Redshift z

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

What does your post have to do with redshift z? Do you have some new interpretation for z, or is it a kind of "tired light" mechanism?

My idea for the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' is not a 'tired light' hypothesis.
If you read my recent post on this subject, you will notice that I said an 'intrinsic force' is the cause of the expansion.

Are you suggesting the HDFS image was reworked to make it appear as if there were more objects than the otherewise undoctored images?

That is a possibility that the 'South' Field could have been modifided to appear homogeneous with the North Field in accordance with the current doctrine of 'homogeneity.
Their is a 'difference' between the S & T mag photo and the current interne t photo.
A main library should have a copy of this S & T mag. in its 'archives'.
See the S & T photo and compare with the photo on the internet (UCLA(?) redshift survey?).

Are you aware of the HUDF images (with about 10,000 objects? Perhaps that is the one you saw that had more galaxies, i.e., due to its higher resolution).

I saw more 'stars' added to the internet photo. This does no have anything to do with resolution.
CC[/QUOTE]

Mike C]

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Mike C

My idea for the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' is not a 'tired light' hypothesis. If you read my recent post on this subject, you will notice that I said an 'intrinsic force' is the cause of the expansion.

Recall, Zwicky’s famed speculation that light loses energy while traveling through space, dubbed “tired light” was disproved on the grounds that the loss of energy should be independent of the wavelength (observations have shown wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum). “No known scattering process has energy loss with so constant a fractional wavelength shift” (Sandage 1993 p. 127).

Your redshift concept would require the same wavelength independent vigilance.

As far as I can tell, the de Sitter effect as a cause for redshift z is independent of wavelength throughout the entire spectrum.


CC

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Recall, Zwicky’s famed speculation that light loses energy while traveling through space, dubbed “tired light” was disproved on the grounds that the loss of energy should be independent of the wavelength (observations have shown wavelength independence over 19 octaves of the spectrum). “No known scattering process has energy loss with so constant a fractional wavelength shift” (Sandage 1993 p. 127).

Zwickys 'tired light' acceptance is not my idea.
I only agree with his 'dark matter problem'.
I also did not agree with Hoyles introduction of 'new matter' in a SSU. But Hoyle was right about a SSU.
Santage believes in the BBU. So i do not give him any credibility regarding the light problem.

The 19 ovtaves of the levels of light would be the total possible radiations of the electron transitions or wavelengths possible.

Since I said the light pulses have an intrinsic force that causes them to expand, I cannot see any other mechanism for these expansions.

Your redshift concept would require the same wavelength independent vigilance.

All objects from a distance would be observed as a mixture of a 'black body curve ' at its peak level. So no individual wavelengths would be observed as here in the Sun. The Sun is a single star.

Mike C

[peter]

Coldcreation posted:

All ‘tired light’ scenarios are ruled out by observational data; there is no significant scattering, refracting, or absorption on the line of sight. Absorption would cause part of the incoming energy to be extracted into the interstellar or intergalactic medium; as a result, dimming would occur over a broad range of the spectrum. Scattering alters the direction of the photons, but the wavelength would remain the same. Refraction would cause a change in the direction or a bending of the wave, as light propagates through matter.

However, there could be one possible scenario which may cause redshift. If the particle size of the interstellar or intergalactic medium is very small which is not enough to cause scattering, refracting or absorption, when the photons hit such particles during their journey, they may still lose some of their energy and become redshifted. It really depends on size and the density of such particles.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by peter

However, there could be one possible scenario which may cause redshift. If the particle size of the interstellar or intergalactic medium is very small which is not enough to cause scattering, refracting or absorption, when the photons hit such particles during their journey, they may still lose some of their energy and become redshifted. It really depends on size and the density of such particles.

There may be some constituents of the intergalactic medium smaller than, say, the hydrogen atom, but the resulting absorption, scattering and refraction caused by what is known to exist (hydrogen, dust, etc.) would still be present. The energy loss (redshift) would be associated with scattering of the beam and blurring of the images of distant galaxies. This has been shown not to occur. Therefore the redshift is not caused by dust or gas in the line of sight.

To get a good feel of the atmosphere that prevailed as a result of the events that transpired regarding tired light scenario's it is best to read the literature that had been written during the crucial period. This epigrammatic passage by Sir James Jeans (1930) is revealing:

“But there is room for a good deal of doubt as to whether these huge speeds are real or not. They have not been obtained by any direct process of measurement, but are deduced by an application of what is known as Doppler’s principle…Yet other things than speed are capable of reddening light;” [Here he proceeds to list some of the known phenomenon that cause redshifts] “Furthermore, on de Sitter’s theory of the universe, distance alone produces a reddening of light, so that even if the distant nebulae were standing still in space, their light would appear unduly red, and we should be tempted to infer that they were not receding from us. None of these cause seems capable of explaining the observed reddening of nebular light, but quite recently Dr Zwicky of the California Institute has suggested that still another cause of the reddening may be found in the gravitational pull of stars and nebulae on light passing near them—the same pull that causes the observed bending of starlight at an eclipse of the sun.” [On the final pages of his manuscript, Jeans confers] “…every conclusion that has been tentatively put forward, is quite frankly speculative and uncertain…” and that the difficult questions of “present-day-science” are “perhaps set for ever beyond the reach of human understanding. We cannot claim to have discerned more than a very faint glimmer of light at the best; perhaps it was wholly illusory…” [In his final sentence, Jeans summarizes:] “So that our main contention can hardly be that science of to-day has a pronouncement to make, perhaps it ought rather to be that science should leave off making pronouncements: the river of knowledge has too often turned back on itself.” (Jeans 1930 pp. 65, 66, 149, 150)

Do you, Peter, have a mechanism for redshift z that differs from the above arguments?


CC

[peter]

If the dark matter do exist in the universe and have about 80% or more of total mass of the universe as proposed in modern cosmology, it will be highly possible that the dark matter can cause redshift when light passes through it if and only if the dark matter can interact with regular matter.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by peter

If the dark matter do exist in the universe and have about 80% or more of total mass of the universe as proposed in modern cosmology, it will be highly possible that the dark matter can cause redshift when light passes through it if and only if the dark matter can interact with regular matter.

IMHO, there is 'no' dark matter.

I posted an article based on a SM Xray satelite telescope of a solar eruption that showed that the remains of the source of this eruption was iron, sulfur and oxygen ions stripped of all their electrons except the two inner electrons.
The temperature was estimated to be about 20 million Kelvin.

So these electrons are blowen out into space while the positive ions are captured within our galaxy.
So these free electrons are attracted back to these positive ions to create an illusion that there is an increase of gravity.
This then is what I consider to be the DM that is detected in our outer galactic gas perimeter to cause the spiral structures to violate the 'virial theorum by maintaining a uniform velocity.

This would be the solution for the Zwicky DM problem also with a central cloud of electrons to cause an added attraction between the positive
charged galaxies in the cluster.
Normally, you wouls expect these electron central clouds to disperse and
they would but this central cloud is contiuously being fed electrons to retain its attractive nature to the galaxies.

This DM is visible because they have been detected by xray radiations.
Since this central cloud is being drawn back by the galaxies, that is the reason why the galaxy velocites are increased to create the illusion that there is added mass. So this added attraction (coulomb force) is the reason for this apparent DM problem.

Mike C

[peter]

If the DM is like what Mike C. claimed, our solar system would be in the negative charge clouds of the electrons, then everything on the earth would be negatively charged, many physical experiments would fail. This is just impossible.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Mike C

This would be the solution for the Zwicky DM problem also with a central cloud of electrons to cause an added attraction between the positive
charged galaxies in the cluster.
Normally, you wouls expect these electron central clouds to disperse and
they would but this central cloud is contiuously being fed electrons to retain its attractive nature to the galaxies.

This DM is visible because they have been detected by xray radiations.
Since this central cloud is being drawn back by the galaxies, that is the reason why the galaxy velocites are increased to create the illusion that there is added mass. So this added attraction (coulomb force) is the reason for this apparent DM problem.

Mike C

My compass points north.

-modest

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by peter

If the DM is like what Mike C. claimed, our solar system would be in the negative charge clouds of the electrons, then everything on the earth would be negatively charged, many physical experiments would fail. This is just impossible.

Our Solar System is not in the perimeter of our galaxy.
It is supposed to be approximately 2/3's of the way from the central sourse in the Constellation of Sagittarius (spelling(?).

Mike C