Someone please call them to explain a 'red-shift'

[Bishadi]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/whats-hiding-the-universes-brigh.html?ref=ra

Astronomers have proposed two possible explanations for these dark bursts. Intervening dust might block the afterglow's optical light, whereas dust is transparent to x-rays, infrared radiation, and radio waves. Alternatively, hydrogen atoms might be the culprit. Neutral hydrogen absorbs certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light, so burst radiation passing through a hydrogen cloud would wind up with a gap in the ultraviolet part of its spectrum. But if a burst is extremely remote, its radiation travels through the expanding universe for billions of years. As a result, the full spectrum, including the gap, gets stretched to longer and longer wavelengths, a phenomenon known as the "red shift."

What's Hiding the Universe's Brightest Explosions?


got another question, if that neutral hydrogen is absorbing UV wavelengths of light, then is that now H plus the light (wavelength)? (For basic math)

And then if i return that H to neutral (with a catalyst or course), can i use that previously absorbed UV for sumthin else?

The red-shift comment was kind of cute within the article. I am wondering if any JREF'rs are interested in calling up the writer to give him/her a 'what for'.

 

[Drachasor]

There's nothing wrong with the part of the article you quoted.

I suggest you read up on the absorption and emission of light by atoms and molecules though, as you seem to have some gaps in your comprehension.

 

[Fnord]

There's nothing wrong with the part of the article you quoted.

I suggest you read up on the absorption and emission of light by atoms and molecules though, as you seem to have some gaps in your comprehension.

"Some"?



The University of Virgina's Department of Astronomy has a short, but useful article here.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines red-shift very well here.

And even good old Wikipedia gets it right here.

Bishadi has his own delusions theories, but they don't bear up under examination ... not that there is any evidence to support his claims to begin with.

 

[fuelair]

And, I suspect he still is not writing in clear, concise English and still wil not state why his writing is so unclear - Inquirer minds want to know.

 

[Molinaro]

And, I suspect he still is not writing in clear, concise English and still wil not state why his writing is so unclear - Inquirer minds want to know.

Actually the OP clearly states the point that they don't know what red shift means. They being the OP, and not the author accused by the OP.

 

[jaydeehess]

got another question, if that neutral hydrogen is absorbing UV wavelengths of light, then is that now H plus the light (wavelength)? (For basic math)

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Try again.

And then if i return that H to neutral (with a catalyst or course), can i use that previously absorbed UV for sumthin else?

No need for a catalyst, of course. Its still neutral, hotter but neutral.

I am wondering if any JREF'rs are interested in calling up the writer to give him/her a 'what for'.

About what? The article stands on its own as good science reporting.

 

[Molinaro]

.. then is that now H plus the light (wavelength)? (For basic math)

Those things don't go on either side of a plus.

 

[MattusMaximus]

 

[Mojo]

I am wondering if any JREF'rs are interested in calling up the writer to give him/her a 'what for'.

If you think they're wrong, why don't you do it?

 

[bjornart]

got another question, if that neutral hydrogen is absorbing UV wavelengths of light, then is that now H plus the light (wavelength)? (For basic math)

No, it's a still neutral hydrogen atom, it's just in an excited state. I.e. it has slightly more energy.

And then if i return that H to neutral (with a catalyst or course), can i use that previously absorbed UV for sumthin else?

The hydrogen remains neutral, which just means it isn't an ion. It will leave the excited state by itself immediately (from a human time sense point of view) radiating the UV-photon, or if it goes via some intermediate states a collection of other photons, in random directions, so no, you can't use it as a UV storage.

The red-shift comment was kind of cute within the article. I am wondering if any JREF'rs are interested in calling up the writer to give him/her a 'what for'.

Absorption, emission and red-shift are high-school physics subjects and are used in a perfectly reasonable fashion in the article. Why don't you attempt to give us the 'what for' you deem justified?

 

[Bishadi]

Actually the OP clearly states the point that they don't know what red shift means. They being the OP, and not the author accused by the OP.

distance traveled is not the 'redshift' cause (per hubble) but the speed the stars/galaxies are traveling away from the observer (per the 'peer review' concensus; mathematically represented)

I rather like the concept that mass, between the observer and source is the cause of the red shift (but who am i but a nut case, right?)

That OP 'clip' shows a representation that is using a combination of both (of course, if you comprehend the article (in english)).

 

[Molinaro]

distance traveled is not the 'redshift' cause (per hubble) but the speed the stars/galaxies are traveling away from the observer (per the 'peer review' concensus; mathematically represented)

I rather like the concept that mass, between the observer and source is the cause of the red shift (but who am i but a nut case, right?)

That OP 'clip' shows a representation that is using a combination of both (of course, if you comprehend the article (in english)).

What you quoted in the OP does not say that distance traveled causes redshift. There's your problem. You don't even understand what you read.

The fact that it traveled billions of years, tells you that it originated from billions of light years away. And, we know that galaxies which are further away are receding faster than those nearby.

And those two together tell you that it will be red shifted due to the high recession speed of the source.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

distance traveled is not the 'redshift' cause (per hubble) but the speed the stars/galaxies are traveling away from the observer (per the 'peer review' concensus; mathematically represented)

And the reason the stars/galaxies are travelling away from us is the expansion of the universe. The article doesn't say distance travelled causes red shift.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

distance traveled is not the 'redshift' cause (per hubble) but the speed the stars/galaxies are traveling away from the observer (per the 'peer review' concensus; mathematically represented)

I rather like the concept that mass, between the observer and source is the cause of the red shift (but who am i but a nut case, right?)

That OP 'clip' shows a representation that is using a combination of both (of course, if you comprehend the article (in english)).

Greetings Bishadi,

You appear to be conflating the Doppler redshift with the cosmological redshift. Please read this to help clear it up. The cosmological redshift is caused by the light traveling through an expanding medium. Therefore it is the distance traveled that matters.

I didn't read the article linked to in the OP, but the quoted portion appears to be saying that the UV portion of the emitted light gets absorbed by neutral hydrogen, which leaves a gap in the spectrum. This gap then gets expanded as the light gets "stretched out" as it passes through expanding space.

Cheers.

 

[edd]

You appear to be conflating the Doppler redshift with the cosmological redshift.

It's not wrong to consider the cosmological redshift to be a Doppler shift. Sol explains it as well as I've ever seen it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5560587&postcount=11

This is not to say I consider anything Bishadi has said to be correct.

 

[Bishadi]

What you quoted in the OP does not say that distance traveled causes redshift. There's your problem. You don't even understand what you read.

the clip did not include that the galaxies in motion are the 'per se' reason for the redshift.

Distance is not the reason nor gaps in the spectrum.

The fact that it traveled billions of years, tells you that it originated from billions of light years away. And, we know that galaxies which are further away are receding faster than those nearby.

you believe you know.

No one has witnesses them moving away. Likewise no one has witnessed a big bang. Both are speculative. ie... a paradigm cannot be based on speculation but on evidence and in the lab. And in the lab a combining of knowledge assists in the creation of a hypothesis and then theory; a reversal of entropy must exist to create an anology that progressed from a bunch of pieces to the puzzle (the objective).

And those two together tell you that it will be red shifted due to the high recession speed of the source.

ie.... you believe in recession of galaxies based on 'red shift' not evidence. So the concept you are holding is based on a hypothesis of why that energy changed (shifted) but not on the observational evidence. For example; i can red shift light by using mass to slow or convert the light but no one is redshifting light without mass inbetween the 2 points.

otherwise provide evidence. Show an experiment of redshifting without mass inbetween the points of emission and detection.

But i can show redshifting with a simple prism and sun light. ie... i can provide evidence, can you?

 

[Bishadi]

Greetings Bishadi,

You appear to be conflating the Doppler redshift with the cosmological redshift. Please read this to help clear it up.

thanks

The cosmological redshift is caused by the light traveling through an expanding medium. Therefore it is the distance traveled that matters.

what medium? No aether out there and space aint a medium.

ie... your conclusions are incorrect as the ONLY think that affects energy are mass (elements/molecules) and energy (electric and magnetic fields).

Now if space had an aether, then you could have a claim to show the 'expanding' part of the universe.

I didn't read the article linked to in the OP, but the quoted portion appears to be saying that the UV portion of the emitted light gets absorbed by neutral hydrogen, which leaves a gap in the spectrum. This gap then gets expanded as the light gets "stretched out" as it passes through expanding space.

Cheers.

i know what it says.

But light aint 'stretching' without a cause.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I can show a redshift, too. http://www.redshift.com.au/images/redshift1.png

 

[Jack by the hedge]

i can show redshifting with a simple prism and sun light. ie... i can provide evidence, can you?

You can increase the wavelength of light by passing it through a prism? Can you describe this experiment in more detail?

 

[Bishadi]

And the reason the stars/galaxies are travelling away from us is the expansion of the universe.

there is that subjective premise AGAIN.

which is just hilarious because it breaks most every rule on the board.

ie... if all of everything came from an explosion (BB) at a single point, then like tapping the surface of a pond, that wave, mass and energy, would not return to combine unless it hits something but if a sphere exploded in all directions at one moment, nothing would have ever combined to make stars, it would just keep on going (newtons laws of motion).

That is basic common sense, but then folks will rant with a whole bunch of reasons but not a lick of mathmatics or evidence to back it up.

ie... if there was enough momentum to BB from a single point, and the universe is continually expanding, then there would be no universe with stars and galaxies combining, rotating and with all that empty space as the momentum unless affected would just keep on momentuming on about its day