CMBR as Evidence

[Mike C]

The CMBR is portrayed as a 'clincher' evidence in SUPPORT of the BB.

Using their own data, I can show that this is ludicrous.

 

The CMBR is supposed to be at a redshift of 1000 from the time of its origin to our current period in time. That is over a time period of 14x10^9 years.

The BBU is expanding at a 'uniform' rate.

 

So if we take this age and 'divide' it by 1000, we get a redshift of one for every 14x10^6 years.

Transforming this age into light years and applying it to the Virgo Cluster distance of 54x10^6 light years. we get a redshift of 3 (54x10^6/14x10^6).

 

Yet we know that the current redshift for that cluster is in the range of

.0035 to .004. This is just a PARTIAL redshift.

 

Any comments?

 

NS

[Boerseun]

Yet we know that the current redshift for that cluster is in the range of

.0035 to .004. This is just a PARTIAL redshift.

 

Any comments?

 

NS

Yes. What's a 'PARTIAL' redshift?

 

Any shift in wavelength for a receding object would be termed 'redshifted' because it will shift visible light towards the red end of the spectrum. It's simply an easy word to remember, but is not only limited to visible light. Radiowaves, microwaves, each and every frequency is shifted towards the side of the electromagnetic spectrum with longer wavelenths (for redecing objects. It's the other way around for approaching objects - very much Doppler-like), which happens to be towards the red side for the visible spectrum. But even you would appear redshifted to someone you're walking towards, if he had sensitive enough equipment. That's how the police pull you over for speeding. Every conceivable object is completely redshifted or blueshifted to any other object, unless they are both static in respect to each other. But nothing can be 'partially' redshifted. You're either redshifted or blueshifted. If you're not, then you're static with respect to the observer.

[Mike C]

Boerseun

 

A partial redshift is when the shift does not exceed one wavelength.

 

Lets take red light, for example. Its wavelength is 6.56x10^-7 meters long. This would be equal to a redshift of 'one' for red light. When a redshift is given as a percentage of a wavelength, it has to be divided into 'one' to determine the portion (1/4, 1/2, 100th, etc).

 

NS

 

.

[InfiniteNow]

Boerseun

 

A partial redshift is when the shift does not exceed one wavelength.

Now you're just making stuff up. :xparty: The core of the redshift concept is the shift itself, hence any movement toward the red would be a shift... a redshift.

 

What is "one wavelength?" That's pretty ridiculous as a comparison point, since it is a dynamic variable... Length. It'd be like telling someone to measure against one volume. Huh?

 

 

Perhaps you meant to say a change in frequency equal to one wavelength of pure red light?

 

If I'm off base here, let me know. I'd love to read some articles on this concept of "partial redshifts" and measuring against "one wavelength."

 

 

 

I'm blue years old.

I drink water in the amount of purple.

I moved northward one frequency.

The dog scratched it's ear 4 degrees Kelvin.

It's kangaroo in apple, yes?

[sanctus]

definition of redshift:

[math]z \equiv \frac{\lambda_{obs}-\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{emit}}[/math]

 

So where can you put partial in there and even if you call what others call redshift a partial redshift, what does that change?

[Qfwfq]

Perhaps he was a bit confusing but I'd say he meant z < 1 by "partial" redshift.

[Mike C]

Now you're just making stuff up. The core of the redshift concept is the shift itself, hence any movement toward the red would be a shift... a redshift.

 

What is "one wavelength?" That's pretty ridiculous as a comparison point, since it is a dynamic variable... Length. It'd be like telling someone to measure against one volume. Huh?

 

 

Perhaps you meant to say a change in frequency equal to one wavelength of pure red light?

 

If I'm off base here, let me know. I'd love to read some articles on this concept of "partial redshifts" and measuring against "one wavelength."

 

 

 

I'm blue years old.

I drink water in the amount of purple.

I moved northward one frequency.

The dog scratched it's ear 4 degrees Kelvin.

It's kangaroo in apple, yes?

 

A redshift is measured by comparing the observed spectrum of an object to the Suns spectrum.

Since the Sun radiates a continuum, the colors blend.

So, IMHO, I believe they use the hydrogen absorption lines to make these measurements or possibly the 'sodium' lines that conform to exact wavelengths.

These can be measured by computer to give exact redshifts.

When an object shows a shift of 'one' wavelength, regarding any line that exhibits that shift, it is a shift of 'one'.

Any fractional shifts are given in percentages IMHO.

 

Of course, I do not buy the 'recessional' velocity of an expanding space that is derived from these percentages.

 

NS

[Mike C]

definition of redshift:

[math]z \equiv \frac{\lambda_{obs}-\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{emit}}[/math]

 

So where can you put partial in there and even if you call what others call redshift a partial redshift, what does that change?

 

The figures I quoted for the Virgo Cluster are given in percentages.

For M87, it is .004. Does that look like 'one' to you? For a large number of galaxies in that cluster, it averaged out to be .0035.

 

NS

[CraigD]

A redshift is measured by comparing the observed spectrum of an object to the Suns spectrum.

Since the Sun radiates a continuum, the colors blend.

So, IMHO, I believe they use the hydrogen absorption lines to make these measurements or possibly the 'sodium' lines that conform to exact wavelengths.

These can be measured by computer to give exact redshifts.

This is essentially correct – as the emission spectrum of a star is a fairly smooth continuum, the discrete absorption lines of other elements are better to use in measuring its red/blue shift. Modern astronomical spectroscopy identifies thousands of absorption lines, while the earliest published scientific papers, ca. 1817, mention 10 lines resulting from 6 molecules, O2, H, Na, Ca, Fe, and CH.

 

The spectral shift of stars were first systematically measured in the mid 19th century, long before the availability of computers. The “old fashioned” technique involved comparing the emission lines of known sources, such as sodium vapor lamp, to those of a star being viewed. By the mid 19th century, this was done mostly using photographic plates. In its early days, it was done by hand, marking a piece of target paper with a fine pen. In both cases, shift is measured using high precision mechanical measuring devices – rulers.

When an object shows a shift of 'one' wavelength, regarding any line that exhibits that shift, it is a shift of 'one'.

Any fractional shifts are given in percentages IMHO.

I interned in an observatory (:)), but never heard the term “fractional redshift”, and can’t see any significance or utility to such a term for ordinary measurments.

 

(An internet search reveals the term "fractional redshift" use in papers such as this one, in which it refers to a very small effect where photons lose energy via absorption and reemission by free electrons in a plasma in a magnetic field, such as the star’s corona)

 

The usual measure of spectral shift - redshift or blueshift - is called “z”.

[math]z = \frac{\mbox{Frequency}_{\mbox{observed}}}{\mbox{Frequency}_{\mbox{emitted}}} -1 = \frac{\mbox{Wavelength}_{\mbox{emitted}}}{\mbox{Wavelength}_{\mbox{observed}}} -1[/math]

If [math]z \gt 0[/math], it is called redshift. If [math]z \lt 0[/math], it is called blueshift. If [math]z=0[/math], no spectral shift has been measured. [math]-1 \lt z \lt \infty[/math], that is, z must be greater than -1, and has no upper limit.

 

It’s also common to describe redshift by the velocity required to produce the observed redshift. For example, we observe an average redshift of the stars in our neighboring Andromeda galaxy of about [math]z=.001[/math], but usually state it as -300000 m/s

 

So a redshift of [math]z=1[/math] indicates a doubling of the wavelength of the observed photon vs. its emitted wavelength, which is equivalent to a half-ing of its frequency. There’s nothing particularly special about integer redshifts, other than that they are unusually high. Typical [math]z[/math]s for objects like rapidly orbiting binary stars, planets, or stars orbiting galactic centers are [math]-.001 \lt x \lt .001[/math]. The greatest stellar redshift observed to date is [math]z=7[/math], or tentatively, [math]z=10[/math].

 

The cosmological redshift of the first light predicted by the Big Bang model to have been emitted is much higher: [math]z=1089[/math], suggesting that the peak frequency of that light was 1090 times the current observed peak frequency of 160 GHz for the CMBR. This redshift is not explained as being due to the source of the CMBR receding from the observer at a high velocity, and is not measured by comparing absorption lines in its spectrum. It is explained as being due to the expansion of space, a much more complicated (and less directly observable) phenomenon.

[CraigD]

The figures I quoted for the Virgo Cluster are given in percentages.

For M87, it is .004. Does that look like 'one' to you? For a large number of galaxies in that cluster, it averaged out to be .0035.

A redshift of [math]z=.004[/math] is consistent with observations of a fairly nearby galaxy.

 

Note that “.004” is a pure number, not a percentage. As a percentage (a common way that numbers used to represent ratios are written) it would be written “0.4%”. More often than not, I think, mathematicians and scientists avoid the use of percentages, other than in casual conversation.

 

Because it is small, one can use this redshift to approximate the velocity of the object being observed as [math] .004 c \dot= 1200000 \, \mbox{m/s}[/math]. The published value for M87 is 1307000 ± 7000 m/s, equating to a redshift of about [math]z=.0043567[/math].

[Mike C]

Craig

 

0.4% is the same as .004 as a fraction.

 

Percentage is understood to be a part of 100.

 

0.4/100=.004.

 

Anyway, terms that I use may be new such as partial redshift or fractional that may have the same meaning.

 

How would you define a redshift that is less than one in words?

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Anyway, terms that I use may be new such as partial redshift or fractional that may have the same meaning.

That's fine, but if you're making it up, you may need to spend more time explaining the concept to those of us who are not you.

 

How would you define a redshift that is less than one in words?

Less than ONE what? Do you mean when measuring redshifts and your value of z is smaller than 1? If so, I just said it in words.

 

I'm trying to find middle ground here. Maybe you will be good enough to walk towards me as well.

 

Can you explain the utility of expressing redshifts as fractions (but, I ask again, fractions of what?)... It has been pointed out that this is not common practice, as it tends to lead to errors by introducing an extraneous phase shift of the decimal itself (would that be a decimal redshift or blueshift??? B)). It's an extra calculation that provides no use (that I can tell).

 

If the value is 0.004, why not state that this is your value? When someone asks your age, you don't tell them that you are (let's say you're 40) 4000 percent. You say you're 40. What's the utiltiy of doing this?

 

I suppose it's okay if you absolutely decide this is how you will express your terms, but first you have to at least tell us "percentage of" what. Right now, you're saying percentage of 100.

 

Anyway, why do it this way? It's confusing, and I cannot see how it adds value (but, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain)

 

 

As a side note, I find humor in the fact that, instead of addressing the questions and responses directed at you, you decided to explain to Craig how to calculate a percentage. That did bring a great big shiney smile to my lips ole chap. Thanks. B)

 

 

"Wait... so I have to divide by 100 to get the original value again? I'm confused." B)

[Mike C]

Infinite

 

Maybe my choice of words was uncalled for when I used the word 'percentage' in the same way that implies a fraction.

Percentage is a fraction of 100 while the corect word is 'fraction' that is a 'part' of one. OK?

 

The observed fractional redshifts are a part of wavelengths as compared to the 'solar' spectrum as the 'one' that is being compared to. Which wavelengths in the solar spectrum that are used to represent 'one' is the question, but I am sure the experts know what they are doing in making these comparitive measurements.

 

NS

[Boerseun]

Okay. I'm still not completely with you in what you mean with a 'partial' redshift, but nonetheless.

 

When light travels through any medium that contains tiny particles, like a whole lot of atmosphere at sunset, the blue part of it gets scattered first due to the shorter wavelength. The sunlight that reaches your eyeball at sunset looks much redder than at noon, when it's a bright yellow, almost white, because it then travels through a much thinner medium towards you.

 

People have tried to argue that the observed redshift for galaxies is due to the same effect - there is just so much atomic particles in space, say, ten or fifteen per cubic meter, which stacks up when you're looking through millions of light-years' worth of the stuff. This will then make the light reaching us from a distant galaxy appear 'redder' than it should be.

 

Unfortunately, this is not the case. It might indeed look 'redder', but under 'redshift', we understand that the signature frequencies of the constituent elements gets shifted towards the longer end of the spectrum. For instance, if you do a spectroscopic analysis of the sun at noon (yellow) you'll get the exact same signature as at sunset (red). All that happens, is that the blue light gets scattered. This would also be true if that was the case with galaxies, but it isn't. The only way that such a wholesale frequency shift can happen, is if the emitting body is receding from the observer. Hence the Hubble Flow, whereby distant galaxies are uniformly redshifted away from Earth, and in all directions.

 

But this also means that if every observed distant galaxy is receding from Earth, that we have a priviledged spot in the Universe? In other words, if there was a Big Bang, it must have happened here, right? Also, once again, not so. Seeing as the observed redshift is the same for all galaxies at the same distance (more distant galaxies are more redshifted, closer ones less), and we're looking in all directions, it means we're sitting inside a 'sphere' that's expanding away, with us at the center. This is true - but only in our frame of reference. If you're sitting on a planet orbiting a star in a galaxy that's receding from Earth at 50% the speed of light, and you look back at Earth, you'll see Earth receding away from you at 50% c. You'll also sit slap bang in the middle of a perfect sphere where the whole universe is uniformly receding away from you.

 

And the only way to reconcile all these bits of trivia, is the following:

 

1) The only way to account for the wholesale frequency shift (not simply deletion of higher frequency light) is that the emitter is receding from the observer.

2) This is happening uniformly and in all directions.

3) If we play history backwards, then all galaxies would be uniformly approaching one another.

4) If they are approaching one another, then its inevitable that they must meet (with time flowing backwards)

5) If they meet, we have a central point of origin, from whence all observable matter must have sprung.

6) We handily call this, the inevitable result of logic, the "Big Bang". And we reach this conclusion, because there is no other mechanism known to science that can account for the frequency shift we're observing.

 

But don't despair. The mere fact that there's no known mechanism, doesn't mean that there is no mechanism. For all we know, some bright feller discovers it tomorrow. But up to this point, there is no other explanation for the Hubble Flow.

[Mike C]

Boerseun

 

What you have explained above is the standard BB theory that I already know.

 

However, you ignore the fact that the Doppler science has been replaced by the Lemaitrae 'expansion of space (EoS) and the universe'.

 

Lemaitraes idea is based on the Doppler interpretation that was refuted and replaced by his idea. So this EoS is then used as the cause of the cosmological redshift CR).

 

BUT, the M-M interferometer experiments have shown that space has no influence on the light waves.

To add further refuring evidence to the idea of space as the cause of the CS,

are the Arp Redshift Anomalies.

 

So my idea for the Expansion of the Light Waves (EoLW) is valid and adaquately explained in my article 'Creation of Photons'.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

BUT, the M-M interferometer experiments have shown that space has no influence on the light waves.

Since when does space have no influence on light? Is it possible you meant speed of light?

 

 

Further, the Michelson-Morley experiments showed that:

The only possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments was that the whole concept of an all-pervading aether was wrong from the start.

[Mike C]

Since when does space have no influence on light? Is it possible you meant speed of light?

 

Further, the Michelson-Morley experiments showed that:

The only possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments was that the whole concept of an all-pervading aether was wrong from the start.

 

That latter quote answers your first question.

Since the aether permeated all of space, it was assumed that space was expanding the light waves.

Therefore, the influence of the Earths motion throughout its orbit should have

shown some changes in the light waves.None were detected.

Reason? The 'electric fields' that transmit the light pulses that surround the light emitters, moved with the experiment.

 

NS

 

.