I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because the aim is to interact with light from a source hundreds of millions of light years away, not atoms in our atmosphere.



---

The photon's distance from where it was emitted is crucial to keep in mind at all times. Consider light that has traveled billions of years to reach your telescope. The light enters the lens, gets focused to the eyepiece, and then into your eyeball.

Seems pretty straightforward. But at some level, some type of interaction with the light and the lens must be focusing the light. At the quantum level, the photon will have been absorbed by atoms in the lens. Then it is re-emitted (or an entirely new photon is emitted), and focused to your telescope's eyepiece.

The photon may have traveled great distances from its source before it encountered your telescope, but the light inside the telescope will be very close to its source: the lens that focused it. The distance to the source of the photons in the telescope will be less than a meter, not millions of light years.

In that case the refreshed photon will be traveling at c, which now results in an elongated wavelength when calculated.
 
Mike Helland said:
If the light is traveling through the atmosphere, it will be traveling at the speed of light in that medium.
Click to expand...

In your idea, then (I will not call it theory) outside of the atmosphere everything in space should have another colour: speed = frequency * wavelength

a = b * c
If b goes down, a goes down.
Click to expand...

if a goes up, then b goes up (while apparently c is not involved here)

So question: do we see that things in space have a different colour when viewed inside or outside our atmosphere? Do stellar spectra look differently?
 
arthwollipot said:
That doesn't answer my question either. Why are you so resistant to answering a question?

In good faith, I will answer yours. No, I don't. I expect that beyond our light horizon there is essentially more of the same, until we reach the wavefront of the expansion of the universe, which has to be out there somewhere. But there is no way of knowing whether that's true or not so I don't feel the urge to spend a great deal of intellectual energy thinking about it.
Click to expand...

If the big bang theory is correct, then there is no wave front. Space itself exploded while filled with matter, it wasn't matter exploding into space. If the universe is finite, then it wraps around like a 4D balloon inflating. If it is infinite, the it is filled with matter everywhere as well. In neither case do you get any wave front.
 
Occurs to me, based on the discussion earlier of time discrepancies with an oscillating charge, that Mr. Helland has another problem: Cepheid stars.

Mind you, I'm a lay person, so I'd like to see what more knowledgeable folks than I think.
 
tusenfem said:
In your idea, then (I will not call it theory) outside of the atmosphere everything in space should have another colour: speed = frequency * wavelength
Click to expand...

The speed of light in our atmosphere isn't a whole lot slower than light in a vacuum. So

The hypothesis is that photon's have a velocity of c - H * D.

If they are traveling slow after millions of years, but then hit our atmosphere, they will be absorbed and remitted by our atmosphere, making the distance to the light's source very near instead of very far.
 
Ziggurat said:
Doesn't matter. The frequency will remain red or blue shifted even if the speed changes.
Click to expand...

Right.

The energy never comes back.

It's velocity and wavelength do, if it's absorbed and re-emitted (D = 0), but those don't cost energy.

Here's the cruz of the matter, can a single photon show Doppler shift?
 
Mike Helland said:
If the light is traveling through the atmosphere, it will be traveling at the speed of light in that medium.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat beat me to pointing out that the red shift or blue shifts would still appear.

Also, the HST and other astronomical satellites have spectographs; if the phenomenon actually happened, astronomers would have seen it by now; the atmosphere wouldn't hide it from them at this point.

Also, lights with different speeds entering a medium like the atmosphere would be refracted by different amounts. Astronomer would have noticed that, too.

Also, since you brought up emission through a medium, why wouldn't extinction have an effect on the observed light from distant galaxies?

IOW, it's already known that what you propose isn't true.
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
Right.

The energy never comes back.

It's velocity and wavelength do, if it's absorbed and re-emitted (D = 0), but those don't cost energy.

Here's the cruz of the matter, can a single photon show Doppler shift?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course it can.

The fact that you didn't already know this reveals a very marked lack of understanding of some very basic physics. You are badly out of your league, and don't even know what you don't know.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, of course it can.
Click to expand...


How can a wave with a single crest doppler shift?

You need at least two to establish a frequency of arrival rate.

Note that frequency of arrival rate, and the frequency of a single photon E/h aren't the same thing.
 
Mike Helland said:
How can a wave with a single crest doppler shift?
Click to expand...

What makes you think a photon has a single crest? It doesn't.

Like I said, you lack understanding of a lot of very basic physics, and don't even know how much you lack.

You need at least two to establish a frequency of arrival rate.

Note that frequency of arrival rate, and the frequency of a single photon E/h aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

No ****. We all know that. Nobody is talking about the frequency of arrival rate. We're all talking about the frequency of the photons themselves.
 
Mike, I think you need an explanation of how this thread feels for the rest of us.

Imagine you're out fishing, and as you make a cast, some guy walks up to you and says, "You'll never catch anything that way. You need my new invention."

You feign interest, and he explains that the shape of a fish hook makes it almost impossible for you to hit a fish with it when you cast the line, and explains to you that his new invention is a straight piece of metal with no barb and the line attached to the middle, so it flies truer and you can hit a fish with it.

While you're trying to find words to respond with, you reel the line in and try another cast, and he says, "See? You missed the fish. And that worm you stuck on the hook, that just makes it even less accurate. That proves you should be using my invention."

You then try and explain to him that the point of casting is not to spear the fish with a hook, when in the middle of the sentence he interrupts you and says yes, he understands all that, but his invention works better because it hits the fish more reliably. You try and explain that, without a barb, the hook won't be able to reel the fish in, and he completely ignores you and explains that the attachment of the line one-third of the way back from the point is crucial to making it fly straight. While he's talking you make another cast, and he once again points out that your hook didn't spear a fish. You try asking him whether his invention actually works, and he simply replies by pointing out that yours obviously doesn't.

After a while you get sick of trying to explain to him that he doesn't even understand what you're trying to do because he's got totally the wrong idea about how fishing works, so you just hope that the next guy along on the river has a go at explaining, because frankly the whole thing is making your head hurt.

We're you. You're that guy.

Good luck selling your straight un-barbed fish hooks.

Dave
 
Ziggurat said:
No ****. We all know that. Nobody is talking about the frequency of arrival rate. We're all talking about the frequency of the photons themselves.
Click to expand...


The Doppler effect works by changing the arrival rate. I made the following demonstration for you.

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/freqtest.htm

Top is simple static universe, middle is expanding, bottom is my hypothesis.

This demo only has arrival rate. No frequency or energy is given to the photons.

The hypothesis slows the photons, which reduces their individual energies, but the arrival rate is not reduced.

Therefore, the orbital rate of Earth, which is already taken into consideration, will indeed add more redshift, but that is consistent for all velocities of photons.
 
Mike Helland said:
The Doppler effect works by changing the arrival rate.
Click to expand...

No, Mike, it doesn't. The photon arrival rate is NOT what we measure when we measure redshift. These are different quantities. Changes in the photon arrival rate cause a change in light intensity, NOT in frequency. Individual photon frequency is what we measure. That's why increasing the intensity of light doesn't change its color. Yes, the photon arrival rate will also change with Doppler effect, but it's still not what anyone is talking about.

Again, this is a really, really basic failure of understanding on your part. Basically everything you think you know is wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
Individual photon frequency is what we measure. That's why increasing the intensity of light doesn't change its color. Yes, the photon arrival rate will also change with Doppler effect, but it's still not what anyone is talking about.
Click to expand...

You were talking about a doppler shift due to the Earth's motion.

It moves at about 100,000 km/hr around the sun, or 0.0009c.

The motion of the Earth is already taken into consideration of redshifts, as well as even the rotation of Earth.

My demo shows that regardless of the photon speed, the frequency of arrival rate doesn't change, and since the photon source isn't moving, the only doppler effects are the small ones from the Earth's motion and they are already known and accounted for.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I have never had "faith in it." It's simply the best model currently available.
Click to expand...

Yet we still don't know how fast the universe is expanding.

My hypothesis just moves H * D from the velocity of the galaxies to the velocity of the photon, and it predicts a slightly different curve, using a single value for H to match close and far measurements causing the Hubble tension.
 
Mike Helland said:
Yet we still don't know how fast the universe is expanding.

My hypothesis just moves H * D from the velocity of the galaxies to the velocity of the photon, and it predicts a slightly different curve, using a single value for H to match close and far measurements causing the Hubble tension.
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to spear your fish.

Dave
 
Spear fishing feeds many families around the world.

Dark energy, well, I guess even snake oil turns a profit now and then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom