Why does observing a finite amount of light from a finite distance contradict anything about the range of electromagnetic radiation?
I guess this is a reference to Olbers’ paradox. If every ray projected from a given point must eventually hit the surface of a star, then the night sky should look uniformly as bright as the Sun.
This ends up being somewhat circular then, doesn’t it?
Olbers’ paradox is only a paradox in an infinite, static universe. A fininte, expanding universe explains the night sky very well. One can’t use Olbers’ paradox to discredit the idea of an expanding universe when Olbers’ paradox depends on the universe being static.
Furthermore, upon re-reading MazeHatter’s “The way I see it is...” comment, Theory B does not put us at some objective center of reality. An intuitive way to think about it is: Imagine “space” being the surface of a balloon. Place dots on the surface of the balloon, and blow the balloon up. The distance between dots in all directions expands. One can arbitrarily consider one dot as the “center,” but that doesn’t change anything.
I’m beginning to think that MazeHatter’s comments do not warrant as much discussion as has taken place in this thread. =\
Why does observing a finite amount of light from a finite distance contradict anything about the range of electromagnetic radiation?
Because the range of electromagnetic radiation is infinite. (And light is electromagnetic radiation, FYI)
So that’s what we expected to see. Infinite light.
But that’s not what we saw.
Light does not come from 1 trillion light years away. It does not come from 20 billion light years away.
It makes it to Hubble’s Limit, c/H.
This wasn’t expected.
To explain its redshifting into nothing, one answer is that space is expanding, and if space is expanding uniformly (which we now know isn’t true by a long shot), then it would have began expanding 13.8 billion years ago.
Therefore, in theory, only 13.8 billion years existed for light to travel. And that’s why you don’t seem to think there’s a problem. Because you can solve it with some new logic:
Here’s the recapp:
In theory, light travels to infinity
In observation, light comes from finite distances
So in theory space must expand (v_galaxy = HD)
So in theory only a finite amount of time exists in physics
So in theory, no problem, we see finite light because of finite time
Of course, the evidence against the 13.8 billion number is so overwhelming, they invented an inflation period to magically fast forward through a trillion or more years of it.
Even then, all the examples in my OP describe how the theory still doesn’t work.
If the sun goes around the Milky Way once every 225 million years, then our galaxy has formed in less than 60 spins. Starting to wonder why cosmologists have no legitimate theory of galaxy formation? Now consider trying to explain galaxy that look likes ours that formed in 20 spins. That’s what the new observations ask of us. Completely out of the question. Except, now we have dark matter, which can basically do anything arbitrarily, just like dark energy.
Here’s the alternative:
Observation 1. light doesn't travel to infinity
New Theory A. light doesn't travel to infinity (v_photon = c - HD)
Crazy, I know.
Some people say “hey, that challenges relativity!”, well, it challenges the applicable limits of Maxwell’s equations, upon which relativity is based.
Some people thought Newtonian Mechanics is how reality actually worked. We are now smarter, and we know Newtonian Mechanics is an approximation of reality with a limited domain of applicablility.
For some reason, though, the idea that relativity is an approximation that has its own limited domain of applicability, is scary to people.
It’s all part of this idea, that you can believe science, because science questions itself. Yet once its called science, people are reluctant to question it.
So that’s what we expected to see. Infinite light.
Only if the universe is (not only not expanding as per current standard cosmological theories, but) infinite in both extent and age.
It makes it to Hubble’s limit, c/H.
That’s a misleading way of putting it (as if the light gets some distance and then stops); that simply isn’t what standard physics and cosmology describe.
the evidence against the 13.8 billion number is so overwhelming
… that something like 99% of people who actually know a lot about physics and cosmology accept “the 13.8 billion number”.
our galaxy has formed in less than 60 spins. [...] that formed in 20 spins.
Why should that be a problem? What aspect of our galaxy do you think requires more than 60 spins, and why?
now we have dark matter, which can basically do anything arbitrarily, just like dark energy.
It’s like you aren’t even trying to say things that are true (or that anyone thinks are true).
the idea that relativity is an approximation [...] is scary to people.
You should consider the possibility that people might disagree with you for reasons other than fear.
That’s a misleading way of putting it (as if the light gets some distance and then stops); that simply isn’t what standard physics and cosmology describe.
What standard physics and cosmology (a galaxy recedes at v = HD) descibe is that at that distance D = c/H, a photon encounters space expanding faster than c.
It doesn’t “stop” in standard physics. It gets trapped in a region of space expanding faster than it can travel.
Which is somewhat absurd, if you consider that between your left eye and your right eye is space expanding faster than c, from the perspective of someone c/H to the left and the right.
that something like 99% of people who actually know a lot about physics and cosmology accept “the 13.8 billion number”.
Maybe in 1995.
The original post deflates every piece of evidence for a Big Bang.
between your left eye and your right eye is space expanding faster than c, from the perspective of someone c/H to the left and the right.
No, space in the vicinity of your eyes is (so to speak) held together by gravity and will not be expanding at the Hubble rate.
Maybe in 1995.
You may perhaps be failing to distinguish between when you decided that standard cosmology is all wrong (which may for all I know be 1995) and when everyone else did (which they haven’t).
The original post deflates every piece of evidence for a Big Bang.
Why does observing a finite amount of light from a finite distance contradict anything about the range of electromagnetic radiation?
(Also… has anyone read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift? It’s… well… good.)
I guess this is a reference to Olbers’ paradox. If every ray projected from a given point must eventually hit the surface of a star, then the night sky should look uniformly as bright as the Sun.
This ends up being somewhat circular then, doesn’t it?
Olbers’ paradox is only a paradox in an infinite, static universe. A fininte, expanding universe explains the night sky very well. One can’t use Olbers’ paradox to discredit the idea of an expanding universe when Olbers’ paradox depends on the universe being static.
Furthermore, upon re-reading MazeHatter’s “The way I see it is...” comment, Theory B does not put us at some objective center of reality. An intuitive way to think about it is: Imagine “space” being the surface of a balloon. Place dots on the surface of the balloon, and blow the balloon up. The distance between dots in all directions expands. One can arbitrarily consider one dot as the “center,” but that doesn’t change anything.
I’m beginning to think that MazeHatter’s comments do not warrant as much discussion as has taken place in this thread. =\
Because the range of electromagnetic radiation is infinite. (And light is electromagnetic radiation, FYI)
So that’s what we expected to see. Infinite light.
But that’s not what we saw.
Light does not come from 1 trillion light years away. It does not come from 20 billion light years away.
It makes it to Hubble’s Limit, c/H.
This wasn’t expected.
To explain its redshifting into nothing, one answer is that space is expanding, and if space is expanding uniformly (which we now know isn’t true by a long shot), then it would have began expanding 13.8 billion years ago.
Therefore, in theory, only 13.8 billion years existed for light to travel. And that’s why you don’t seem to think there’s a problem. Because you can solve it with some new logic:
Here’s the recapp:
Of course, the evidence against the 13.8 billion number is so overwhelming, they invented an inflation period to magically fast forward through a trillion or more years of it.
Even then, all the examples in my OP describe how the theory still doesn’t work.
If the sun goes around the Milky Way once every 225 million years, then our galaxy has formed in less than 60 spins. Starting to wonder why cosmologists have no legitimate theory of galaxy formation? Now consider trying to explain galaxy that look likes ours that formed in 20 spins. That’s what the new observations ask of us. Completely out of the question. Except, now we have dark matter, which can basically do anything arbitrarily, just like dark energy.
Here’s the alternative:
Crazy, I know.
Some people say “hey, that challenges relativity!”, well, it challenges the applicable limits of Maxwell’s equations, upon which relativity is based.
Some people thought Newtonian Mechanics is how reality actually worked. We are now smarter, and we know Newtonian Mechanics is an approximation of reality with a limited domain of applicablility.
For some reason, though, the idea that relativity is an approximation that has its own limited domain of applicability, is scary to people.
It’s all part of this idea, that you can believe science, because science questions itself. Yet once its called science, people are reluctant to question it.
(edited for formating)
Only if the universe is (not only not expanding as per current standard cosmological theories, but) infinite in both extent and age.
That’s a misleading way of putting it (as if the light gets some distance and then stops); that simply isn’t what standard physics and cosmology describe.
… that something like 99% of people who actually know a lot about physics and cosmology accept “the 13.8 billion number”.
Why should that be a problem? What aspect of our galaxy do you think requires more than 60 spins, and why?
It’s like you aren’t even trying to say things that are true (or that anyone thinks are true).
You should consider the possibility that people might disagree with you for reasons other than fear.
What standard physics and cosmology (a galaxy recedes at v = HD) descibe is that at that distance D = c/H, a photon encounters space expanding faster than c.
It doesn’t “stop” in standard physics. It gets trapped in a region of space expanding faster than it can travel.
Which is somewhat absurd, if you consider that between your left eye and your right eye is space expanding faster than c, from the perspective of someone c/H to the left and the right.
Maybe in 1995.
The original post deflates every piece of evidence for a Big Bang.
No, space in the vicinity of your eyes is (so to speak) held together by gravity and will not be expanding at the Hubble rate.
You may perhaps be failing to distinguish between when you decided that standard cosmology is all wrong (which may for all I know be 1995) and when everyone else did (which they haven’t).
In your dreams.