try to debate his idea, hope yaw wont relpy your post, and the thread ends on a flame war

Still i didnt find someone who can debate his idea, (i have one doubt, but must confirm it first, also i think that are ppl here far more prepared on that topic)

Also pajerkoj throw his nice "cheese moon" comment, so you guys if dont want to debate, better get lose, lame

__________________
Old Grammar teachers have power in this forum!!...i tell u!! :D

This is the third post in which I see you use the word
"lame"
As your concluding statement.

Zerocold, how much success did anyone have in demonstrating to Tommac that he's wrong?
To Occams Ghost?
To JimJast?

It gets tiresome repeating yourself over and over and over again to people who are not listening.

I don't think you really understand what "lame" means.

The point is this thread is for someone elses ATM idea, if yawyaw wants to introduce his idea then it should bein its own thread, not posted to a bunch of existing threads.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

The problem is that this kind of threads become out focused, like sadly happened to the jimJast thread, so better just post debating arguments

Imnot defending or attacking ATM theories, just want to watch a good fight, funny i dont see any argument against the yaw post

__________________
Old Grammar teachers have power in this forum!!...i tell u!! :D

because this isn't the thread to argue against his ATM theory, he should start his own thread, it's in the rules of ATM.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Should nerverfly also start a new thread every time he starts a flame war with someone who disagrees with his point of view?

It depends on the thread and the flame.
If Neverfly is flaming because the discussion is like one tha