Measurement of stellar distances and redshift

[balsys]

I had a thought that it might be possible to measure distances to galaxies using nova and supernova explosions, and then using these to check the redshift = distance hypothesis. My idea is to look at supernovas in nearby galaxies and to observe there brightness compared to the galaxy. Both close and distant galaxies can be examined in this way. Now the idea is that the absolute brightness of the supernova to the background should average out over enough observations. So the brightness for the close galaxies will be greater than the far galaxies. The brightness change should be proportional to distance. So this should give an independent measure of distance. These distances could then be compared to the redshift of the galaxies to see if they agree. A good starting point would be to pick galaxies the plasma universe model says are close, but redshift says are far away to get some idea as to whether this is going to work. What do others think of this idea? I've probably missed something here but on the surface of it I think their is a germ of an idea.

Cheers,

[nick c]

hi balsys,
Supernova already are figured in mainstream's scale for estimating galactic distances. Here is a list of the "yardsticks" used by mainstream astronomy:
[url2=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hb ... ce.html#c1]Distance Measurement in Astronomy[/url2]

Also, a related thread:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=1550

I don't know if supernova estimates could be used as a check on the redshift=distance hypothesis. It seems to me that Arp's correlations of high red shift quasars associated with lower red shift galaxies, in some cases they are in front of the galaxy, constitutes falsification of the hypothesis and as follows, the Big Bang Theory.

nick c

[webolife]

Hopefully this doesn't sound too trite, balsys, but your idea is frought with the same circular assumptions as current supernova/distance estimations. The distance of "far" galaxies is presumed, based on brightness/size estimates, and brightness estimates are used to correlate galactic distance. Then selected redshifts are used to try to confirm this predetermined conclusion... enter Arp, intrinsic redshifts, and the EU. Supposed "anomalies" of redshift, eg. high-Z objects in front of low-Z objects, "fingers of God" in clusters, symmetrically placed QSO's and B-Lac objects in polar axial positions, quantized redshifts, etc. have already deposed the Hubble paradigm, in my view.

[mharratsc]

I think the thing that makes the current mainstream scientists stick their fingers in their ears regarding the death of 'Redshift = Distance' is that without it- no one know how far away anything is anymore!

This is one of those cases where the death of a theory leaves a vacuum in Knowledge, and no one likes that...

[redeye]

If light is a particle (photon), how can it be red shifted?

Cheers!

[earls]

Is that a trick question redeye? Light is a wave that can be modeled as a particle at higher energies, but it's still a wave... Waves can be redshifted by stretching it out - "slowing it down" per se.

[redeye]

Is that a trick question redeye? Light is a wave that can be modeled as a particle at higher energies, but it's still a wave... Waves can be redshifted by stretching it out - "slowing it down" per se.

Thanks for the reply. No trick, I'm just a little dim. I don't see how something can be a particle and a wave or how a particle can be influenced by the doppler effect.
Basically I don't believe in photons, or anything else that ends in "on". They are all hypothetical (no offense Drethon). I also don't understand why lightspeed is deemed significant, especially since nobody really seems to understand light. As far as I'm aware light is only a particle so we can explain why the sun exerts an outward push.

Cheers!

[webolife]

More like, if light is wavish, then is red-shift a doppler effect as presumed...
and if it is a doppler effect, is it correlatable with real observation, touted as fact in mainstream astronomy...
and if it is correlatable, does the Hubble constant work consistently and reasonably... shown not to be the case by Arp, et.al.... and if it did work consistently would that then prove light is wavish, or only return to the premise of the argument?
No one has ever observed a light wave, or light particle... we observe what light does to a receptor. It's impulse is characterized by color, intensity, and pressure.... there is no incontrovertible proof that light "moves" at the c-rate, and in fact much recent evidence to prove it does not, eg. so-called "quantum entanglement" experiments, etc. Transparency, opacity, absorption, reflection, refraction, diffraction, and alleged "interference" effects are all entirely explainable without reference to waves or particles of any sort, by the use of simple optical ray diagrams. Even frequency can be shown to be a function of the motion of the object, eg electrons, at the light source/sink, and not of the transmitted light itself. Light transmission, not emission, can be characterized by instantaneous action at a distance, vectors directed toward the source as a sink, not toward the observer, as if something were being emitted. Simple slit experiments can be used to demonstrate almost all of the above points. I abandoned Doppler redshift about 28 years ago, and have seen no argument since then that has made a better case for it, only evidences to the contrary. As an earth science major, science and math teacher, and amateur astronomer, I was taught only the standard model and am well familiar with it. My paradigm shift did not occur instantly, but the case against the standard model is so strong it was not difficult for me to drop it... when I encountered the EU, just over 4 years ago, I had already concluded that there must be an intrinsic redshift, without knowing anything about Halton Arp, and that gravitation was only a by-product of a larger universe-holding force, without knowledge of the EU paradigm. I am open-minded and have much to learn, and like others on this forum, I exalt evidence above hypothesis, and observation above opinion. For me, the evidence and observations indicate patterns of interdependence, irreducible complexity, and design, and gravitate against chaotic accumulation and dispersal ideologies such as the big bang, the nebular hypothesis, and mutation-based macroevolution.

[earls]

Oy.

Redeye.

Particles do not physically exist, however, the movement of small enough (high frequency) wave packets can be physically and mathematically modeled as if they were tiny balls (particles). "Particle Physics" is simply classical physics on an incredibly tiny scale. That's part of the problem and why they keep running into contradictions and paradoxes. Everything is literally waves. On the macro scale, things appear as solid objects, but as you reach the quantum domain, the wave nature of everything becomes apparent... Classical "guesstimation" physics are not applicable, you must use wave equations. This works because you're dealing with extremely minute quantities... A few particles... Or individual wave packets.

You can actually model macroscale Classically Physical objects, two baseballs for instance, with wave equations, however the mathematics would be amazingly complex... It's just not worth it when Classical Physics works just fine for everyday applications. It's the same story as we venture up into larger scales... You can use Classical Physics day to day, but General Relativity is much more precise needs to be invoked when you're studying the extremely fast and massive.

A particle is influence by the Doppler effect because it is physically a wave, mathematically a particle.

Believe in them or not, photons exist... "Photon" is just a name. You can call electromagnetic field vibrations (perturbations) "photoffs" but it doesn't change their nature. You simply cannot deny a physically measurable quantity. I fail to see what's "hypothetical" about them. If someone were to put a hot iron on your hand, you would certainly feel the "photon" "particles" slamming into your hand. The energy (the amplitude [power] and frequency) of the photons breaks the molecular bonds of your skins and it deteriorates. Remember, photon particles are physically waves of electromagnetic (electric and magnetic) fields. These field propagate and interact with other EM fields (atoms, specifically the electrons of the atoms [in this case]) and push and pull the electrons between the atoms of the molecules. If the push and pull of the electrons between the atoms of the molecule exceed an energy level, the chemical bonds break, the molecule breaks.

The speed of light is significant, because if there wasn't an upper limit on the speed of physical forces, everything would simply fly apart. "Nobody" really seems to understand light, or you don't understand light? It's ok, it's definitely a complex phenomenon, but it's not beyond comprehension, and plenty of people comprehend the behavior of light just fine. Do you care to elaborate?

As for the "outward push" of the sun, you're thinking classically... Like the sun shoots a bullet out that strikes a brick that pushes it away from the sun. Think WAVES! Consider a pool and you have a large beach ball in the center (the sun). If you push the beach ball down, and let it bob back up, it will send a wave out. Any object floating on the surface of the water will then be pushed out to the edge of the pool. Granted, perhaps, only a tiny bit. But with enough waves, the object will finally reach the edge. The problem is the majority of the wave energy passes right through the object, only a small amount of the wave's momentum is imparted to the secondary object. But this is were it gets interesting! You can push the object out to the edge more efficiently if you use a wave frequency the secondary object can absorb more readily. The secondary object is bobbing in the pool also... even if the water is perfectly calm. If you can send out waves at exact same frequency that object is bobbing in the water, you can push it to the edge with very little energy loss in transmission! Even better, you could craft a frequency that could make the object move backwards, pulling it into the center!

Waves are awesome! We have only barely just begun to tap their extensive potential!

[earls]

Hola webolife.

You don't buy into "light" waves, but what about sound waves? You do understand a wave is just a cycle between two differences? In light's case, it's a difference between electric fields and magnetic fields in two dimensions perpendicular to one another creating a "3d object".

I guess you're going to have to define your version of "observe." Light "waves" have definitely been measured aka observed by my dictionary.

Something you need to remember about Quantum Entanglement is that no information is being exchanged, and even if the current QE experiments were reconfigured to allow the exchange of information, you're still subject to the speed of light because the QE is "setup" by a "classical channel" using a photon of light. The secret of faster than light information exchange using QE would be to make it so that when you read the result, you didn't destroy the entanglement, but by reading the result, you destroy the entanglement!

I can't seem to follow your instantaneous light transmission. Directed at the light sink? So the sink is created at same precise time as the source? And then light travels between them at c? I dunno.

Abandoning the Doppler redshift of light is as big of a mistake as mainstream not embracing intrinsic redshift. Moving waves are subject to the Doppler effect, and you said it yourself, if light is a wave... So I can only assume you simply don't accept the wave nature of light. That's bizarre to me, but if it works in your paradigm...

[redeye]

"Nobody" really seems to understand light, or you don't understand light? It's ok, it's definitely a complex phenomenon, but it's not beyond comprehension, and plenty of people comprehend the behavior of light just fine. Do you care to elaborate?

Heh heh, that's me telt! Thanks for the response Earls, and your patience. I still don't get it though. I'm mathematically challenged so:

Classical "guesstimation" physics are not applicable, you must use wave equations. This works because you're dealing with extremely minute quantities... A few particles... Or individual wave packets.

feels like a glass ceiling to my understanding of the Universe. But I guess that's my problem. Anyway...

I read a post on the old forum (I think) that dealt with the differences in stellar redshift between stars that appear very similar to the naked eye. This would (presumably) mean the further star is extremely large, ridiculously so. I can't remember reading a decent dismissal.

Cheers!

[webolife]

Earls,
Thank you for your questions. Many folks here just write me off.
Certainly there are waves in the universe! In any solid liquid or gaseous medium, energy can be transmitted, at various speeds, by waves. The simplicity of true waves however does not apply to light behavior. Trying to make it apply has led to all manner of incorrect thinking about astronomy, cosmology, and cosmogony, as well as to really bad natural philosophy, such as heisenbergian uncertainty, quantum mechanics, and much of Einstein's relativity.
Light is most certainly "measurable", but what are we measuring? The "impact" of particles against our retina?
Or the undulation/frequency variation as waves pass across our photoreceptors? No such particles have been observed.
e.g. you can't trace a photon's path in a cloud chamber. The alleged "undulation" or wavishness of light is just a theoretical construct used historically to try to understand phenomena such as Newton's rings, redundant spectra [as in Mie theory], refraction, diffraction and interference. When Young orinally did his 2-slit interference setups, he was attempting to demonstrate that light waves were interfering like sound waves do, with periods of reinforcement and annihilation... when he saw the redundant spectra, he mistook that as some sort of acoustical phenomenon. Wave theorists have been wrong ever since.

[earls]

Hi webolife. Where can I find more information about the theoretical "foundation" you subscribe to? I'll buy into there's more to light than meets they eye, but I'd like to know more.

Cheers redeye.

[bdw000]

Is that a trick question redeye? Light is a wave that can be modeled as a particle at higher energies, but it's still a wave... Waves can be redshifted by stretching it out - "slowing it down" per se.

Thanks for the reply. No trick, I'm just a little dim. I don't see how something can be a particle and a wave or how a particle can be influenced by the doppler effect.
Basically I don't believe in photons, or anything else that ends in "on". They are all hypothetical (no offense Drethon). I also don't understand why lightspeed is deemed significant, especially since nobody really seems to understand light. As far as I'm aware light is only a particle so we can explain why the sun exerts an outward push.

Cheers!

I have never understood all the hullabaloo about the "particle/wave duality" of light issue.

It seems to me that ALL waves are made up of particles.

Take the ocean: all those waves. And yet, do you think those waves exist independent of all those water molecules???? If you make some super-duper "water wave" detector that can detect smaller and smaller (ever increasing precision) bits of a water wave, sooner or later your detector will be detecting a single molecule of water. Does this mean some sort of mysterious paradox? Of course not.

And yet, when light is discussed, for some reason it seems to be assumed that waves in general are just some sort of "wave-thingy" devoid of and totally independent of any and all "particles." But this is obviously nonsense. To me, it looks like a very strange "straw-paradox" (for lack of a better word).

Take sound and water waves, the most pervasive waves for general human experience (excepting light, of course): both are waves OF PARTICLES. Take away the air molecules, and you will have no sound waves. Take away the water molecules, and you will have no water waves.

Show me a wave that ISN'T a "wavicle."

And no hiding the word "particle" (or "molecule") behind the word "medium" will be allowed !!!!!

Is there a standard reply to such ideas ?

[earls]

What are the radio wave particles?