Age of Universe - Is time the same today as at the beginning

[lindagarrette]

[

 

 

You missed the point. We (or at least I) do not insist on it moving or flowing as an OBJECT, but as a consequence of the physical properties of our universe. What time is, and how it passes, is a complete mystery.

 

Time isn't so mysterious. It is siimply a means of measuring a sequence of events. What else?

[BlameTheEx]

How's this for a possibility?

 

Time speeds up as it progresses, so past events are time dilated relative to now. This would be one explanation for the Hubbell constant. Light from distant galaxies is, in effect, red shifted because it was emitted in the past.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

How's this for a possibility?

 

Time speeds up as it progresses, so past events are time dilated relative to now.

Someone, Tormod I think, covered this earlier. "Faster" or "slower" is relative. To the best of our knowlege atomic decay ahs always been constant. Half Lives have always been the same for the same element. If we establish "one second" as x number of particles released from a given element, the time has been constant. What other OUTSIDE refence would you choose to show that "Time speeds up as it progresses".

This would be one explanation for the Hubbell constant.

It is not an explanation for anything until you can resolve the reference problem.

Light from distant galaxies is, in effect, red shifted because it was emitted in the past.

Dopler is so well established and provable. You have not even given a reason to accept "time" as changing. Start at square one before jumping to square 3.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

Your post here is reasonably short and polite, so I will reply.

 

I would be the first to agree that my last post would be a longshot, however it DOES explain the reference problem. I am referring an event in the past (when the light was emitted) with the present (when the light was received).

 

Their is no way of determining a speeding up of time unless you can find something that doesn't speed up with it, as I am sure Tormod would agree. Atomic decay for instance would not appear to change if it speeded up at the same rate as time. The question to be asked is whether their is something that remains constant.

 

Given that photons emitted far in the past are apparently red shifted, they make a good candidate. If the frequency of these photons are in fact constant, distant galaxies are not in truth travelling away from us, and time is speeding up, we would get the correct effect. Those distant galaxies would be time dilated, because we are seeing them as they were in the distant past when, relative to now, time was dilated.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

Your post here is reasonably short and polite, so I will reply.

How kind :-)

I would be the first to agree that my last post would be a longshot, however it DOES explain the reference problem. I am referring an event in the past (when the light was emitted) with the present (when the light was received).

What you seem to be saying is that each and every photon would have a different reference "speed" based on it's specific release "time" A photon released say 5 billion years ago would be "slower" than one released today. Thus when a spanking fresh photon is compared to a oldly goldy, the Oldy Goldy would have what we claim is a "red shift".

Their is no way of determining a speeding up of time unless you can find something that doesn't speed up with it, as I am sure Tormod would agree. Atomic decay for instance would not appear to change if it speeded up at the same rate as time. The question to be asked is whether their is something that remains constant.

Again, like in Realestate "Reference, Reference, Reference".

Given that photons emitted far in the past are apparently red shifted,

OK, here is where it really falls apart. "Photons" are NOT red shifted. That assumes that a photon has an inherent "color". It has a matrix in which information is stored. Energy level. You are suggesting that the amount of energy transfered to the photon during it's release is unique to each and every photon based n when it was released. Thus one released yesterday would have a different energy matrix than todays.

 

Now here is another spot this becomes a problem. The spped of light is given in a vacuum. That is because it is that photon passing thru the distance. However the speed of light is slower thru solids, such as glass. That is because it is not the same phton coming out that is going in. The original photon is absorbed by a glass molecule and it the emits one out the other way. Thus the original photon is now part of the first molecule it hits and the photon that comes out of the other side of the glass only carries it's matrix, info, energy level. But it would be a spanking fresh photon, not an oldy goldy. It would, baed on your model, not have the "red shift" assigned to the unique oldy goldy photon that started the trip oh so long ago.

 

Thus the unique "red shift" assignd to the oldy goldy would be stripped every time it passes thru any mass.

 

Further we find "red shift" info not just from source generation, such as a star, but thru filtering done by gasses. "Red shift" markers can be developed by wide spectrum sources being filtered by gasses.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

You quote me:

 

"Given that photons emitted far in the past are apparently red shifted"

 

and reply with:

 

"OK, here is where it really falls apart. "Photons" are NOT red shifted."

 

Oh dear. You ignored the word "apparently". Photons are indeed not red shifted, they just APPEAR to be. Had you taken the sentence you quoted in context with my next you would have realised your mistake. As a reminder it started "If the frequency of these photons are in fact constant"

 

The photons don't change. The cause of the red shift is a difference between source and destination. The usual assumption is that the difference is one of velocity. I just postulated another (admittedly less plausible) difference as the cause.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Oh dear. You ignored the word "apparently". Photons are indeed not red shifted, they just APPEAR to be.

Amazing. Out of my entire post, you only react to which definition I apply to one minor word? In fact WWWebster shows "apparent" to be correct in either application, either "clear or manifest to the understanding" or "manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid". Perhaps you should choose less ambiguous words when you want specific meanings communicated. If you wanted "just APPEAR to be", why not SAY it?

"Given that photons emitted far in the past are clearly red shifted"

"Given that photons emitted far in the past just APPEAR to be red shifted"

It is examples such as this that promoted the concept of "Critical Thinking" to be described as a method for COMMUNICATING things correctly. It seems BlameTheEx wants to BlameTheMe instead of BlameTheSelf for inaccurately communicating.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Oh dear. You ignored the word "apparently". Photons are indeed not red shifted, they just APPEAR to be. Had you taken the sentence you quoted in context with my next you would have realised your mistake. As a reminder it started "If the frequency of these photons are in fact constant"

And further, of all the various issues I covered in my reply, the only thing you respond to is based on your usage of ambigous wording?

 

What about all of the other issues I identify? What about the replacement of the oldy goldy photon with a spanking fresh one that would not have the oldy goldy's red shift if it was based on a time varying physical law providing a unique matrix to each photon?

The photons don't change. The cause of the red shift is a difference between source and destination.

Now I have to wonder about what you MEAN by "difference". Are you going to play the same "that's not what I SAID!" game?

The usual assumption is that the difference is one of velocity.

In a vacuum, all photons move at the speed of light, c,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

A single photon differs from another photon only by its energy. In empty space (vacuum) all photons travel with the same speed or velocity.

http://acept.la.asu.edu/PiN/rdg/photoelectric/photoelectric.shtml

 

Your basis of understanding is flawed.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

<sigh> I am glad you now perceive the last misunderstanding, so on to the next one.

you quote me with:

 

"The usual assumption is that the difference is one of velocity."

 

You fail to put this in context with the sentence immediately before:

 

"The cause of the red shift is a difference between source and destination."

 

The difference I am referring to is the one I clearly state. The difference between source and destination NOT in any way the photons themselves.

 

As a word of general advice, I would point out that almost any sentence, taken on its own, can be considered ambiguous. If you take sentences in context with the rest of the text, the problem often goes away.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

<sigh> I am glad you now perceive the last misunderstanding, so on to the next one.

*I* PERCEIVE which misunderstanding? The one you created by using an ambiguous word?

 

you quote me with:

 

"The usual assumption is that the difference is one of velocity."

 

You fail to put this in context with the sentence immediately before:

 

"The cause of the red shift is a difference between source and destination."

It is not my intent to quote your entire message. I provide enough detail to convey the message and allow anyone intrested to find the original. The lead in sentice makes no difference. You assert simply that the difference between one proton and another (relative red shift) is usually assumed to be velocity. That is WRONG!

The difference I am referring to is the one I clearly state. The difference between source and destination NOT in any way the photons themselves.

What yoiu keep saying is an old photon, one with a "red shift" is from a time when "light/ time was faster". Thus each photon would be given this information upon it's release. The "source" as used in your posts can only logically be the "source of the photon". What other source has any value to the discussion? And the "destination" must be the device that detects the photon. Nothing else has relevance to the discussion.

 

We can't SEE a photon from the side. The SOURCE of anything else means nothing to us. Any other destination means nothing to us.

 

So what you REQUIRE is that each and every photon has different properties based on SPECIALly where and when they were released. This photon, more red shifted, higher initial velocity, than that one.

As a word of general advice, I would point out that almost any sentence, taken on its own, can be considered ambiguous. If you take sentences in context with the rest of the text, the problem often goes away.

 

Ya it's my fault YOU used an ambiguous word and it was not understood the way you WISHED it had been! Accurate communications is not the responsibility f the source of the information, but the destination.

 

Oh and not that source and destination, the other one!

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

 

"Ya it's my fault YOU used an ambiguous word and it was not understood the way you WISHED it had been! Accurate communications is not the responsibility f the source of the information, but the destination."

 

Try rereading that last sentence. Are you accusing yourself (as the destination) of failure of responsibility, or have you just failed (as the source of that sentence) to communicate accurately?

 

Your latest attempt to assess what I have said is further away than ever. Indeed, now I am having trouble understanding you. If I am reading you correctly, you are denying that the observed red shift of light from distant galaxies could be caused by the (relative to the observer) velocity of those galaxies. I would assume that I am mistaken, but then, that would make YOU out as failing as a source! Or is it my fault as a destination? This does get complicated.

 

I have done my best. Why don't you just give up and ignore me? Terribly sorry and all that.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

"Ya it's my fault YOU used an ambiguous word and it was not understood the way you WISHED it had been! Accurate communications is not the responsibility f the source of the information, but the destination."

 

Try rereading that last sentence. Are you Are you accusing yourself (as the destination) of failure of responsibilityof responsibility, or have you just failed (as the source of that sentence) to communicate accurately?

Actually you are correct, I WAS, as a matter of irony established in the first sentence, "accusing (myself) (as the destination) of failure". Therefore I did NOT "fail() (as the source of that sentence) to communicate accurately". Thus even if we remove the contextual intent of irony indicated by the first sentence, the 2nd sentence effectively communicated the desired intent. That is a perfect example of how Critical Thinking works. Now that you have seen HOW to effectively communicate information...

Your latest attempt to assess what I have said is further away than ever.

Then learn how to utilize CT and you will not keep having problems making "assess (of) what (you) have said".

Indeed, now I am having trouble understanding you.

Actually you just PROVED that you understand my intent PERFECTLY!

 

Now COMPREHENSION is a whole other thing!

 

If needed we can take this step by step.

 

But the reality is that you are trying to claim each and every photon would have it's own timespace reference speed/ velocity/ frequency/ .... based on it's unique whenwhere release in timespace.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

Irony! Oh. I remember. You have described your sarcasm that way before. Perhaps you could just stick to plain communication? Frankly that is hard enough, without you saying the opposite of what you mean.

 

So you ARE denying that the observed red shift of light from distant galaxies could be caused by the (relative to the observer) velocity of those galaxies! I must say I am surprised. Normally you tend to hold to the established theories.

 

Heres the evidence:

 

1) Light form distant Galaxies is, with a few exceptions, observed as redder that local ones of the same type. This red shift can be measured with accuracy by observing spectral lines, but there is no question other than that all of the light is red shifted.

 

2) This effect is EXACTLY what we would see if those distant galaxies were time dilated. I know of no theory that doesn't make the assumption that they are indeed, in effect, time dilated. I would gladly hear of any you might propose.

 

3) By far the most obvious (Although I maintain not necessarily the correct) explanation for this time dilation is that those galaxies are moving away from us. This is the basis of the Big Bang theory. The lorentz transform describes the effect.

 

If you have trouble believing any of the above points, I will happily provide links. Some of my ideas may be a little far fetched, but these are not mine. They are the established theories on the topic. Still I am puzzled. You were always a supporter of the BB theory which holds these galaxies as travelling away from us. The lorentz transform shows that any object travelling away from us is, in effect, time dilated, and I am having difficulty believing you don't know it, or don't believe it.

 

Could it be that you have been supporting the BB theory because most others do, without ever trying to understand it?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

So you ARE denying that the observed red shift of light from distant galaxies could be caused by the (relative to the observer) velocity of those galaxies! I must say I am surprised. Normally you tend to hold to the established theories.

Noce trick. To bad it doesn't work.

 

I have NEVER asserted that red shift is because of relative velocities of objects. That is the best explanation we have. It is the one in fact that I WAS promoting over the one YOU asserted.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

How's this for a possibility?

 

Time speeds up as it progresses, so past events are time dilated relative to now. This would be one explanation for the Hubbell constant. Light from distant galaxies is, in effect, red shifted because it was <u>emitted in the past</u>.

YOU are the one that made the unsubstantiated assertion of red shift being ANYTHING other than relative velocities.

 

Try to keep your own assertions straight. If you want to change from one to another have the honesty to admit you are and don't try to BlameTheSomeoneElse.

 

Your name really does say a lot about you.

 

But you fail at even explaing the CORRECT theory.

Heres the evidence:

 

1) Light form distant Galaxies is, with a few exceptions, observed as redder that local ones of the same type.

This is FALSE. The spectral distribution of energy thru the "light" spectrum is smooth. We would not notice a shift and had not when basing the measurments on the COLOR of "Light form distant Galaxies". FACT "Light form distant Galaxies" is NOT "redder that (sic) local ones of the same type"

This red shift can be measured with accuracy by observing spectral lines, but there is no question other than that all of the light is red shifted.

Without using spectral lines, show us PROOF of this claim.

Could it be that you have been supporting the BB theory because most others do, without ever trying to understand it?

Could it be that you, as we keep seeing, obviously don't know what the BB is?

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

"Without using spectral lines, show us PROOF of this claim."

 

Now that is going to be hard. Starlight, and thus light from galaxies is ALL spectral lines. Remove the lines from the argument, and you have nothing left.

 

The surface of most stars (most in terms of light output. I can't answer for stars with little or no light output) is composed of very hot gas. The gas is too hot to from chemical bonds, so we are talking of individual atoms here. Those atoms can only emit photons by changes in the orbits of their electrons. Electrons only orbit at fixed positions so there are only so many different, and very fixed, quanta of energy that can be emitted be a particular atom. In short a free atom emits light only at specific frequencies. The atom emits only at its characteristic spectral lines. Simple molecules, in a gas, have more options for electron orbit change, but they too emit only within fixed spectral lines.

 

It's all spectral lines, and it's all shifted.

 

If you want more evidence other that red shift that distant objects are truly, in effect, time dilated you may care to consider the evidence of supernova. The observed speed of decay of supernova are proportional to their red shift. You can find references here:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD

 

 

This is as far as I am prepared to comment. A search with keywords like "hubble constant", "Big Bang" or "Red shift" will give you lots more references easily enough. I can only conclude your's is a case of "Don't confuse me with the facts. I have already made up my mind".

 

Ps. Please stop playing with my given name, unless you want me to start calling you FeebleThinker, or something similarly appropriate. You would certainly deserve it for comments like: "YOU are the one that made the unsubstantiated assertion of red shift being ANYTHING other than relative velocities.", which you justified by this quote:

 

 

"How's this for a possibility?

 

 

Time speeds up as it progresses, so past events are time dilated relative to now. This would be one explanation for the Hubbell constant. Light from distant galaxies is, in effect, red shifted because it was emitted in the past."

 

That was a very feeble attempt to confuse the issue. It's feeble because anybody reading what I said will realise I have not ASSERTED any such thing. I have just offered it as ONE EXPLANATION. But then, you didn't feel like putting that bit in bold and underline, did you? Nor the "How's this for a possibility?" bit, which would be clear enough to all but imbeciles. I offered the explanation as a possibility, not an assertion. Moreover the question mark makes clear that I offered this explanation as a topic for debate, rather than one I was asserting to be true.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

"Without using spectral lines, show us PROOF of this claim."

 

Now that is going to be hard. Starlight, and thus light from galaxies is ALL spectral lines.

IOW you CAN'T!

 

I thought not!

[Freethinker]

Now let's put some reality into the discussion.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Starlight, and thus light from galaxies is ALL spectral lines. Remove the lines from the argument, and you have nothing left.

Let's start with a basic and CORRECT understanding of "light". In order to do that, we need to understand what it is and where it comes from.

 

"Light" is an arbitrary and artificial subset of the entire Spectrum of Electromagnetic Radiation. It's definition is based on limitations of human physiology. Our "optical system" can detect only a very limited range of the spectrum. Other parts are used for Radio/ TV/ Satelite/ Microwave/ X-ray/... As such there is no such distinction in the EMS (Electromagnetic Spectrum) as "spectral lines" any more than there is "light". EMS is continuous and contiguous.

 

However various elements and molecules do have resonant frequencies. Specific energy bands within the EMS that they absorb or, when heated sufficiently, emit. This is known as "Black Body Radiation" (BBR).

 

"A black body is a theoretical object that absorbs 100% of the radiation that hits it. Therefore it reflects no radiation and appears perfectly black.

 

In practice no material has been found to absorb all incoming radiation, but carbon in its graphite form absorbs all but about 3%. It is also a perfect emitter of radiation. At a particular temperature the black body would emit the maximum amount of energy possible for that temperature. This value is known as the black body radiation. It would emit at every wavelength of light as it must be able to absorb every wavelength to be sure of absorbing all incoming radiation. The maximum wavelength emitted by a black body radiator is infinite. It also emits a definite amount of energy at each wavelength for a particular temperature, so standard black body radiation curves can be drawn for each temperature, showing the energy radiated at each wavelength. All objects emit radiation above absolute zero. "

http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/bbody.html

 

As indicated above, some elements have a very wide bandwidth of radiation, with graphite consisting of 97%. Others exhibit a much more narrow bandwidth. e.g. Sulphur generates a narrow yellow "light" when sufficiently excited (heated). Mercury is "pink". Thus the selective coloring we see when using Mercury Vapor lights. It is this narrow banded selective coloring we refer to as "Spectral lines" for specific elements and molecules.

 

As carbon is very common in the universe, along with the wide assorment of other elements, most of the photons/ EMS we recieve is fairly wideband "white light". As such it has no particular COLOR! Thus if it is "shifted" by doppler to higher or lower frequencies, the ENTIRE range is EQUALLY shifted.

 

But when we specifically look for the spectral line signature of a few of those narrow banded sources, we can indentify if those specific elements are present or not. e.g. if a specific EMS source has a narrow energy band at specific frequencies, we can assume that element exists at that location. By measuring for specific energy band signatures (over and above the average flat energy spread) we can identify which elements in which percentages are at specific locations.

 

Further if we find a specific signature based on relative frequency distribution and energy levels, but shifted slightly, we can easily determine how far it has shifted and thus the relative speed difference between the source and destination.

Those atoms can only emit photons by changes in the orbits of their electrons.

"orbits of their electrons"? Perhaps if you catch up on the last 100 years of scientific knowledge you would understand the topic.