Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: "rotchm@xxxxxxxxx" <rotchm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Nov 2005 21:14:11 -0800
>> I was under the impression that you were suporting a static universe
>> model where our observed redshifts are due to some other effect than
>> the doppler effect.
>That is correct.
Ok. Thats straightened out.
>The dragonfly still sees redshift as a result of his own motion.
The dragonfly plays the role of the observer here. "His own motion"...?
But have you not assumed that all stars (observers) are static wrt each
other?
Then the fly can not have "motion" wrt any other source or abserver....
>The shoreline
>observer sees no redshift from the waves comin from the nearby
>fishing float,
ok....And the fishing boat is moving or some source aboard the boat is
making ripples in the water so that we can observe the waves...
> but some redshift from a buoy out in the middle of
>the lake which has dispersed it energy around the entire shore.
?
Say, the buoy creates waves (or ripples) near itself at a certain
frequency f. Are you saying that these waves arriving at the shore
(much smaller amplitude waves) have a frequency less than f?
Understand here that I am considering the standart linear wave
equation. For actual water, things are much more complex and strange.
E.g: there are actual waves that do not move at all, they just "sit"
there as a"bump" on the water not travelling at all, much different
from the original solition discovered by
John Scott Russell which keeps it shape (solitary bump) but travels.
>The Universe isn't static in the sense that boats do not cruise on
>the lake, fish do not jump, but like a lake it remains basically
>unchanged, a different fish will jump in a different place
>tomorrow.
? Again, your "static" description... Are you saying that the stars and
observers (us) are at rest wrt each other (or have lowwww velocity) ?
Fish represents a star (source) forming in the universe ?
>In other words if a cork is moved by a ripple, there is a
>circle of ripples around the cork. We can't see it, it is added
>to all the other ripples.
Ok....I am slowly grasping more and more what you mean. Keep it
comming.
>However, if we think of a ripple BEAM on the surface
>of the water, gradually losing energy, it's wavelength
>will increase with distance.,
Ripple "BEAM" .... ? I might be picky here but I am trying to
understand precicely whay you mean.
>which the redshift we see of distant galaxies that are NOT moving away.
>Androcles.
Whoah....
So, this is how I currently understand you. The light coming from
distant stars, galaxies "hits" interstellar objects creating boundry
ripples (that become a source or sources) and so on, till the final
wave, which is comprised of all these interactions/ripples, reaches
us. This resultant wave has a longer wavelength than the inital source
(the star or galaxy) because of those effects?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: Androcles
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- References:
- Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: Brian Weatherley
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: Androcles
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: Androcles
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- From: Androcles
- Question about Light from the Big Bang
- Prev by Date: Re: force
- Next by Date: Re: johnreed take 1B --- 2005
- Previous by thread: Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- Next by thread: Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|