Re: lay opinion
- From: "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:34:10 +0100
<amazing@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:so19915cr15dp6tr8eahgb1kt7100kibap@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:56:19 +0200, amazing@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>
> By the way, I am considering asking to start alt.cosmology? Tell me
> yes or no whether there is any interest in cosmology here, or does the
> response of total silence so far to my initial posting indicate the
> degree of interest?
Your initial post hasn't appeared on either of
the two servers I use though your follow-up has
appeared on both.
> P.S. In this context, supposing that the red-shifted light reaches
> 'zero' in bodies retreating at the speed of light, and then becomes an
> 'inverse wave', it should then become 'normal' again from galaxies
> retreating at twice the speed of light, and then be increasingly
> 'blue-shifted'. - Shouldn't it?
No, first the energy goes to zero for a source
receding at the speed of light and beyond that
the light never reaches us.
Second, we can only see back to a time about
300,000 years after the universe started. Before
that the hydrogen/helium mix was sufficiently
hot and dense that it was opaque. The temperature
was around 3000K or roughly half the temperature
of the surface of the Sun. The red shift is about
1090 so we detect it now at about 2.7K as microwaves.
Look up "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" or
CMBR on Google.
George
.
- References:
- Re: lay opinion
- From: amazing
- Re: lay opinion
- Prev by Date: Re: lay opinion
- Next by Date: Re: kookdancers digest
- Previous by thread: Re: lay opinion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|