Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

I haven't actually studied how redshift is measured.

Then do it now. I have provided a good link.

What I know is that the standard theory says that the redshift is caused by an expansion of space. That would cause a linear redshift so that all frequencies of light are redshifted in an equal amount.

Yes, and that is what we observe.

Actual observations show that this is not the case, and in fact that the redshift is not linear like that,

No, you are wrong. From a given source, the red shift is linear.

and to explain it they come up with the idea of how the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace, when the natural explanation is simply that photons with different frequencies lose energy at different rates; high frequency photons lose energy faster than photons with lower frequencies.

No, you have misunderstood that. An acceleration would not make the red shift non-linear. What we observe, as we become able to measure the distance to distant objects in other ways than by red shift is that the red shift is not quite linear with distance, and this indicates that expansion is accelerating.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let me explain why the vacuum energy may cause photons to redshift.

Then some may claim that this only applies to particles with mass and photons have no rest mass. I doubt that this is true, but ok let's say that it's true, then consider the thermal Casimir force:

So, is it IMPOSSIBLE for the thermal Casimir force in space to affect photons?

Is it impossible for pixies in space to affect photons?

Anders, you have made an unsupported speculation and you now search feverishly for bits you can cherry pick that could be thought to support your speculation.

Seriously, your idle speculations are uninteresting.

Hans

 

[Anders Lindman]

An acceleration would not make the red shift non-linear. What we observe, as we become able to measure the distance to distant objects in other ways than by red shift is that the red shift is not quite linear with distance, and this indicates that expansion is accelerating.

Hans

Then for example two galaxies connected to each other with the same distance to Earth would have the same redshift according to that model. This is clearly not the case as is explained in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then for example two galaxies connected to each other with the same distance to Earth would have the same redshift according to that model. This is clearly not the case as is explained in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

IF they are at the same distance. They may just be almost in line when watched from Earth. Lots of double galaxies and double stars are like that. We call it an optical double.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Here is an example of the light spectrum for a galaxy: http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/astro/images/spectrum.gif

From: http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/astro/

Notice that there are less high frequency photons than photons with lower frequencies.

I do not see that the amount goes to zero, which what is necessary for the galaxies to appear red.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I do not see that the amount goes to zero, which what is necessary for the galaxies to appear red.

The question is how the spectrum continues for photons outside that graph. I agree that there could be a lot of even higher frequency photons not shown in the graph. But the idea is that higher frequency photons will lose energy faster than lower frequency photons. So extremely high frequency photons will lose energy very quickly. The standard theory is that all photons are redshifted an equal amount regardless of what their frequency is. There are several potential problems with that, some of which have been pointed out in this thread. Here is another example of that:

"All quasars are redshifted. According to accepted interpretations, quasars are believed to be the fastest and farthest objects. However, a number of observations indicate that this velocity and distance interpretation is flawed. In fact, redshifts have never been fully proven (i.e., quantified) to represent what they are believed to portray." -- http://www.livingcosmos.com/quasar.htm

 

[MRC_Hans]

The question is how the spectrum continues for photons outside that graph. I agree that there could be a lot of even higher frequency photons not shown in the graph. But the idea is that higher frequency photons will lose energy faster than lower frequency photons. So extremely high frequency photons will lose energy very quickly. The standard theory is that all photons are redshifted an equal amount regardless of what their frequency is.

Anders, you are being intentionally obtuse. Which of the words do you not understand: It is not a theory, it is an observational fact that spectra from distant objects are equally red shifted on all wavelengths.

Here is another example of that:

"All quasars are redshifted. According to accepted interpretations, quasars *snip* to represent what they are believed to portray." -- http://www.livingcosmos.com/quasar.htm

From that link:

Throughly undermining the conventional theory of quasars is the quasar Cygnus A or 3C405, which is not the proposed billions of (light)years old, but a mere 600 million (light)years.

They think age is measured in lightyears.
Next, I suppose you will use Bjarne's website as 'evidence'?

Hans

 

[steenkh]

The question is how the spectrum continues for photons outside that graph. I agree that there could be a lot of even higher frequency photons not shown in the graph. But the idea is that higher frequency photons will lose energy faster than lower frequency photons. So extremely high frequency photons will lose energy very quickly.

Nonsense! We know exactly how much energy is lost for each frequency. After all, we see the redshift by the movement of the absorption lines in the spectrum, and if high frequency photons lost energy faster than low frequency photons, the lines would move closer together. However, this is not observed.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Nonsense! We know exactly how much energy is lost for each frequency. After all, we see the redshift by the movement of the absorption lines in the spectrum, and if high frequency photons lost energy faster than low frequency photons, the lines would move closer together. However, this is not observed.

Hmm... Ok, that's a good point. Yes, spectral lines would move closer if my idea is correct. For example the blue line for hydrogen would move more than the red line: http://mail.colonial.net/~hkaiter/astronomyimages1011/Hydrogen-helium-lithium-oxygen.jpg

Darn. That disproves my hypothesis about photons losing energy due to vacuum energy friction. Unless I can find some evidence to support it, such as observations showing that the lines move closer together.

 

[Toke]

Darn. That disproves my hypothesis about photons losing energy due to vacuum energy friction. Unless I can find some evidence to support it, such as observations showing that the lines move closer together.

Your problem is that the people making the observations will usually understand what they are doing and notice if there is anything unusual about them.
(That is kind of why they make the observations in the first place.)

 

[Anders Lindman]

Your problem is that the people making the observations will usually understand what they are doing and notice if there is anything unusual about them.
(That is kind of why they make the observations in the first place.)

I found an example here: http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/proj/basic/universe/redshifts.asp

Calculations for the two spectral line hydrogen peaks:

5360/4861.3 = 1.102586

7220/6562.8 = 1.100140

It actually shows a larger redshift for the higher frequency line! Of course, the difference is so small it could likely be within the margins of error, but anyway.

 

[Paul]

It actually shows a larger redshift for the higher frequency line! Of course, the difference is so small it could likely be within the margins of error, but anyway.

"Choosing the alpha, beta, or delta lines would also give approximately z = 0.1 - the measured redshift does not depend on which line you choose. If you get very different redshifts when you use different lines, then you probably have not correctly identified at least one of the lines."

 

[Anders Lindman]

"Choosing the alpha, beta, or delta lines would also give approximately z = 0.1 - the measured redshift does not depend on which line you choose. If you get very different redshifts when you use different lines, then you probably have not correctly identified at least one of the lines."

I found another example with a slight yet different redshift:

5670/4880-1 = 0,162

7550/6563-1 = 0,150

Source: http://astrosurf.com/buil/us/spe6/quasar.htm

Again, the higher frequency hydrogen spectrum line has a higher redshift. And this time the difference even looks significant!

 

[Anders Lindman]

Here I found redshift spectra that INCREASE between spectral lines:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

From: http://astrostatistics.psu.edu/datasets/galspec.html

 

[Anders Lindman]

Empty space is of course very different from water. Anyway, I found an interesting graph showing how light is absorbed in water depending on frequency: http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~scherer/Blogging/ColourWater/absorption.png

From: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/01/water-is-blue-because-water-is-blue.html

The interesting thing in the graph is that it's the LOWER frequencies that are absorbed more than the higher frequencies. The opposite of how I imagined light is absorbed by the vacuum energy. If photons are absorbed in a similar way by the vacuum energy as in water when it comes to the frequency of the light, then the distance between spectral lines will increase the more redshift there is, which is exactly what can be seen in my previous post #4954 : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7827253&postcount=4954

 

[Reality Check]

So their explanation is that there IS dust in this case that causes them to appear red. Ok, but that seems like an ad hoc idea to me.

It is not ad hoc. The astronomers looked at the likely causes of the redness according to the laws of physics. They then fit these causes to the data. The cause that best fit the data was cosmological redshift + dust in the galaxies.

The current redshift model has unexplained problems:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

You should look at the quality of your sources. The journal of theoretics is a defunct crackpot journal.
Barry Setterfield is a young Earth creationist. See the Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy blog.

 

[Reality Check]

Then for example two galaxies connected to each other with the same distance to Earth would have the same redshift according to that model. This is clearly not the case as is explained in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

Citing a YouTube video in a science thread is an automatic loss of the argument !

What you have is a bunch of talking heads expressing arguments from incredibility (and a bit of ignorance).
Wow -a couple of quasars actually shine through a filament connecting two galaxies!
Wow - you assume that a galaxy is a companion to another galaxy because of a possible artifact on the image and guess what - the companion has a different redshift!
(when you have 2 bright objects in an image there is 'bleeding' between them from processing that can cause the illusion of a filament between them).

The really idoitic thing about this video is there are no citations to the actual science - just to a crackpot web site.

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Reality Check]

Here is an example of the light spectrum for a galaxy: http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/astro/images/spectrum.gif

From: http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/astro/

And here is the caption that you are ignoring:

A spectrum of a galaxy, which shows how much light the galaxy gives off at different colors. This spectrum is stretched, or redshifted, relative to what it would be on Earth. The number "z" at the bottom of the image shows the degree of redshift.

You also seem to be ignorant about what redshift is.
Redshift is not whether a galaxy gives off mostly red light.
It is the shift of the light given off by elements such as hydrogen relative to the spectrum that we observe in laboratories here on Earth.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And here is the caption that you are ignoring:


You also seem to be ignorant about what redshift is.
Redshift is not whether a galaxy gives off mostly red light.
It is the shift of the light given off by elements such as hydrogen relative to the spectrum that we observe in laboratories here on Earth.

Take the light from a light bulb for example. If that light is redshifted a lot the light bulb will appear to shine more reddish in color (given that the original light didn't contain much ultraviolet and other higher frequency light).