(January 4, 2024 at 6:11 pm)Authari Wrote:

(January 4, 2024 at 4:48 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There’s nothing stopping atheists from being religious.   There’s nothing in particular driving atheists toward any specific religion, either.  While it’s often fun to consider what benefits a particular religion could have or religious thinking in general might provide (whether that’s practical/social/evolutionary), it’s not a very good description of why people are religious, assume a religion, or leave one.  

We don’t think to ourselves “what can I get out of this” when apprehending our religious convictions.  Thats a transactional superstition and if anyone thinks it’s compelling consider the inanity of trying to convert by bargaining.  Or the misery of those who had very clear and existential reasons to assume a particular reason…and still refused.  

There’s only one reason to be religious, no matter what the religion is.  A deep and genuine conviction in whatever the religion is.

You are my favorite person out of this entire forum, if there were one critical thinker to be found, it would be you.

Well...

Since you have exhibited almost no critical thinking skills, and have been guilty of multiple strawman arguments, your attempted compliment to The Grand Nudger, doesn't have too much credibility.

(January 5, 2024 at 10:52 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: I'm new to this forum, and this is my first post - I don't identify as "atheist", but rather as non-religious (I have my reasons).

To me, there seems to be a rather glaring problem with this so-called theory.

Since this is a forum about atheism, let me begin by pointing out the fact that the concept of the Big Bang originated from someone who was not only religious, but was also a Roman Catholic priest & this in itself ought to be considered for making an assessment on religious bias, since the idea that there's some sort of beginning to the universe involved in that.

Aside from that, there are plenty of (other) problems with this so-called theory:

Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule.

Personally, what I have an issue with is the use of the Doppler effect (DE) to explain the redshift; in other words, I don't get why the redshift necessarily implies that there's a DE involved.

What if instead of a DE, there's another possibility? Here's what I have been wondering about: the redshift in question stems from the cosmic background microwave radiation (CBMR), which is essentially photons, so let's consider Planck's equation (or "relation") for photon energy (E=hf, where E is the energy, f is frequency, and h is Planck's constant); basically, when there's less energy, there's a redshift, and we can see that from this formula since red is a lower frequency than blue; what if this is the real reason for that redshift we observe from CBMR?

After pondering this, I decided to try to do some cyber-exploring to see if I could find something that might corroborate this; I did find something interesting & it seems to support what I'm wondering about:

Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule against posting outside links till you have been a member for 30 days and have made 30 posts.

I don't know that the redshift and the CMBR are related in the way you think.  The first evidence for the redshift came from stars.  To answer your question, the red shift was ascertained because the light from a star does not come from one single wavelength but consists of a spectrum of wavelengths.  Depending upon the material involved, this spectrum will have peaks at specific wavelengths.  These peaks form a specific identifiable pattern that, like a fingerprint, can be matched with the element they were derived from.  Because the pattern is unique, a spectrum that shows the same pattern but shifted along the spectrum can be determined to have been the result of the Doppler effect, rather than having come from some process that emits a different wavelength of light.  I don't fully understand what your concern about the CMBR is.

The premise behind the "Big Bang Theory", as it pertains to CMBR, is that it's the result of a redshift due to the Doppler effect and the universe expanding. Suppose this is not correct, and instead of having an expanding universe, we have a non-expanding universe; this would mean that there's no Doppler effect, which would prompt the question about why there's a redshift.

What I'm referring to with that Planck equation is that since energy in a photon is the result of the frequency - what if instead of the change in frequency from CMBR (resulting in a redshift) being the result of the Doppler effect, it's the result of loss in energy? This would mean that the frequency goes lower, thus you would get redshift. That way, it seems you could have both a non-expanding universe as well as a redshift with CMBR.

Unfortunately since I'm a noob, I'm not allowed to post links; it might help if you could see the 2nd link, which was to a PDF by PhD physics professor Ling Jun Wang called "Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift."

The 1st link, BTW, was to a How Stuff Works website article called "Problems With the Big Bang Theory."

You can suppose anything you want, but there's no reason to take your supposals seriously without evidence.

(January 5, 2024 at 11:47 am)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: Personally, what I have an issue with is the use of the Doppler effect (DE) to explain the redshift; in other words, I don't get why the redshift necessarily implies that there's a DE involved.

A Star's photosphere has a blackbody spectrum that indicates its temperature, and a galaxy contains stars of a range of temperatures that will be some averaged blackbody curve.

But, redshifts are about spectral lines, not about blackbody curves (except for the very faintest far-away galaxies, where spectral lines can't be measured).  Atomic absorption and emission lines exist from absorption or emission (respectively) of photons from gas above the stellar photosphere, or from interstellar gas.  

Emission wavelengths from ionized atomic hydrogen and oxygen can be seen in galaxy spectra, and it is these spectral lines that we measure the redshift on.  We know their wavelength in a rest-frame.  Those are determined by the laws of physics.  Only the relativistic doppler shift will cause them to shift (gravitational redshift isn't a thing, as the gas isn't on the edge of a black hole).

(January 5, 2024 at 9:58 am)neil Wrote: Here's what I have been wondering about: the redshift in question stems from the cosmic background microwave radiation (CBMR), which is essentially photons, so let's consider Planck's equation (or "relation") for photon energy (E=hf, where E is the energy, f is frequency, and h is Planck's constant); basically, when there's less energy, there's a redshift, and we can see that from this formula since red is a lower frequency than blue; what if this is the real reason for that redshift we observe from CBMR?

The CMBR is a completely different thing.  CMBR is radiation left over from when the universe first became transparent to photons, that has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe.  It is blackbody radiation that used to be hot.

Many references will explain that the CMBR is "cold" now because the universe has expanded, but this is equivalent to there being a relativistic Doppler shift.  There is no "new" mechanism happening.  The CMBR will indeed "cool" as the universe gets older, but that is because we will be seeing it from farther away and receding faster as the universe gets older.

What I think would be helpful for me is if there were a direct observation in intensity change - over time - of cosmic microwave background radiation, but apparently this means it could require centuries - which, in turn, means that it might not be possible to achieve with the same human observer.

(January 5, 2024 at 11:51 am)neil Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 10:52 am)Angrboda Wrote: I don't know that the redshift and the CMBR are related in the way you think.  The first evidence for the redshift came from stars.  To answer your question, the red shift was ascertained because the light from a star does not come from one single wavelength but consists of a spectrum of wavelengths.  Depending upon the material involved, this spectrum will have peaks at specific wavelengths.  These peaks form a specific identifiable pattern that, like a fingerprint, can be matched with the element they were derived from.  Because the pattern is unique, a spectrum that shows the same pattern but shifted along the spectrum can be determined to have been the result of the Doppler effect, rather than having come from some process that emits a different wavelength of light.  I don't fully understand what your concern about the CMBR is.

The premise behind the "Big Bang Theory", as it pertains to CMBR, is that it's the result of a redshift due to the Doppler effect and the universe expanding. Suppose this is not correct, and instead of having an expanding universe, we have a non-expanding universe; this would mean that there's no Doppler effect, which would prompt the question about why there's a redshift.

What I'm referring to with that Planck equation is that since energy in a photon is the result of the frequency - what if instead of the change in frequency from CMBR (resulting in a redshift) being the result of the Doppler effect, it's the result of loss in energy? This would mean that the frequency goes lower, thus you would get redshift. That way, it seems you could have both a non-expanding universe as well as a redshift with CMBR.

Unfortunately since I'm a noob, I'm not allowed to post links; it might help if you could see the 2nd link, which was to a PDF by PhD physics professor Ling Jun Wang called "Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift."

The 1st link, BTW, was to a How Stuff Works website article called "Problems With the Big Bang Theory."

Where would that lost energy be going?

(January 5, 2024 at 12:23 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 11:51 am)neil Wrote: The premise behind the "Big Bang Theory", as it pertains to CMBR, is that it's the result of a redshift due to the Doppler effect and the universe expanding. Suppose this is not correct, and instead of having an expanding universe, we have a non-expanding universe; this would mean that there's no Doppler effect, which would prompt the question about why there's a redshift.

What I'm referring to with that Planck equation is that since energy in a photon is the result of the frequency - what if instead of the change in frequency from CMBR (resulting in a redshift) being the result of the Doppler effect, it's the result of loss in energy? This would mean that the frequency goes lower, thus you would get redshift. That way, it seems you could have both a non-expanding universe as well as a redshift with CMBR.

Unfortunately since I'm a noob, I'm not allowed to post links; it might help if you could see the 2nd link, which was to a PDF by PhD physics professor Ling Jun Wang called "Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift."

The 1st link, BTW, was to a How Stuff Works website article called "Problems With the Big Bang Theory."

Where would that lost energy be going?

Good question & it's something I've wondered about, myself. To try to illustrate what I'm guessing might be the answer (and I hope it isn't too confusing because I'm going to be using light as an analogy to light), imagine air that's full of smoke, fog, or something else that can reflect or absorb light from a flashlight; I don't think that would result in the frequency of the light being reduced resulting in a redshift in this case; what I think you would have with a flashlight and smoke, fog, etc. is merely a reduction in light intensity. In this case, we would be able to see that the reduction in light intensity is the result of the smoke, fog, etc. absorbing or reflecting the light from the flashlight.

Perhaps it would be less confusing if sound instead of light were used, and instead of a flashlight, it's a speaker; instead of smoke or fog, it's walls & material that reflects or absorb the sound (hard surfaces would generally reflect & soft surfaces would absorb, etc.).

Let's consider light that's coming from sources that are nearly the farthest distance from the known universe (perhaps at the threshold of CMBR or slightly closer); it stands to reason that as those photons are heading our way, at some point they're bound to encounter something analogous to that smoke or fog obstructing the flashlight, or walls obstructing the sound from that speaker, such as the existing galaxies within our known universe. I wonder if galaxies or some sort of obstructions throughout the known universe are actually absorbing photons from those far distant sources (perhaps it's just more galaxies that are beyond the CMBR threshold - that we can't see or recognize as galaxies), and releasing its own set of photons (like a repeater), and for some reason these released photons have slightly less energy - meaning redshift resulting in that cosmic microwave background radiation.

I'm not claiming to somehow know that this is what's happening - I in fact do not know; it's just a guess, conjecture, or thought experiment, etc.

(January 5, 2024 at 1:00 pm)neil Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 12:23 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Where would that lost energy be going?

Good question & it's something I've wondered about, myself. To try to illustrate what I'm guessing might be the answer (and I hope it isn't too confusing because I'm going to be using light as an analogy to light), imagine air that's full of smoke, fog, or something else that can reflect or absorb light from a flashlight; I don't think that would result in the frequency of the light being reduced resulting in a redshift in this case; what I think you would have with a flashlight and smoke, fog, etc. is merely a reduction in light intensity. In this case, we would be able to see that the reduction in light intensity is the result of the smoke, fog, etc. absorbing or reflecting the light from the flashlight.

Perhaps it would be less confusing if sound instead of light were used, and instead of a flashlight, it's a speaker; instead of smoke or fog, it's walls & material that reflects or absorb the sound (hard surfaces would generally reflect & soft surfaces would absorb, etc.).

Let's consider light that's coming from sources that are nearly the farthest distance from the known universe (perhaps at the threshold of CMBR or slightly closer); it stands to reason that as those photons are heading our way, at some point they're bound to encounter something analogous to that smoke or fog obstructing the flashlight, or walls obstructing the sound from that speaker, such as the existing galaxies within our known universe. I wonder if galaxies or some sort of obstructions throughout the known universe are actually absorbing photons from those far distant sources (perhaps it's just more galaxies that are beyond the CMBR threshold - that we can't see or recognize as galaxies), and releasing its own set of photons (like a repeater), and for some reason these released photons have slightly less energy - meaning redshift resulting in that cosmic microwave background radiation.

I'm not claiming to somehow know that this is what's happening - I in fact do not know; it's just a guess, conjecture, or thought experiment, etc.

The quantum nature of light means that it does not just lose energy.  If energy is transferred to something else, it will result in an absorption and re-emission event.  Most types of interactions destroy the spectrum of the original radiation, meaning that you won't see the atomic emission lines any more.  It won't shift them, it destroys them in favor of new lower-energy photons.

The fact that we see emission lines from far-away galaxies shows that we are seeing the original photons. Yes, there can be elastic scattering that can cause slight energy loss, but that would be tiny. Any attempt for this to be large would obliterate our view of the object.

There have been proposals (i.e. "tired light") that try to propose a mechanism for gradual redshifting without doppler shift.  No such model has ever been considered credible, and even if it were possible, it contradicts the observational data (brightness and sharpness data).

Why focus on fringe ideas?

(January 5, 2024 at 1:00 pm)neil Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 12:23 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Where would that lost energy be going?

Good question & it's something I've wondered about, myself. To try to illustrate what I'm guessing might be the answer (and I hope it isn't too confusing because I'm going to be using light as an analogy to light), imagine air that's full of smoke, fog, or something else that can reflect or absorb light from a flashlight; I don't think that would result in the frequency of the light being reduced resulting in a redshift in this case; what I think you would have with a flashlight and smoke, fog, etc. is merely a reduction in light intensity. In this case, we would be able to see that the reduction in light intensity is the result of the smoke, fog, etc. absorbing or reflecting the light from the flashlight.

Perhaps it would be less confusing if sound instead of light were used, and instead of a flashlight, it's a speaker; instead of smoke or fog, it's walls & material that reflects or absorb the sound (hard surfaces would generally reflect & soft surfaces would absorb, etc.).

Let's consider light that's coming from sources that are nearly the farthest distance from the known universe (perhaps at the threshold of CMBR or slightly closer); it stands to reason that as those photons are heading our way, at some point they're bound to encounter something analogous to that smoke or fog obstructing the flashlight, or walls obstructing the sound from that speaker, such as the existing galaxies within our known universe. I wonder if galaxies or some sort of obstructions throughout the known universe are actually absorbing photons from those far distant sources (perhaps it's just more galaxies that are beyond the CMBR threshold - that we can't see or recognize as galaxies), and releasing its own set of photons (like a repeater), and for some reason these released photons have slightly less energy - meaning redshift resulting in that cosmic microwave background radiation.

I'm not claiming to somehow know that this is what's happening - I in fact do not know; it's just a guess, conjecture, or thought experiment, etc.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

That lesser energy still has to go somewhere. It will show up in the "repeater's" heat signature, or EM output, or even perhaps motion, as being anomalous.

(January 5, 2024 at 1:37 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 1:00 pm)neil Wrote: Good question & it's something I've wondered about, myself. To try to illustrate what I'm guessing might be the answer (and I hope it isn't too confusing because I'm going to be using light as an analogy to light), imagine air that's full of smoke, fog, or something else that can reflect or absorb light from a flashlight; I don't think that would result in the frequency of the light being reduced resulting in a redshift in this case; what I think you would have with a flashlight and smoke, fog, etc. is merely a reduction in light intensity. In this case, we would be able to see that the reduction in light intensity is the result of the smoke, fog, etc. absorbing or reflecting the light from the flashlight.

Perhaps it would be less confusing if sound instead of light were used, and instead of a flashlight, it's a speaker; instead of smoke or fog, it's walls & material that reflects or absorb the sound (hard surfaces would generally reflect & soft surfaces would absorb, etc.).

Let's consider light that's coming from sources that are nearly the farthest distance from the known universe (perhaps at the threshold of CMBR or slightly closer); it stands to reason that as those photons are heading our way, at some point they're bound to encounter something analogous to that smoke or fog obstructing the flashlight, or walls obstructing the sound from that speaker, such as the existing galaxies within our known universe. I wonder if galaxies or some sort of obstructions throughout the known universe are actually absorbing photons from those far distant sources (perhaps it's just more galaxies that are beyond the CMBR threshold - that we can't see or recognize as galaxies), and releasing its own set of photons (like a repeater), and for some reason these released photons have slightly less energy - meaning redshift resulting in that cosmic microwave background radiation.

I'm not claiming to somehow know that this is what's happening - I in fact do not know; it's just a guess, conjecture, or thought experiment, etc.

The quantum nature of light means that it does not just lose energy.  If energy is transferred to something else, it will result in an absorption and re-emission event.  Most types of interactions destroy the spectrum of the original radiation, meaning that you won't see the atomic emission lines any more.  It won't shift them, it destroys them in favor of new lower-energy photons.

The fact that we see emission lines from far-away galaxies shows that we are seeing the original photons.  Yes, there can be elastic scattering that can cause slight energy loss, but that would be tiny.  Any attempt for this to be large would obliterate our view of the object.

There have been proposals (i.e. "tired light") that try to propose a mechanism for gradual redshifting without doppler shift.  No such model has ever been considered credible, and even if it were possible, it contradicts the observational data (brightness and sharpness data).

Why focus on fringe ideas?

When you mentioned that "gravitational redshift isn't a thing", earlier, would that include photons from very distance sources that pass near large sequences of galaxies on their route to us?

(January 5, 2024 at 1:51 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 5, 2024 at 1:00 pm)neil Wrote: Good question & it's something I've wondered about, myself. To try to illustrate what I'm guessing might be the answer (and I hope it isn't too confusing because I'm going to be using light as an analogy to light), imagine air that's full of smoke, fog, or something else that can reflect or absorb light from a flashlight; I don't think that would result in the frequency of the light being reduced resulting in a redshift in this case; what I think you would have with a flashlight and smoke, fog, etc. is merely a reduction in light intensity. In this case, we would be able to see that the reduction in light intensity is the result of the smoke, fog, etc. absorbing or reflecting the light from the flashlight.

Perhaps it would be less confusing if sound instead of light were used, and instead of a flashlight, it's a speaker; instead of smoke or fog, it's walls & material that reflects or absorb the sound (hard surfaces would generally reflect & soft surfaces would absorb, etc.).

Let's consider light that's coming from sources that are nearly the farthest distance from the known universe (perhaps at the threshold of CMBR or slightly closer); it stands to reason that as those photons are heading our way, at some point they're bound to encounter something analogous to that smoke or fog obstructing the flashlight, or walls obstructing the sound from that speaker, such as the existing galaxies within our known universe. I wonder if galaxies or some sort of obstructions throughout the known universe are actually absorbing photons from those far distant sources (perhaps it's just more galaxies that are beyond the CMBR threshold - that we can't see or recognize as galaxies), and releasing its own set of photons (like a repeater), and for some reason these released photons have slightly less energy - meaning redshift resulting in that cosmic microwave background radiation.

I'm not claiming to somehow know that this is what's happening - I in fact do not know; it's just a guess, conjecture, or thought experiment, etc.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

That lesser energy still has to go somewhere. It will show up in the "repeater's" heat signature, or EM output, or even perhaps motion, as being anomalous.

Like dark energy, or something pertaining to dark matter? I'm actually not sure that I would know the answer to this question - I'm really asking.