Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

On a second thought, the photon scattering would only work for point-like objects like stars. For objects with a certain size the scattering would heavily distort the image.

Therefore my guess is that the vacuum energy simply causes friction for photons so that they lose energy (without changing their direction) and thereby redshift when traveling vast distances.

ETA: And even for stars the scattering would blur the image.

Science is not about guessing.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Science is not about guessing.

Hans

HA HA HA

Since when ?

 

[Paulhoff]

HA HA HA

Since when ?

Since when they tell you they are, unlike you.

Science calls it what it is, a hypothesis.

Paul

 

[Anders Lindman]

Don't be. The evidence for this from the High-z Supernova Search Team came as a real shock. Just write down a series of numbers like this: 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 to represent an expanding universe. Note that the increase between successive terms gets bigger and bigger. Then look at the increase as a percentage of the preceding term. It's getting smaller and smaller.

Not even an acceleration of the expansion could explain the increase between the spectral lines shown here: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3404/46230802.png

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

And that graph is likely correct. Maybe science today has become so compartmentalized that each scientist only looks at his or her tiny area of expertise and misses the larger picture. Only some kind of loss of energy for the photons can explain that graph.

 

[Anders Lindman]

"The Casimir force is calculated between Au thin films that are described by a Drude model with a frequency dependent damping function." -- http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/161/1/012012/pdf/1742-6596_161_1_012012.pdf

Those calculations are used for very tiny distances. However, although the force approaches zero for larger distances it never reaches exactly zero! So for vast distances there is still a tiny, tiny Casimir force. This would perhaps have miniscule yet not negligible effect on photons, especially when photons travel over vast distances.

The Drude model fits well with observed experimental results:

"Our experimental results are in excellent agreement (reduced χ2 of 1.04) with the Casimir force calculated using the Drude model, including the T=300 K thermal force, which dominates over the quantum fluctuation-induced force at separations greater than 3 μm." -- http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n3/full/nphys1909.html

 

[Bjarne]

Maybe science today has become so compartmentalized that each scientist only looks at his or her tiny area of expertise and misses the larger picture.

No doubt about it
Cows can always keep a cool overview.
But human’s brains are very much smaller
So narrow minded “science” is what you must expect, many places (except in cow societies)
If any coherence is involve you can bet on a cow must be involved.

 

[Farsight]

Not even an acceleration of the expansion could explain the increase between the spectral lines shown here: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3404/46230802.png

That's interesting Anders. The spectra appear to be not only shifting, but spreading too.

Maybe science today has become so compartmentalized that each scientist only looks at his or her tiny area of expertise and misses the larger picture.

I'm confident that you're right about that.

Only some kind of loss of energy for the photons can explain that graph.

Don't be too confident about that. Conservation of energy is very important in physics, and it can play some strange tricks. For example, when a photon climbs out of a gravitational well we say it's redshifted. But it hasn't actually lost any energy. There's a scale-change instead. People don't always understand this, but it's easy enough when you see it. Suppose we're both time-dilated: I punch you in the stomach, and you go oof. If we then move to an environment where we're not time-dilated, then the same punch is a slow-motion punch. It doesn't bother you at all, even though it's the same punch delivering the same energy. Because the punch didn't change, you did.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's interesting Anders. The spectra appear to be not only shifting, but spreading too.

I'm confident that you're right about that.

Don't be too confident about that. Conservation of energy is very important in physics, and it can play some strange tricks. For example, when a photon climbs out of a gravitational well we say it's redshifted. But it hasn't actually lost any energy. There's a scale-change instead. People don't always understand this, but it's easy enough when you see it. Suppose we're both time-dilated: I punch you in the stomach, and you go oof. If we then move to an environment where we're not time-dilated, then the same punch is a slow-motion punch. It doesn't bother you at all, even though it's the same punch delivering the same energy. Because the punch didn't change, you did.

Yes, spreading and kind of proportional to the redshift. Can gravity cause that?

 

[Reality Check]

Not even an acceleration of the expansion could explain the increase between the spectral lines shown here: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3404/46230802.png

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

The simplest explanation is that this is a processing artifact created by scaling the 3 spectra so that they can be compared.

I can find no explanation in the literature about an increase in the distance between [OIII] doublet from doubly-ionized oxygen atoms and H-beta line with increasing z.

ETA - the spreading is scattering, e.g. Compton scattering.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The simplest explanation is that this is a processing artifact created by scaling the 3 spectra so that they can be compared.

I can find no explanation in the literature about an increase in the distance between [OIII] doublet from doubly-ionized oxygen atoms and H-beta line with increasing z.

ETA - the spreading is scattering, e.g. Compton scattering.

The three graphs have the same scale on the x-axis it seems to me. And there is no need for scaling the x-axes since all three graphs would fit anyway. Plus Compton scattering would create a lot of blur (which is one of the claims to disprove the tired light theories).

 

[Reality Check]

The three graphs have the same scale on the x-axis it seems to me. And there is no need for scaling the x-axes since all three graphs would fit anyway. Plus Compton scattering would create a lot of blur (which is one of the claims to disprove the tired light theories).

The same scale on the graph does not mean that the three original spectra were on the same scale.

The fact that there is no literature on this phenomena (that I can find)suggests that it is an artifact of the processing.

Compton scattering would make the spectral lines broaden as seen in the diagram (of course scaling could do the same thing!).

ETA
I will point out that you are basing your idea that there is an increase in the distance between [OIII] doublet from doubly-ionized oxygen atoms and H-beta line with increasing z on one diagram on a web page. That is not credible evidence. You need to research the scientific literature.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The same scale on the graph does not mean that the three original spectra were on the same scale.

... [OIII] doublet from doubly-ionized oxygen atoms and H-beta line

That depends on if the lines in the separate graphs are from the same chemical elements. And it surely looks like they are. The spectral lines from chemical elements have the same original frequency and redshift caused by expansion of the universe should only shift the spectra, not stretch it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not even an acceleration of the expansion could explain the increase between the spectral lines shown here: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3404/46230802.png

OK; now I know that you either lack reading comprehension, or you simply ignore answers. I told you earlier that the acceleration is not deducted from individual spectra, but by measuring the recession of objects at different distances.

But I realize you are not interested in facts, and I shall waste no more time trying to explain things to you. You can keep talking to Bjarne and his cows.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

No doubt about it
Cows can always keep a cool overview.
But human’s brains are very much smaller
So narrow minded “science” is what you must expect, many places (except in cow societies)
If any coherence is involve you can bet on a cow must be involved.

Weight of human brain: 1300-1400g
Weight of cows brain: 425-458g
Weight of Bjarne's brain: ??

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Weight of human brain: 1300-1400g
Weight of cows brain: 425-458g
Weight of Bjarne's brain: ??

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

Hans

It is not the weight that is important but the size
The weight only makes the thought slower and the imagination heavier.

 

[Bjarne]

Don't be too confident about that. Conservation of energy is very important in physics, and it can play some strange tricks. For example, when a photon climbs out of a gravitational well we say it's redshifted. But it hasn't actually lost any energy. There's a scale-change instead. People don't always understand this, but it's easy enough when you see it. Suppose we're both time-dilated: I punch you in the stomach, and you go oof. If we then move to an environment where we're not time-dilated, then the same punch is a slow-motion punch. It doesn't bother you at all, even though it's the same punch delivering the same energy. Because the punch didn't change, you did.

Yes photons don’t lose energy.
Time ticks slower and distance stretching more the deeper inside a gravitionel photons are created.

All processes take more time in a slower environment, - also matters interaction with space.

It takes a loooong second to walk a loooong meter.

This is why time some places ticks slower.
A loooong meter is a result of stretching space, and hence a result of gravity.

Hence also EM-frequencies are slower the deeper inside a gravitational field a process takes place, and the EM frequencies are created.

This mean gravitational redshift is not a result of motion, but a result of the environment where the photon was created.

When we in a weaker gravitational field can observe the spectra coming from a strong gravitational field now is redshifted, - it is only because we compare the spectra with a different (shorter) time – distance reality. (less stretched reality)

The reason why lights bends near a heavy object is that it follows the stretch tension of space.
When such tension bends (as it most of the time does) the path of photons also does so.

A photon is part of that “stretch tension.” – Photons can be compared to waves of the ocean. – The ocean and the wave are one; - there cannot be any friction of resistance.

Opposite a fish can be compared to an elementary particle, the fish moves through the water, and thereby it interacts with the ocean.

 

[Farsight]

Yes, spreading and kind of proportional to the redshift. Can gravity cause that?

No. I tend to agree with what Reality Check said, that this spreading is probably an artefact of presentation. But it's worth checking out. Why don't you email one of the Astrostatistics guys and see what they say?

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is not the weight that is important but the size
The weight only makes the thought slower and the imagination heavier.

Then your brain is obviously very 'large'.

What a strange world you live in, Bjarne.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes photons don’t lose energy.
Time ticks slower and distance stretching more the deeper inside a gravitionel photons are created.

This must be a mistake: You almost got that right.

All processes take more time in a slower environment, - also matters interac

*sniiiip*

and thereby it interacts with the ocean.

- But no worries, mate; the rest of your post more than compensates, for that little slip.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Then your brain is obviously very 'large'.

What a strange world you live in, Bjarne.

Hans

No mother cow has a bigger brain, - that is enough.
I don't need to have a bigger brain, - just to be open minded.
You see it is almost like in religion; Sankt peter is watching the gate to heaven, only the orthodox can enter.
But mother cow is watching the gate to the scientific heaven. Only those that not are not brainwashed and humble can enter.
( why haven't I see you around – up there)