In this blog, http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-equiv...-bang.html, I explore the idea that Hubble failed to notice an important aspect of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
Any comment will be appreciated.
Any comment will be appreciated.
Did Hubble can it wrong?
|
In this blog, http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-equiv...-bang.html, I explore the idea that Hubble failed to notice an important aspect of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
Any comment will be appreciated.
The link is no good.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
(November 1, 2014 at 11:59 am)Chuck Wrote: The link is no good.The link works, just delete the comma ',' at the end. Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty. Join me on atheistforums Slack (pester tibs via pm if you need invite)
The blog is correct that gravity can shift the wavelength of light. However, it doesn't seem to do any calculations of the redshift we see is compariable to what we get from gravity. Plus, you wouldn't get a linear relationship (d=H*delta v) that we see because there is a limit on how mush a given source can shirt the wavelength.
This blog is ignoring all the supporting evidence for the hubble constant and the expansion of the universe that has nothing to do with shifts in wavelenth. Link
Joe is a poster over at AF.com.
RE: Did Hubble can it wrong?
November 1, 2014 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2014 at 4:58 pm by little_monkey.)
(November 1, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote:(November 1, 2014 at 11:59 am)Chuck Wrote: The link is no good.The link works, just delete the comma ',' at the end. Thanks (November 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Surgenator Wrote: This blog is ignoring all the supporting evidence for the hubble constant and the expansion of the universe that has nothing to do with shifts in wavelenth. Link The Hubble is constant in regard to space, it is not in regard to time. In most books you will see the Hubble denoted as H(t), to signify its dependency on time. Secondly, the expansion of the universe has everything to do with redshifts. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/doppler.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...ubble.html http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmi...shift.html http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/...-in-the-e/ http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkma...shift.html And zillion websites that will confirm this RE: Did Hubble can it wrong?
November 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm by Surgenator.)
(November 1, 2014 at 4:51 pm)little_monkey Wrote:Yes, the hubble constant does have a time dependence.(November 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Surgenator Wrote: This blog is ignoring all the supporting evidence for the hubble constant and the expansion of the universe that has nothing to do with shifts in wavelenth. Link Quote:Secondly, the expansion of the universe has everything to do with redshifts.You misunderstood me. I said there is evidence to support the the hubble constant that is independent of the wavelength shift, i.e. paralax, standard candles, etc... I was NOT saying that the universe is not expanding nor the redshifts are unrelated.
Keeping in mind the redshift/distance relationship correlates well with changes we see in the morphology of increasingly dimmer galaxies, and that supernovae seen further and further out also correlates along with a relationship between angular size and areal brightness, I'm calling BS on the OP.
The Hubble Space Telescope has dramatically increased the 'depth' we can probe the universe out to, and nothing seen in the original Hubble Deep Field and the subsequent 'ultra' Deep Field has contradicted anything Humason, Hubble etal worked out decades ago. Astronomers can also gain 'depth' by utilizing intervening galaxies to enlarge detail and brightness of vastly more distant objects too, nothing in those observations suggests the OP is on to anything significant. RE: Did Hubble can it wrong?
November 2, 2014 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2014 at 11:32 am by little_monkey.)
(November 1, 2014 at 7:56 pm)Surgenator Wrote: [quote='little_monkey' pid='787619' dateline='1414875075'] Okay, thanks for the clarification. Yes, if we go through the route of parallax, standard candles, etc... we get that the universe is accelerating. If you read my blog carefully, the point I'm making is that this acceleration can be derived theoretically strictly from GR - that the observation through the route of parallax, standard candles, etc confirms that is obviously a good thing otherwise GR is in trouble. So you've got two pictures: one is that the universe is expanding, labelled that the Doppler Effect; the other is that the universe is not expanding, but the photon still exhibit a redshift due to the fact they are moving against gravity. On first appearance, these two pictures seem to contradict each other, but Einstein Equivalent Principle says they are equivalent -- you can trade one with the other, the equations describing them are the same. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong. | Brian37 | 6 | 882 |
July 8, 2022 at 10:07 am Last Post: Brian37 |
|
Hubble breaks cosmic distance record | Kosh | 5 | 1697 |
March 22, 2016 at 12:52 am Last Post: Kosh |
|
NASA Hubble Finds a True Blue Planet | pocaracas | 2 | 2008 |
July 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm Last Post: Anomalocaris |
|
Was Newton wrong? | little_monkey | 7 | 2553 |
May 31, 2013 at 1:14 am Last Post: Colanth |
|
Hubble glimpses 13.3 Byo galaxies | Jackalope | 10 | 4968 |
December 13, 2012 at 9:17 am Last Post: KichigaiNeko |
|
Hubble is dead, long live hubble 2, and hubble 3. | Anomalocaris | 5 | 2045 |
June 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm Last Post: Jackalope |
|
Galileo was wrong, the Church was right | Entropist | 27 | 10808 |
September 18, 2010 at 7:48 am Last Post: Zen Badger |