Electronic redshift- Hubble was sooo wrong

[nick c]

Hubble was a true scientist. He hypothesized and tested/observed, and when the hypothesis did not pass the test to his satisfaction, he abandoned it.
Science is a process.
Hubble was not a supporter of the Big Bang/expanding universe theory.

[Maol]

I realize that, it seemed logical to extrapolate that to the behavior light interacting with iron dust influenced by EMF in space, particularly due to the dust particles size being coincident with blue light. I thought that was why you mentioned the ferrofluid's effect on light.

I mentioned it because that device works with ferrofluid, but in space there is no such ferrofluid. I dont think that device would bend or shift light if you just throw some iron particles in it and place a magnet near it.

I beg to differ, the dispersed matter in interstellar and intergalactic space contains crystalline iron dust with a particle size a fraction of a micron across similar to the wavelength of blue light.

I think it is quite likely, particularly if the iron dust has a blue light affinity and the effect of intergalactic magnetic fields is to align crystalline iron particles such that the result is a selective attenuation of blue light, which perhaps shifts the observed spectrum toward red and does more so the further the light travels between the source and observer, ergo the 'red shift' of more distant observations.

If I think more about it, that would mainly cause Rayleigh scattering which does not produce redshift. Basically it just blocks the bluelight which is not a shift in wavelength, but a filtering of wavelength.

I will rephrase that to say

"the iron dust has a blue light affinity and the effect of intergalactic magnetic fields is to align crystalline iron particles with uniformity such that the result is a selective attenuation deflection of blue light, which perhaps shifts the observed spectrum toward red and does more so the further the light travels between the source and observer, ergo the 'red shift' of more distant observations.

[mariuslvasile]

That sounds like Rayleigh scattering, and it doesnt not produce redshift afaik. Only Compton scattering does. But that can only be applied to high energy EM waves like Xrays and gammarays.

Rayleigh scattering refers to the scattering of light by particles in its path of size up to one-tenth the wavelength of the light and occurs without any loss of energy or change of wavelength.

 

You say its the same wavelength though, so I dont know what you are talking about really. And I cant confirm or infirm your hypothesis just because a guy on youtube uses ferrofluid to bend light. I dont know what particles are in that fluid, if theyre the same size as those in space, and even if they are they are in a fluid, whereas in space no such fluid exists

[mariuslvasile]

Hubble was a true scientist. He hypothesized and tested/observed, and when the hypothesis did not pass the test to his satisfaction, he abandoned it.
Science is a process.
Hubble was not a supporter of the Big Bang/expanding universe theory.

So Hubble's law is not his ?

[nick c]

So Hubble's law is not his ?

The law is named after him, but as his career progressed Hubble abandoned the Big Bang/Expanding Universe. So, Hubble's Law, ultimately did not have the support of its namesake! It is an inconvenient little fact that is usually ignored by mainstream.