- #1
wj
- 16
- 0
Are there other ways to explain redshift than an expanding universe?
Originally posted by wj
Are there other ways to explain redshift than an expanding universe?
By the way, the redshift arises in large part to the ongoing inflation of the universe, which is traced back to the very early universe (i.e. vicinity of first 10^-35 second).
yogi said:There is a minority of thought that does not accept the notion of a big bang event - I can never figure out what prompts such resistance - it must be something to due with the fact that a happenstance created the universe - maybe these folks resent the inuendo that no special act of creation is involved - interestingly, the first person to suggest the abrupt beginning was a priest -
I think it was Asimov that said: "There is no idea, however foolish, that will find adherents who will defend it to the death."
Would you care to share some of that evidence with us LURCH?LURCH said:(with Nereid emphasis) Not at all. The BB model has plenty of holes in it, and anyone serious about learning the truth should be sceptical of such unsupported claims. The reasoning you give (about resenting the possibilties suggested by a certain model) apply just as well to those who continue to cling to the BB model inspite of observational evidence to the contrary.
But claiming a psychological motive to everyone who's view differs from our own is no way to find the truth. Clinging to BB ideas because of tradition or rejecting them to oppose tradition are equally unsupportable positions. This case must be decided on evidence, not sentiment. And right now, evidence seems, IMHO, to oppose the BB. For those of us who belong to this "minority of thought", this position will not change until and unless further evidence can be discovered.
The only proponents of the silly "tired light" notion I'm aware of are creationists. (To "explain" how we are able to see light from things further than 6,000 light years away -- Light used to be faster.)LURCH said:There is the "tired light" theory. It proposes that light waves slowly flatten out as they travel. This would result in spectrums shifted further and furthuer toward the red as the light gets older.
Not the least of which is it isn't a scientific theory.This theory has a lot of problems, though.
Also, the only person who was seriously pushing this (I don't recall the name) has apparently got some very serious problems with his data and analyses.DrMatrix said:LURCH: There is the "tired light" theory. It proposes that light waves slowly flatten out as they travel. This would result in spectrums shifted further and furthuer toward the red as the light gets older.
DrMatrix: The only proponents of the silly "tired light" notion I'm aware of are creationists. (To "explain" how we are able to see light from things further than 6,000 light years away -- Light used to be faster.)
LURCH: This theory has a lot of problems, though.
DrMatrix: Not the least of which is it isn't a scientific theory.
meteor didn't mention some other claims in this paper, for example:meteor said:There's also a new theory called Plasma redshift , that claims that cosmological redshift is due to an strange interaction of the photons with plasma that they find through its voyage through space. Plasma redshift was proposed in this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420
jcsd said:The key thing is not just explaining the redshift, but the CMBR too, particularly it's isotropy. There are a number of theories that try to offer alternatives none are really satisfactory.
Dr.- Chinese I'm not sure what you mean by: (quote omitted)
The inflation era started at about 10^-35 secs but it ended before the first second, which is hundreds of thousands of years before the earliest em radiation currently observed (technically the CMBR) was emitted and therefore it can account for none of the redshift. That said the word 'inflation' in astronmy, though almost universally is used to refer to the early period of exponentially accelerating expansion in the universe, actually just means 'accelerating expansion' and current observations suggest that the universe could currently be expanding at an accelrating rate.
kurious said:"we don't have anything but speculation."
Richard feynman said that particle physics is so imprecise that the average man on the street has as much chance of getting the mass of the next particle to be discovered in an accelerator right.He also said that he thought
that his lectures were his greatest legacy to science.Doesn't sound as though he had much faith in his quantum field theory!
yogi said:Actually Alan Guth has advanced the same hypothesis - the thing that is troubling about the traditional "inflationary model" is that there must be something that turns it on and off. That always bothers me.
wj said:One anti Big Bang site suggested that light might be interacting with clouds of molecular hydrogen and that this interaction might explain redshift.
Would clouds of interstellar molecular hydrogen explain redshift?
Would the interaction be refraction?
While I know how refraction works, I do not understand WHY it occurs.
Some alternative theories to the Big Bang include the Steady State theory, the Multiverse theory, and the Oscillating theory.
The Steady State theory proposes that the universe has always existed and is continuously expanding, whereas the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe originated from a single point and has been expanding since then.
There is currently no concrete evidence for the Multiverse theory, but it is a popular hypothesis among scientists due to its potential to explain the fine-tuning of the universe and the existence of multiple universes.
The Oscillating theory suggests that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, but it is not widely accepted as it does not fully explain the observed expansion of the universe.
The Big Bang theory proposes that all matter and energy in the universe originated from a singularity, a single point of infinite density and temperature, during the initial expansion of the universe.