3 ms·

Does anyone know of strong proofs of galaxy red shifts being due to relativistic Doppler effect? It seems like almost everything in Cosmology depends on this be

Does anyone know of strong proofs of galaxy red shifts being due to relativistic Doppler effect? It seems like almost everything in Cosmology depends on this being true.

ProAm 11y ago
Im not sure what you are asking, this is really proven. Are you asking about a differing theory??
- reptation 11y ago
  I work down the hall from this guy and he's really convincing: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/25856/15981 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFil...
  - pdonis 11y ago
    People can be really convincing and still be wrong. As far as I can tell on a quick skim, this theory (that the redshifts are due to differential scattering of starlight) is one that was ruled out several decades ago by cosmologists. Also, his "fundamental inconsistencies of the Big Bang Theory" would be better titled "fundamental misunderstandings on the author's part". The cosmology FAQ I linked to upthread discusses a number of these misunderstandings.
pdonis 11y ago
> Does anyone know of strong proofs of galaxy red shifts being due to relativistic Doppler effect? Actually, they're not, they're due to the expansion of the universe. Pop science treatments often say the redshifts are due to the Doppler effect, but that's sloppy terminology. The redshift doesn't really tell you "how fast" a distant galaxy is moving away (although the pop science treatments talk as if it does); what it really tells you is how much the universe has expanded since the galaxy emitted the light you are seeing. So if we're seeing light from a quasar at redshift z = 1, the universe has expanded by a factor of 2 (i.e., a factor of 1 + z) since that light was emitted. And the cosmic microwave background has a redshift of about 1000, so the universe has expanded by a factor of about 1000 since it was emitted (for redshifts this large, 1 + z and z are pretty much the same). As far as "strong proof" that the redshifts are in fact due to the expansion of the universe, and not some other cause, see Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ for a good discussion: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#QZ http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#QZ
nonbel 11y ago
May be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies I don't know whether or how all his observations have been explained, but they may give a good starting point for research. Either way, an atlas of peculiar observations is a good thing. Producing something like that may be worthwhile for other areas of research as well.

Does anyone know of strong proofs of galaxy red shifts being due to relativistic Doppler effect? It seems like almost everything in Cosmology depends on this being true.

ProAm 11y ago

Im not sure what you are asking, this is really proven. Are you asking about a differing theory??

reptation 11y ago
I work down the hall from this guy and he's really convincing: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/25856/15981 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFil...
- pdonis 11y ago
  People can be really convincing and still be wrong. As far as I can tell on a quick skim, this theory (that the redshifts are due to differential scattering of starlight) is one that was ruled out several decades ago by cosmologists. Also, his "fundamental inconsistencies of the Big Bang Theory" would be better titled "fundamental misunderstandings on the author's part". The cosmology FAQ I linked to upthread discusses a number of these misunderstandings.

pdonis 11y ago

> Does anyone know of strong proofs of galaxy red shifts being due to relativistic Doppler effect? Actually, they're not, they're due to the expansion of the universe. Pop science treatments often say the redshifts are due to the Doppler effect, but that's sloppy terminology. The redshift doesn't really tell you "how fast" a distant galaxy is moving away (although the pop science treatments talk as if it does); what it really tells you is how much the universe has expanded since the galaxy emitted the light you are seeing. So if we're seeing light from a quasar at redshift z = 1, the universe has expanded by a factor of 2 (i.e., a factor of 1 + z) since that light was emitted. And the cosmic microwave background has a redshift of about 1000, so the universe has expanded by a factor of about 1000 since it was emitted (for redshifts this large, 1 + z and z are pretty much the same). As far as "strong proof" that the redshifts are in fact due to the expansion of the universe, and not some other cause, see Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ for a good discussion: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#QZ http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#QZ

nonbel 11y ago

May be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Peculiar_Galaxies I don't know whether or how all his observations have been explained, but they may give a good starting point for research. Either way, an atlas of peculiar observations is a good thing. Producing something like that may be worthwhile for other areas of research as well.