Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Confirmed! Global warming IS 'settled' - as a scam
Next: Climategate and The Crisis Of Climate Alarmism
From: Greg Neill on 22 Apr 2010 12:47 Brad Guth wrote: > In other words, you don't know: "Can we detect a blueshift of �c?" > > Redshift is obviously mainstream approved, but blueshift isn't? Silly. Both are simply the result of the standard physics of Doppler Shift. > > Obviously we can't seem to detect 100% redshift of c, so I'd doubt -c > being detectable. Supposedly our universe radii is getting another ly > larger per year, and as such it's undetectable. 100% red shift, to take your implied meaning, would result in photon frequencies of zero by the time it arrived. That is, an observer could not have any physical way to detect them since relative to him the photons would have zero energy. E = h*f . The radius of the observable portion of our universe, that is from where we are situated and looking out and back in time to when the Big Bang happened, grows by a lightyear per year (if we choose to interpret the lookback time as a measure of distance -- there are several different ways to measure and interpret distance in an expanding, curved space universe). The universe as a whole, including the portion we can't see (which is most of it) because it is beyond our comic horizon, is expanding relative to us at rates greater than c. That is, the space beyond the horizon is moving away from our local region of space at greater than c, and the further away the faster. This is not in contradiction with Relativity, which places constraints on how fast massive objects move *in* space, and the speed of light *in* space as measured by a local observer. Relativity does not place constraints on how quickly space itself can expand.
From: HVAC on 22 Apr 2010 06:25 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:uZ-dneW_F_hbm03WnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > > The onion skin time-slice of universe that is observed to be the largest > of them all is the slice farthest out from Earth along every single spoke > out, with Earth HERE-NOW (0) occupying the tiniest space-time universe > [observed] of all. Now tell me, Sam, is there any spatial universe out > there existing in the same moment of time as Earth here-now? You keep > telling us you astronomers can see what the rest of us can never see, a > universe simultaneous with Earth. An expanding one at that when the fact > is space-time contracts in upon HERE-NOW beginning from the largest > observed horizon-universe of space-time most distant from any HERE-NOW and > progressing through progressively smaller slices (progressively smaller > layers) until contraction reaches the smallest slice of all, the Earth (0) > or any other unobserved HERE-NOW (0) simultaneous with it (0=0) 13.75 > billion space-time-slice universes (-) [in] from the biggest horizon-slice > of them all outermost (-(-)-). Gee. And I thought *I* had it bad dealing with the aether people.
From: Anthony Buckland on 28 Apr 2010 16:23
"Brad Guth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a7669a64-dc27-4c23-b175-6a5188aa5cd7(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... > .... In other words, perhaps photons > are extremely slow, as opposed to the weak force of gravity being > extremely fast. > ... I don't follow various parts of your argument, but regarding this statement, photons in a vacuum (which is almost everywhere in the Universe) always move at speed c in all frames of reference, without regard to the movement of their source or of anything else including you. AFAIK, gravity also propagates at c. |