Redshift caused by plasma and more

[BeAChooser]

Thanks Lyndon. Very convincing posts.

[LYNDON]

BTW I would not want to be associated with religion or creationists
Not my scene. The truth is what i am after.
Just a thought
Lyndon

[crawler]

BTW I would not want to be associated with religion or creationists
Not my scene. The truth is what i am after.
Just a thought
Lyndon

I daresay that the Bible is published & peer reviewed. Often the writer was tortured or burnt to death or crucified.

[JP Michael]

I am not at all interested in derailing this thread from the OP. I have my own reasons for being here, and exploring the evidence (or lack thereof) for an expanding universe is a significant one for my worldview and assuptions.

I have no expectations for anyone to adopt my views, although I will always welcome debate about them.

Cheers.

[LYNDON]

No problem, as long as we understand each other.
So it seems to me that the original posters have run away???? so let's do a plenary post.
20 years is a long time in cosmology. What seemed correct then doesn't mean it is correct now.
Facts in science have a half life. That is how long does it take for half the facts we believe as facts today for half of them to be proven wrong.
Medicine is one of the worst.
Last time I looked medicine - by the time a doctor left training half of the facts that were thought to be true when a trainee doctor entered med college have been shown to be false by the time they graduated.
Physics is one of the best it's about 80 years.
So the BB has been around since the 30's, Gamow 50's ? 70 year ago so in all probability it is about to crash. Regardless of the new evidence.
This is why I joined when the OP listed as number one contender for an alternative theory Compton effect 1920's!!!!!!! get real.
The Op lists 'all known contenders.'
No way. None of those listed are a contender.
Lets think over a bottle of wine or three what would be needed for an ideal contender to the BB.
1) Since the Hubble constant is similar wherever one looks (not the same but similar) then whatever the photons are interacting with it must be present everywhere. fair enough? Early theories said Hydrogen. great! 75% of the universe. I think Paul Marmet's idea is mentioned earlier in this post. Can't be because of energy levels. As the photons go thro' interaction after interaction the frequency reduces . so at some point they will hit an energy level. Photon absorbed not re-emitted in the forward direction. The photons would be like lemmings going over a cliff. They won't come out the other side. So it must be plasma.
2) The interaction must be such that the photons continue in a straight line. I did some sums earlier in this thread. With Compton there would be thousands of interaction whereby the photon changed direction even if it was scattered backwards each time. No way. Drop Compton.
3) Redshift is a constant for all wavelengths. For this to be true photons of twice the wavelength must undergo twice the shift in wavelength such that the ratio, z = shift in lamda/lamda is the same for all photons from the same source. Most theories fail on this one.
4) Many tired light ideas look in terms of a drop in energy and end up with Zwick's exponential formula and think WOW! must be true. But it aint. These theories in terms of energy end up with an approximation whereby the shift in frequency is dependent on the FINAL frequency and not the starting frequency. The honest answer is a mathematical one. Whenever the increase in something is dependent on how much of that something you have then you get an exponential function ie zwicky's in cosmology. In coronavirus the number of new cases is dependent on how many people have coronavirus so we get the exponential curve. Do we attribute Zwicky to coronavirus?
So I put it to you that none of the alternatives proposed in the OP satisfy the criteria to be serious contenders to the BB. That is why no-one believes you. These theories just don't work.
So why keep repeating them.
Just a thought.
Or is one tired light theory missing?

[LYNDON]

Apart from, that. Unless the original posters return, I think we are done here.
cheers
Lyndon

[celeste]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... mperature/
And http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973ApL....15...27V
Both go in this thread.
The first shows another problem with the Interpretation of redshift as velocity for these quasars. The second eliminates some of the other proposed redshift mechanisms for the quasar cases.

In the first article, note that it is not just the distances and velocities that are huge by the assuming redshift is velocity, but the temperatures too become insane, by the interpretation of the spread in redshift being due to a spread in velocities. In other words, that they get the temperature is high, because the random motion of molecules is high, based on the idea they are seeing Doppler velocities of particles. So t is not just the high overall redshift that is at issue, but the SPREAD in redshift that is the issue.

The second article points to the correlation between higher redshift and lower angular diameter. This at least makes sense in the mainstream model, in that a high redshift implies more distance, and therefore we should see smaller angular sizes for higher redshift objects, given similar overall sizes for these objects. In this case, the observations of Halton Arp are important (not his theory though), In that he shows quasars clearly ejected as jets from parent galaxies. The important point here, is these jets have shock fronts (charge separation), yet recombination occurs as the fronts expand. Therefore in theories like Ari’s (where free electrons density is important for redshift), we have again at least the correct correlation of larger angular diameter is lower redshift. The objection to Ari’s work by Higgsy duly noted.

The two articles together point a way out,WITHOUT requiring the problematic high temperatures.

But if you didn’t get all that, note that if you are open to considering the idea of redshift not being purely due to velocity of distant large objects, you should ALSO be willing to consider that redshift is not velocity for the individual molecules that make up that object, and this is significant in measures of temperature.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... mperature/
And http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973ApL....15...27V
Both go in this thread.
The first shows another problem with the Interpretation of redshift as velocity for these quasars. The second eliminates some of the other proposed redshift mechanisms for the quasar cases.

In the first article, note that it is not just the distances and velocities that are huge by the assuming redshift is velocity, but the temperatures too become insane, by the interpretation of the spread in redshift being due to a spread in velocities. In other words, that they get the temperature is high, because the random motion of molecules is high, based on the idea they are seeing Doppler velocities of particles. So t is not just the high overall redshift that is at issue, but the SPREAD in redshift that is the issue.

The second article points to the correlation between higher redshift and lower angular diameter. This at least makes sense in the mainstream model, in that a high redshift implies more distance, and therefore we should see smaller angular sizes for higher redshift objects, given similar overall sizes for these objects. In this case, the observations of Halton Arp are important (not his theory though), In that he shows quasars clearly ejected as jets from parent galaxies. The important point here, is these jets have shock fronts (charge separation), yet recombination occurs as the fronts expand. Therefore in theories like Ari’s (where free electrons density is important for redshift), we have again at least the correct correlation of larger angular diameter is lower redshift. The objection to Ari’s work by Higgsy duly noted.

The two articles together point a way out,WITHOUT requiring the problematic high temperatures.

But if you didn’t get all that, note that if you are open to considering the idea of redshift not being purely due to velocity of distant large objects, you should ALSO be willing to consider that redshift is not velocity for the individual molecules that make up that object, and this is significant in measures of temperature.

Thanks again for great thought provoking papers.

Perusing through the first article, it does seem more likely that the quasars in question are actually closer than they appear to be in the LCDM model, and they aren't as bright nor as hot as they appear to be in the LCDM framework. I think it's highly unlikely that redshift is actually related to expansion.

[LYNDON]

OK, lets go for a ban here.
Let's talk about the Lyman Apha Forest.When you look at the spectrum of light from a very distant, I repeat, very distant quasars they are contaminated by dark absorption lines from every hydrogen cloud the light passes through.
The redshift of these Lyman alpha lines goes almost to the measured quasars redshift itself.
Yes there is always a gap as the stuff around a quasar is ionised and could/probably lead to an intrinsic redshift but nothing close to the whole thing,
QUESTION
If the redshift of quasars is intrinsic then how does a quasar fiddle the results to include a history of Lyman Alpha Lines that show it is a long way away?
Just a thought
Cheers
Lyndon

[celeste]

OK, lets go for a ban here.
Let's talk about the Lyman Apha Forest.When you look at the spectrum of light from a very distant, I repeat, very distant quasars they are contaminated by dark absorption lines from every hydrogen cloud the light passes through.
The redshift of these Lyman alpha lines goes almost to the measured quasars redshift itself.
Yes there is always a gap as the stuff around a quasar is ionised and could/probably lead to an intrinsic redshift but nothing close to the whole thing,
QUESTION
If the redshift of quasars is intrinsic then how does a quasar fiddle the results to include a history of Lyman Alpha Lines that show it is a long way away?
Just a thought
Cheers
Lyndon

Well, if you could show me a spread of Lyman Alpha lines on along a quasar sight line, that go from zero to quasar redshift, with a nice uniform distribution of redshifts, averaging half the quasars recessional velocity, I’d say that would be a compelling case that we live in an expanding universe with that hydrogen equally dispersed along the sight line. Of course, those observations, if they existed, would singly destroy the idea of an evolving Big Bang universe, with changing amounts of neutral hydrogen over time. The key observation even now used to calculate the fractional ionization? The amount of neutral hydrogen we see at each redshift doesn’t fit the distribution I first described for a uniformly expanding universe. You see the circular reasoning though, if we are free to tweek the amount of hydrogen we expect to see at any redshift, and then come back and say it matches what we should see if the Lyman Alpha is coming from all the intervening hydrogen between us and the quasar.

[celeste]

I’m hoping everyone else gets the simplicity of my last argument.

Basically, back in 1965 already, we realized if quasars were as far away as they appeared, we should have enough neutral hydrogen between us and the quasar, to totally absorb at Lyman Alpha frequency. Even for objects of the relatively low redshift of z~3. Yet their is no evidence of that amount of neutral hydrogen. Had we all been aware of Arp’s other observations, we would have viewed this as just more evidence that the high redshift objects were not so distant. Instead, we insisted on the redshift equals distance idea, and decided that when we look at far away objects, we look back in time to when the hydrogen wasn’t there. (It was ionized). This works. But then we can’t come back and argue that the “Lyman Alpha forest” shows evidence of going out to the quasars distance. It doesn’t. We’ve made it match what we believe is the distance, by taking out the hydrogen at large distances. That’s wrong.

[JP Michael]

A thought I had two days ago while watching one of our many beautiful Sydney winter sunsets from my balcony.

Every single day every single one of us experiences a redshift phenomenon. Sunset. As the setting sun's light begins to be filtered by pollen, dander, dust, smoke and other particulate close to the surface of the earth, solely from the observer's point of view, the sun's blue spectrum light is partially absorbed and the rest apparently 'shifted' towards the red spectrum to create the spectacular orange, pinks, peach and reds of earth's daily sunset. This has nothing to do with the distance of earth from our star or hypothetical expansion of the universe; rather it has everything to do with the medium through which the light is passing to reach our detectors (in this case, the human eyeball). This happens daily, meaning the process is common and not extraordinary.

How much more, therefore, is it possible for light travelling from intergalactic space to be redshifted by unknown (and unknowable?) absorptive intergalactic or galactic mediums before it reaches the far more impressive detectors built by NASA, without requiring expansion or movement at either end?

Cheers,
JP.

[antosarai]

A thought I had two days ago while watching one of our many beautiful Sydney winter sunsets from my balcony.

Every single day every single one of us experiences a redshift phenomenon. Sunset.

Are not the red colors at sunset and sunrise due to a thicker atmosphere scattering? No redshift whatsoever?...

[JP Michael]

thicker atmosphere scattering

Or could these just be scientific weasel words for the same phenomenon?

The light is still passing through a medium changing relative to the detector; blue spectrum visible light is being partially absorbed by near-surface charged particulate, shifting the sunset light partially towards red. This redshift is observed by billions of visible light detectors (human eyes) daily. No change in distance or expanding universe required.

Happy enough to be wrong, but if we experience visible spectrum redshift every day at sunrise and sunset, it serves as definitive proof that it doesnt mean a changing measure of distance, merely changing detector persepective and medium of light passage to that detector, and equally applicable to non-visible light spectrums observed by more complicated deep space radio detectors.

Cheers,
JP

[jacmac]

JP Michael

Or could these just be scientific weasel words for the same phenomenon?

I agree with antosarai on this.
The term "redshift" in astronomy refers to the position of spectral lines of particular elements found to be not in their normal position but "shifted" toward the red end of the spectrum, or also possibly "shifted" toward the blue end of the visible light spectrum.
"Redshif"t does not refer to the changing of the visible color of light as it passes through more of earths atmosphere at sunset. it is a different phenomenon.
Jack