Re: Expanding Universe
- From: Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 May 2005 17:59:33 +1200
John Sefton <vegan16@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:427e441c$1
@news.accesscomm.ca:
>
>
> Baugh wrote:
>
>> CWatters wrote:
>>
>>> Not being very good at physics can I ask what might be a nonsense
>>> question...
>>>
>>> Without an external reference can we be sure it's the universe
>>> expanding and
>>> not us and our "measuring sticks" contracting?
>>>
>>
>> It comes to the same thing. In one version the non-gravitational
>> physical constants cease to be constant. The point is that an
>> expanding universe is expanding relative to our measuring sticks
>> (which use for example quantum phenomena such as Bohr radius as
>> a metric standard).
>>
>> That's why they call it "relativity".
>>
>> BTW, The expanding of the universe is one way to describe the
>> effect observed by Hubble, that light from distant stars is
>> red-shifted in proportion to the distance as measured by
>> parallax or brightness for certain characteristic types of stars.
>>
>> Without doing a number of radar ranging experiments on distant
>> stars (very long term project) we cannot really be sure it isn't
>> caused by some drag effect on propagating light. But an
>> expanding distribution of stars is the simplest explanation.
>>
>> It may be "explained" by a post Einsteinian
>> "gravitational" effect, due to the cosmological constant.
>> Light emanating from any point acts as if it is climbing out of
>> a gravitational well, only this phenomenon is uniform for all
>> points in the universe. But an awful lot of supporting data
>> would have to be reinterpreted before you could give such a theory
>> weight. Google search "tired light" if your interested.
>>
>> I don't reject this idea out of hand but I've not yet seen
>> a convincing argument supported by observation.
>> (I actually have one of my own but its very preliminary and
>> probably totally screwy.)
>>
> What about recent observations of a red-shifted Quasar
> interacting with a fairly-nearby galactic center?
> Doesn't that throw a serious wrench into Hubble?
> John
It would if the observation was confirmed. However this one is strongly
disputed. It depends whether the Quasars and galaxies concerned are
really physically associated or just a chance alignment. I would say the
matter is not yet completely settled. Arp & Burbidge argue for quasars
being spat out of galaxies where the quasar and corresponding galaxy have
disparate red shift. The evidence I have seen for this is rather weak.
Still these ideas prompt better observations. It is always good to
challenge the established theory but when empirical evidence shows you
are wrong, it is wise to gracefully back down and go back to the drawing
board. One of the signs of a crank is to cling to an idea after it has
been resoundingly refuted by mother nature.
Klazmon.
>
.
- References:
- Expanding Universe
- From: CWatters
- Re: Expanding Universe
- From: Baugh
- Re: Expanding Universe
- From: John Sefton
- Expanding Universe
- Prev by Date: Re: Wave as wave, particle as particle
- Next by Date: Re: Late and Early Time Decelerations and PI
- Previous by thread: Re: Expanding Universe
- Next by thread: Re: The physics fails on the way to a singularity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|