Recovered: New Redshift Idea

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:06 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "bdw000"

Thank you Electra.

That is the sort of obvious problem I need pointing out.

I still think his idea about GRAVITATIONAL redshift might, just might, have something to do with the situation.

I mean, if the centers of ALL galaxies (isn't that now the standard model????) have a "SUPER massive black hole" sitting there, you think that might cause just a little bit of gravitational redshifting?

If it is strong enough to keep stars 100 thousand light years away rotating fast "enough," is it strong enough to redshift the light we see to the degree that we see it redshifted?????

These questions are not sarcasm. I know nothing about astrophysics. Maybe they've already done the calculations and can say, "no, that supermassive black hole only redshifts the light about 1% of what we see."

Are these valid questions, or would any astrophysicist already know off the top of his head that standard calculations for gravitational redshift could not possibly have anything to do with the redshift of distant galaxies? Any professionals out there who can refute the idea (my two questions above) outright?

I do not see how gravitational redshift could account for how the redshift increases with distance (although, as most people here probably know, some argue that there is reason to doubt the relationship between distance and redshift).
_________________
Certifiable NON-scientist !!

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Elektra"

bdw000, as I understand it, it's not that gravitational redshifts can't be big, or even anything you choose; it's that you can't get these huge redshifts over distances much more than a few million kilometres, or a fraction of a light-year.

Yet galaxies, including distant ones, are hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of light-years big, so even if they have a super-duper ultra-massive black hole in their hearts, the redshift of the bits of the galaxies that are just a few hundred light-years away won't be affected by the gravitational redshift of that mainstream monster.

And it's the same for quasars: the redshifts measured by the $$million spectroscopes attached to the $$million telescopes (or, for the Hubble, $$billion) are those of all the light the telescope collects, not just that from a few million km of any hypothetical black hole - if the line in the spectrum is narrow, then how can it come from atoms that are close to any super-duper black hole?

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "biknewb"

Hi all, just found this thread.

No negative responses?

Maybe I do not understand the logic, but the article says:

Observation of the Universe by telescope has a resolution limit. Just as digital cameras have a resolution limit determined by the number of pixels. At this limit all visible incandescent objects will appear similar in size.

Which I read as a technical imperfection of the observation. This instrumental limit is somehow added to the redshift=distance idea with the conclusion that the farthest galaxies are the biggest and heaviest.
I simply don't get it.

So, if this is correct, the redshifted galaxies are still at the same distance, they just do not move away from us. Is that it?

"One day I can think, the other day my brain is just marshmallow"

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: Limit of Observation Reply with quote
OP "julian braggins"

The best analogy I can think of is an armada of various sized ships moving away over the horizon (= close to the limit of observation). over the horizon only the supercarriers will still be visible and will constitute a disproportionate high number.

If light from these (=Giant Stars) is shifted to red by reason of gravity, then the most distant stars will all have redshift. Er, am I making sense?
_________________
When all else fails read the instructions, critically!

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: Re: Limit of Observation Reply with quote
OP "biknewb"

The best analogy I can think of is an armada of various sized ships moving away over the horizon (= close to the limit of observation). over the horizon only the supercarriers will still be visible and will constitute a disproportionate high number.

If light from these (=Giant Stars) is shifted to red by reason of gravity, then the most distant stars will all have redshift. Er, am I making sense?

You are making sense. It is just that the author writes "visible incandescent objects will appear similar in size". That is the opposite of your analogy imho.

As soon as the universe becomes geocentric, think again.

[bboyer]

- 30 -

[webolife]

Whoa, @arc-us, I'm baaaack.
Bryan, your "eternally collapsing" comment kind of whacked me upside the head... as you know I swore off black holes back in the early 80's, but I have this contra-BB idea that the universe is indeed held together in a unified scaleless field by unified centropic force. Centropy is observable as entropy at every level and scale, hence I would generally say that the universe is in a state of perpetual collapse. This also keeps the galactic electric discharge hypothesis [and galaxies] from spontaneously self-destructing, I think. Centropy [gravity/EMF/potential] acts at the galactic scale to simulate virtual mass at the centroid of the system, hence a perceived "super-massive " galactic core... where in fact there may just be an "empty" ... hmmmm... plasmatic?... hole. Gravity produces mass, not the other way around.
I'm lacking time to reconstruct my theory here and now, but I'll try to put together a long post combining elements of my scattered posts from the former forum threads. I was becoming addicted, so the failure of the server was a good splash of cold water on my face.
Nice to be back, however...

[bboyer]

Whoa, @arc-us, I'm baaaack.
Bryan, your "eternally collapsing" comment <snip>

Glad you found your way back, Gordon. Whoo-hoo!

The "eternally collapsing" comment was actually from "redeye" ... unfortunately in posting these recovered threads the posts all appear under the icon and name of the member doing the recovery and not the original posters. For the threads I recover, I've been designating the original poster near the top of each post by "OP = "posters name" (although when I first started, I was putting it at the end of the recovered posts; OP = Original Post/er). So if you look again you'll see that the "eternally collapsing" comment occurred back on page 1 of this thread by OP = "redeye". Easy to miss, I know. Wih hindsight, I see now that I should have highlighted these in some way so they'd be more easily noticed. Sorry 'bout that.

Anyway, good to see you're back and looking forward to see the expansion of your ideas.