The Origin of the Universe: Reexamining the Big Bang Theory

[employee #416]

Chronos, that site attempts to explain how the universe is expanding. In another section of the site, it explains how gravity is able to cause light to shift frequencies. This seems to tie into what Vern said.

One argument is just as plausible as the other. One just takes a more logical approach.

Thanks for your input.

-employee #416

 

[russ_watters]

Chronos, that site attempts to explain how the universe is expanding. In another section of the site, it explains how gravity is able to cause light to shift frequencies. This seems to tie into what Vern said.

One argument is just as plausible as the other.

Actually, one argument isn't more plausible than the other. You are mixing two completely separate issues. There would have to be an absolutely enormous amount of intergalactic mass to account for the observed redshift - iirc, the intergalactic medium would need to be more dense than the average galaxy. Unless you are suggesting there are lots of black holes out there...

So, what visible characteristics of black holes make them differ from the visible characteristics of pulsars? I thought black holes were not visible, so how can they "look different" than pulsars.

Chronos already addressed this, but don't you see that you answered your own question? If they aren't directly visible (ie, they don't give off their own radiation), then they certainly look different than objects that do give off their own radiation.

What we see around black holes is what is happening through interactions at the event horizon. This is not the black hole itself.

Right, black holes have event horizons (and an enormous amount of mass) and that's how we know they are black holes - so what's the problem? Or are you suggesting that an object with an event horizon (the distinguishing characteristic of a black hole) could be something else? A flat bill, webbed feet, and feathers - ehhh, still could be an elephant, right (just a type we've never seen before)? Don't you see how absurd that is?

More massive objects do not mean they are visibly different. Black holes are very small. How are they visibly different just by being more massive?

Au contraire - since all stars are virtually entirely hydrogen, mass is the primary determining factor in the properties of stars. For starters, massive ones are hotter.

Black holes have not be observed directly. Only through indirect observations.

So what? There are lots of things in nature that can't be seen directly, yet we know exist (ever hear of an elecron?) If an unseen object with enormous mass is sucking matter from a nearby star, it can't be anything else but a black hole - there is no other viable explanation.

So to say they are visually different from pulsars is inaccurate. Maybe they look the same, but they are much more compact?

You can't think of any observable physical characteristics that might be different? We've already discussed several...

 

[Vern]

according to Halton Arp red shift is the production of matter and that the older, the lesser the red shift,just a perspective!

I haven't seen that paper of Halton Arp but I do remember some of his comments about problems with the Big Bang. If what Arp says in the quote above is true it may provide a way to test the red shift. Red shift due to doppler should have all frequencies shifted the same. Red shift due to Arp's assertion should be shifted less in the red frequencies than in the blue.

Does that sound right ?

Vern

 

[Lesuth]

How do we know the universe is expanding? On average, a point twice the distance from us is moving away from us at twice the speed, what does this suggest? (Do not assume we are the centre of the universe). The actual space between the two points is expanding. Twice as much space between two points = twice as much separation over time, appears as twice the speed to us.

Also, there's no reason to rule out the existence of black holes simply because YOU can't comprehend what it physically means. A black hole is simply matter sufficiently dense that its' escape velocity is greater than the speed of light and hence is not able to emit radiation. This does make it very difficult to observe directly, but does not mean it should be ruled out as an unreasonable proposition. It is logical to assume that such an object could exist provided an environment or process leading to the creation of such dense material exists in our universe. When we observe accretion discs in binary systems, the evidence suggests that the compact object involved may well be a small black hole in some cases. X-rays are a particularly effective method of exploring these systems as the compact object causes the matter in the accretion disc to reach enormous speeds and the resulting radiation emitted on impact is often in the X-ray band. The amount of energy being seen in some of these cases could only be explained by the presence of a black hole.
Other evidence for black holes includes (radio)active galaxies, do some reading.

There are several explanations for why we assume the universe to have finite age. If the universe is infinitely old, you would have to assume some radiation has been traveling for an infinite distance, why then do we see a limit on the the redshift values of radiation we detect. You could also read up on some explanations of Olber's Paradox; one conceivable explanation is that the age of the universe is finite. I know I've read some other better explanations to do with the Hubble constant and Euclidean n-space but the details escape me at the moment, I'm sure you could find some information on it through google.com if you were sufficiently interested.

 

[Vern]

How do we know the universe is expanding? On average, a point twice the distance from us is moving away from us at twice the speed, what does this suggest?

This suggests to me that the wave length of the light in increasing. We can assume that is due to the doppler effect, which you are doing. This assumption is by no means a certainty.

The bigbang theory was founded by a Catholic Priest who worked for Hubble as a mule driver. Hubble never really accepted the theory.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[Vern]

I should go on to state that Abbe Georges Lemaitre went on to become a well known physicist in his own right. His "The Primeval Atom" was the orign of the big bang theory.

Vern

 

[mapper]

This is a very interesting thread.

Ive always said to myself that the origin of the universe would be the first question I would ask if I were to meet an intelligent extra terrestrial life form. To hear what they theorize.

Some other thoughts. If the universe has always existed wouldn’t the light emitted from every star/galaxy etc.. make our night sky full bright? If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Is it creating space/time as its expanding? If you could travel past the point of the expansion what would that look like or what would that be?

If the theory that our universe is also going to collapse on itself is also true, could that point be traveled past if its no longer expanding? What happens to light if at its boundary if space is collapsing back on itself? If the expanding and collapsing of the universe is true, how many times has this process occurred? How many times will it last?

Its kinda like my perpetual motion idea. But as someone said before in my thread about needing to work hard for energy output e=mc ². So each time the universe has expanded and collapsed on itself it must be losing something as it surely can't last forever. So there must be an end point to this all. Understanding all the possible ends, if there is one may also help us understand the possible beginning, if there was one.

 

[Vern]

An infinite universe wouldn't necessarily result in brightness everywhere. We observe in space that the wavelength of light increases with distance. This we know is true even though we may never be absolutely certain of the cause. This increase would damp out the brightness, just as we see that it does.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[Entropy]

How do we know the universe is expanding? On average, a point twice the distance from us is moving away from us at twice the speed, what does this suggest?

I don't really believe in an expanding universe, or atleast one that is accelerating outward and will continue to do for eternity.

It is possible that the red-shift isn't cause only (or maybe even at all) by the Doopler effect. There are other ways red-shifts can occur, such as gravitational red-shift.

Personally I think any serious speculations on the what the universe was like in near the beginning or will be like near the end is very bold. We know so little about what is happening in the cosmos that it would be stupid at this point in time to devote your life souly (or even a good portion of time) trying to proving a theory describing the beginning and end of the universe. With our current knowledge, making a hardcore theory about the universe would be like determaining the ultimate fate of all mankind after studying one person's life for one minute.

 

[mapper]

With our current knowledge, making a hardcore theory about the universe would be like determaining the ultimate fate of all mankind after studying one person's life for one minute.

Thats great!

 

[Locrian]

Gravitational red-shift as a source of the red shift was already examined in this thread. Do the math. It requires insane amounts of matter to cause the kind of red shift we observe. Suggesting that is the cause would mean we'd have to find vast amounts of matter.

Look for yourself. It simply isn't there.

What studies have you done to determine the amount of mass in the universe? What studies have you done on the redshift? Why, when matter is so clumped together, do the redshifts all reflect distances so smoothly? Do the math on how light will be shifted if traveling through a medium evenly dispersed with matter. Why doesen't it match what we observe? The idea that red-shifting is caused by gravity is a terrible, terrible, terrible predictor of observables. Why stick with it?

Do the math, do the experiments. You will see the idea is absurd.

 

[Vern]

Gravity is just one of the things that contribute to a red shift in aging light. There are many other things including that light might simply loose energy as it ages.

Humason's original data showed the universe's age was about 2 billion years. That didn't work for very long so they changed the Hubble constant to make it fit the 4 or 5 billion years needed to account for the age of the earth. Then that didn't work when better telescopes came along so they added an expansion period with arbitrary rules made up to fit the observations. It is about time now for another change to account for the 20 billion year old things we're beginning to observe.

They lost me when they changed Humason's original stuff.

Vern

 

[Locrian]

They lost me when they changed Humason's original stuff.
Vern

That's a shame, since distance measuring methods were absolutely atrocious at the time. Hubble's own work shows error in the area of a factor of 10 - I know, I've done experiments to determine Hubbles Constant. Have you?

Astrophysics had hardly any tools going for it in 1929. It is no wonder things have changed.

 

[Chronos]

That's science for you. The predicted size of the universe has been getting bigger and bigger since the ancient Egyptians [I think they were the ones] made the first official guess. As more and better data comes in, science changes. This is not the sole domain of cosmology, it is true in all fields of science. Now that the WMAP data has been crunched, the error factor in our calculations of when the universe became observable [transparent to light] has been greatly reduced. Furthermore, the fact that remote parts of the universe look greatly different than our neighborhood certainly implies some kind of evolutionary process has gone on over time, just like the fossil record on Earth shows life many millions of years ago was much different than life today. You would think an ageless, eternal universe would look much the same everywhere at all times. It does not. Most of us therefore conclude it probably had an initial state and that initial state was vastly different than what has followed.

Footnote: If redshift is a highly unreliable distance indicator, it is hard to explain why entire classes of really exotic things we see in the universe [e.g., quasars] have huge redshifts.

 

[Entropy]

Gravitational red-shift as a source of the red shift was already examined in this thread. Do the math. It requires insane amounts of matter to cause the kind of red shift we observe. Suggesting that is the cause would mean we'd have to find vast amounts of matter.

What the hell are you talking about? It hasn't been brought up in this thread until now. Show me the math/source that has calculated this result.

What studies have you done to determine the amount of mass in the universe? What studies have you done on the redshift?

Exactly, we don't know how much mass there is, so measuring the amount of gravitational red-shift is difficult. So we don't know if we can count out gravitational red-shift or not.

Why, when matter is so clumped together, do the redshifts all reflect distances so smoothly?

I'm pretty sure gravity doesn't reflect light.

 

[employee #416]

Humason's original data showed the universe's age was about 2 billion years. That didn't work for very long so they changed the Hubble constant to make it fit the 4 or 5 billion years needed to account for the age of the earth. Then that didn't work when better telescopes came along so they added an expansion period with arbitrary rules made up to fit the observations. It is about time now for another change to account for the 20 billion year old things we're beginning to observe.

Never knew science had to "change" stuff to fit their observations. Magnificent, Vern!.

Chronos already addressed this, but don't you see that you answered your own question? If they aren't directly visible (ie, they don't give off their own radiation), then they certainly look different than objects that do give off their own radiation.

You're missing the whole point. They CANNOT look different. Their is no visual observations of black holes directly. Their is no visual comparison of a black hole to other objects. You can say interactions with a black hole an dother objects are different, but you can not say a black hole is visually different than any other object.

Lesuth, thanks for the reiteration.

Right, black holes have event horizons (and an enormous amount of mass) and that's how we know they are black holes - so what's the problem?

You took my complete thought, turned it into a fragment, and then asked a question about the fragment. That's the problem. A collapsed neutron star is a black hole. They have the same mass. A super-massive neutron star that has not collapsed yet can be classified as a black hole. It may have an escape velocity of that greater than light. It may have a nice hefty volume, but this neutron star is considered a black hole just because light can not escape?

Your counter statement: A neutron star cannot be that massive, it's own gravity will cause it to condense into a black hole. Density is what differs a neutron star from a black hole, though they are the same exact objects.

Your platypus and elephant joke is getting old. Try a new one. It wasn't funny the first time.

 

[Locrian]

I'm pretty sure gravity doesn't reflect light.

You misread my post. Reflect. As in show, or suggest. If we see an even and symmetric red shift that relates to distance, and you are proposing that mass is causing this then clearly matter must be spread out evenly. It isn't.

Exactly, we don't know how much mass there is...

When I asked you what studies you had done, I wasn't being rhetorical. We can judge about how much matter is out there because it exerts a force on things around it. I've taken data concerning this; what data have you taken? What experiments have you done? I was asking to see how much work you had done on the problem.

Light leaving a gravitational field has it's light reduced in frequency. However, if you are suggesting an even distribution of matter (which you must) then you need to take into account the fact that the light is falling towards matter between us and the emitter. This would raise it's frequency. Since you are suggesting a net decrease in frequency, then when you integrate over the distribution of matter between us and the object, the only way to create this red shift is to suggest a gradient of matter that would be easily detectable.

Unfortunately it isn't there. Galaxies far away do not contain significantly more matter than ones close... and they would have to. But then, do you even believe in galaxies, thinking as you do that matter is spread evenly throughout the universe? Don't think for a second dark matter will make up for the difference, because most dark matter is located around galaxies.

This is a terrible theory that is not based in any mathematics and leads to contradictory conclusions at every turn.

 

[Chronos]

Never knew science had to "change" stuff to fit their observations. Magnificent, Vern!.

Happens all the time. Observation is how theory is validated. When observation contradicts theory, the theory must be modified or discarded. Note, however, that observation is not immune to fallability. Observational results must be confirmed before accepted as fact.

... you can not say a black hole is visually different than any other object.

Sure you can. A black hole does not emit any detectable radiation. A neutron star, like any other star, does.

...A super-massive neutron star that has not collapsed yet can be classified as a black hole. It may have an escape velocity of that greater than light. It may have a nice hefty volume, but this neutron star is considered a black hole just because light can not escape?

A neutron star must have a mass between about 1.4 and 2 solar masses. If less than that, it does not have enough gravity to overcome the electron degeneracy limit and can only collapse enough to form a white dwarf [a much different critter]. If more massive than that, but less massive than the neutron degeneracy limit [~2 solar masses], it cannot collapse enough to form a black hole, only down to a neutron star - which is not dense enough to prevent light from escaping.

 

[Vern]

But because of the low surface brightness of galaxies there were severe technical difficulties. Humason developed the technique and made most of the exposures and plate measurements. The velocities of 620 galaxies were measured, and the results, published 1956, still represent the majority of known values of radial velocities for normal galaxies.

Result of Google search.

According to these folks we're still using much of Humason's data.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[Entropy]

When I asked you what studies you had done, I wasn't being rhetorical. We can judge about how much matter is out there because it exerts a force on things around it. I've taken data concerning this; what data have you taken? What experiments have you done? I was asking to see how much work you had done on the problem.

Yeah, you already said that, show me some calculations, sources or something to back up you're claim. I just proposed a possiblity, you are looking to completely disprove a theory and you can't do that by just saying "you're wrong."

Light leaving a gravitational field has it's light reduced in frequency. However, if you are suggesting an even distribution of matter (which you must) then you need to take into account the fact that the light is falling towards matter between us and the emitter.

Don't forget that when light is emited from a star it has to work through a star's gravity well egro being red-shifted, and when we observe the light it is only blue-shifted by Earth's gravity, that is if you think the gravity of our and the other galaxies is negligible. Although it probably wouldn't be noticable for small or medium stars.

Unfortunately it isn't there. Galaxies far away do not contain significantly more matter than ones close... and they would have to. But then, do you even believe in galaxies, thinking as you do that matter is spread evenly throughout the universe? Don't think for a second dark matter will make up for the difference, because most dark matter is located around galaxies.

I don't think gravity would have to be evenly distributed, it just has to be near the source of the light.

 

[Chronos]

Gravitational redshift is only relevant to the emission source. Light passing through a gravity field would first be blue shifted [incoming], then red shifted [outgoing]. The net effect is zero.

 

[Vern]

Gravitational redshift is only relevant to the emission source. Light passing through a gravity field would first be blue shifted [incoming], then red shifted [outgoing]. The net effect is zero.

True as usual; Chronos, but I'm thinking of the gravitational bending of the path as light propagates space. I don't think that would add to zero because the bend direction remains.

Vern

 

[russ_watters]

Gravitational redshift is only relevant to the emission source. Light passing through a gravity field would first be blue shifted [incoming], then red shifted [outgoing]. The net effect is zero.

Damn, how did I miss that one? Good post.

 

[Locrian]

Yeah, you already said that, show me some calculations, sources or something to back up you're claim. I just proposed a possiblity, you are looking to completely disprove a theory and you can't do that by just saying "you're wrong."

On the contrary, the burden of proof is on you. I'll humor you this time.

You are either suggesting that it is only the object playing the part, and therefore objects farther away are always heavier dependant upon the distance, or you are saying there is a matter gradient evenly distributed throughout the universe.

In the first case you'll be at a loss to explain the state of stars far away. There are visible galaxies very far away which, under your theory, should have huge amounts of extra mass. Yet they contain stars who are burning rather weakly. On top of that, their rotational inertia doesen't allow for the huge amount of mass you are trying to give them. If all stars in a galaxy are redshifted, then they must all be heavier. Significantly.

As you know the redshift due to gravity with an observer away from the source is

$$f' = f(1/(1 + P_e/c^2))$$ where P_e is the gravitational potential energy.

The gravitational potential energy involved will be the the integral of the gravitational field produced by the body from the point the light is emmitted to the point it is recieved.

$$\int GM/r^2$$dr from $$R_1$$ to $$R_2$$. We'll take $$R_2$$ to be at infinity to give you the greatest benefit of the doubt. Once you integrate and take the limit your formula will be:

$$f' = f(1/(1 + GM/Rc^2))$$

Now let's take a star whose lyman alpha line has been shifted from a frequency of 25x10^12 to 8.3x10^12 (both in units of inverse seconds), which is far from the greatest shift to be seen, though it is sizable. Use a standard Sun type star that there are plenty of in the universe for your radius and you'll find that to create this red shift

M = 4x10^35, which is 100,000 times as heavy as our sun.

So in other words, to make this case that gravity is causing red shift, you are going to have to explain how everything half way to the edge of our vision is 100,000 times as heavy as everything near to us, and yet are visibly the same types of stars and do not show 100,000 times as much angular momentum.

Good luck

I won't bother with the matter gradient since you don't seem to feel matter is distributed evenly... and it's obviously just as invalid a hypothesis.

 

[russ_watters]

You're missing the whole point. They CANNOT look different. Their is no visual observations of black holes directly. Their is no visual comparison of a black hole to other objects. You can say interactions with a black hole an dother objects are different, but you can not say a black hole is visually different than any other object.

We're going around in circles, but it really is quite simple: if you have a light bulb suspended from the ceiling in an otherwise dark room, you can't see it if its turned off. But if you bump your head on it, you know its there, even though you can't see it. Now turn the light bulb on. Visually, what is the difference?

You make it sound like the failure to see that a black hole is actually a pulsar is a failure in our ability to observe it. It isn't: we don't observe emissions because there are none to observe. I think you may be confusing the absence of data with actual data showing no emissions. There is a difference. 0 is different from 10 - zero does not imply the absence of data or the possibility that if you could find some data it would be 10.

A collapsed neutron star is a black hole. They have the same mass. A super-massive neutron star that has not collapsed yet can be classified as a black hole. It may have an escape velocity of that greater than light. It may have a nice hefty volume, but this neutron star is considered a black hole just because light can not escape?

Maybe you could do some math to prove that an uncollapsed neutron star could have an event horizon. Hawking calculated that a neutron star of any mass does not have sufficient density to have an event horizon.

Now its sounding to me like you just don't understand what a black hole is.

 

[Entropy]

On the contrary, the burden of proof is on you. I'll humor you this time.

I'm not trying to prove it, I just claimed it might be possible.

You are either suggesting that it is only the object playing the part, and therefore objects farther away are always heavier dependant upon the distance, or you are saying there is a matter gradient evenly distributed throughout the universe.

In the first case you'll be at a loss to explain the state of stars far away. There are visible galaxies very far away which, under your theory, should have huge amounts of extra mass. Yet they contain stars who are burning rather weakly. On top of that, their rotational inertia doesen't allow for the huge amount of mass you are trying to give them. If all stars in a galaxy are redshifted, then they must all be heavier. Significantly.

As you know the redshift due to gravity with an observer away from the source is

where P_e is the gravitational potential energy.

The gravitational potential energy involved will be the the integral of the gravitational field produced by the body from the point the light is emmitted to the point it is recieved.

dr from to . We'll take to be at infinity to give you the greatest benefit of the doubt. Once you integrate and take the limit your formula will be:



Now let's take a star whose lyman alpha line has been shifted from a frequency of 25x10^12 to 8.3x10^12 (both in units of inverse seconds), which is far from the greatest shift to be seen, though it is sizable. Use a standard Sun type star that there are plenty of in the universe for your radius and you'll find that to create this red shift

M = 4x10^35, which is 100,000 times as heavy as our sun.

So in other words, to make this case that gravity is causing red shift, you are going to have to explain how everything half way to the edge of our vision is 100,000 times as heavy as everything near to us, and yet are visibly the same types of stars and do not show 100,000 times as much angular momentum.

Good luck

I won't bother with the matter gradient since you don't seem to feel matter is distributed evenly... and it's obviously just as invalid a hypothesis.

I was thinking of similar equations to the ones you have there today at school. As a small first step I planned on calculating how much red-shift a photon would experience traveling from the sun's surface to Earth. Just to get an idea of how much light is effected by a "normal" star's gravity. Unfortunately, I didn't have my physics book with me today so I wasn't able to look up the radius of the sun or the sun's mass. But I did manage to form some rough equations that would describe the lose in momentum of a photon over a distance with a decreasing gravitational pull as it travels away.

I'm only use to calculating marcoscopic objects with mass so dealing with the gravitational effects on light is new to me. But from what I've deduced so far from my equations is that the evidence seems to be tilting in your favor. :tongue2:

But, I'm not going to rule out that gravity couldn't in some way be effecting the way we see light. Gravity can do some strange things sometimes and with so many sources and such a vast universe there are bound to be unseen variables.

 

[Antonio Lao]

For our sake, the Big Bang is necessary. Although we can talk without any certainty about its real meaning and purpose which experts such as Hawking and Penrose remain silent and theories only reached up to the Planck time, it's a point of departure for all of us. A creationist view of reality.

On the other hand, if there was never a primeval explosion then the universe was always here and always will be here and there forever in a continuum of process without change and movement and indefinite uniformity. A steady state universe that is necessarily infinite in time and space with no change of any kind like the eternal true vacuum itself.

In actuality, the explosion can be just a change in energy density and not a change in energy and mass by themselves for the density can change with mass and energy remain constant while the volume changes.

The change of energy density gives us pressure and this pressure is equal to 2/3 of the energy density for non-relativistic velocity and is equal to 1/3 of energy density for relativistic velocity.

 

[LENIN]

Hi.

I'm sorry but I haven't manege to read the whole text yet so I might say somethings allredy told. I would just like to give a few thoughts set on the original question.

There has been qouit some talk about what was before the Big bang. But as much as I know (not much ) that is more a question of religion then of physics. So there is no need to talk about it.

But by the way I personaly don't believe in the Big bang theory. I find a therey of a nonconstent speed of light and a ever expending universe with an endles number of Big bang much easyer to believe alldo it is qouit new and not yet wiedly accepted.

 

[employee #416]

Wow, forgot about my post.

Ok, Chronos, black holes do not have a distinct visible characteristic that makes it different from any other object. How hard is that to grasp? Visible characteristics of the black hole itself are unknown. We do not know how the object inside the black hole that causes the disturbance in space-time visually looks like. How can we note this unseen-visible characterstic to be different than a visual characteristic of another object? We can only distinguish the outer region of a black hole from an outer region of a similar object.

Take a room that has a width of 50m, a height of 10m and a depth of 50m. Place two light bulbs in the room at opposite ends of the width. One light bulb is a regular house-light bulb, while the other is a standard bulb you would find in an office building (those long ones). This room is made of clear glass. It is surrounded by a bigger room that is made of material that does not let light get through. You turn one of the lights on. Let's say the common house light. You allow an observer to observe this. You tell the observer he can go to any edge of the room as long as he does not pass half the width. You tell the observer that there is another light in the room that is off. You ask him to identify how do they visually differ. He responsds "One emitts light, the other doesnt." Is that really what you want? No, you know the observer is wrong. The other bulb can emitt light if it were turned on. He did not describe the visual characteristics. I.E. the shape of the bulbs. You know that one bult is rod shaped, while the other is a bulb shape.

russ_watters, I know what a black hole is. I understand the concept. You just miscomprehend what I'm asking.

For our sake, the Big Bang is necessary.

Well, not necessarily.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters, I know what a black hole is. I understand the concept. You just miscomprehend what I'm asking.

Sorry, but you don't. Your analogy shows this quite clearly:

You ask him to identify how do they visually differ. He responsds "One emitts light, the other doesnt." Is that really what you want? No, you know the observer is wrong. The other bulb can emitt light if it were turned on.

How do you know the other bulb can emit light? Maybe its burned out? Maybe its not connected to the switch? Indeed, in this case, the only thing the guy knows is that one emits light and one doesn't. This is exactly the issue with a black hole vs a star at the same mass. A black hole doesn't emit light and can't. You make the assumption that there is more information that could be collected that would show them to have the same characteristics. In the case of a black hole, there isn't (in the case of your light bulb, it might, but you have assumed it without evidence). Continuing:

He did not describe the visual characteristics. I.E. the shape of the bulbs. You know that one bult is rod shaped, while the other is a bulb shape.

One thing for sure - a black hole is smaller than a neutron star. Other than that, we don't know - it could be a singularity, or it might not be. But you are assuming structure that may not exist. You can't do that. At the moment, iirc, there are only 3 known basic properties of black holes: mass, spin, and charge (density is high but unknown). But that doesn't matter - we can still distinguish it from the neutron star.

So let me ask you this: if a black hole and neutron star of identical mass had identical structure (as you appear to be implying), why would one have an event horizon and one not?

 

[north]

I haven't seen that paper of Halton Arp but I do remember some of his comments about problems with the Big Bang. If what Arp says in the quote above is true it may provide a way to test the red shift. Red shift due to doppler should have all frequencies shifted the same. Red shift due to Arp's assertion should be shifted less in the red frequencies than in the blue.

Does that sound right ?

Vern

___________________________________________

no,its just there is a different reason for the shift and if you are interested in the book, with enormous amount of his evidence is "SEEING RED" can be purchased at (isbn #0-9683689-0-5) at infinite-energy.com or <http:// metaresearch.org>.perhaps even a book store,not sure, very good read, although very tech. if anything it gives a different perspective of the understanding of what's going on,which to me is important so we don't get stuck in certain way of thinking,which seems to be happening.but be critical of his book, that is also important.

 

[north]

I don't really believe in an expanding universe, or atleast one that is accelerating outward and will continue to do for eternity.

It is possible that the red-shift isn't cause only (or maybe even at all) by the Doopler effect. There are other ways red-shifts can occur, such as gravitational red-shift.

Personally I think any serious speculations on the what the universe was like in near the beginning or will be like near the end is very bold. We know so little about what is happening in the cosmos that it would be stupid at this point in time to devote your life souly (or even a good portion of time) trying to proving a theory describing the beginning and end of the universe. With our current knowledge, making a hardcore theory about the universe would be like determaining the ultimate fate of all mankind after studying one person's life for one minute.

___________________________________________

couldn't agree more,but that is exactly what's going on. that's why to me looking at other theories is important,there are many out there and it can be confusing but if you give yourself time,you'll sort it out at least to yourself,flexibility of mind is important but always criticize.

 

[brodix]

Chronos,

Gravitational redshift is only relevant to the emission source. Light passing through a gravity field would first be blue shifted [incoming], then red shifted [outgoing]. The net effect is zero.

Why do gravitational fields serve as magnifying lenses for distant light sources? What would be the lensing effect on the lightwaves?

One of the primary alternative theories for redshift was tired light, that it was simply encountering friction. As the light wasn't scattered, this idea was rejected. Frankly, I don't think it made much sense to begin with. Obviously proceeding waves would encounter more friction than succeeding ones, so the logical result would be blueshift.
What about energized light; That as amplitude decreases, frequency expands, much like a cracking whip. This would explain why light only travels so far before it fades out.
The first time I questioned the Big Bang theory was reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and he made the point that for the universe to be as stable as it is, "Omega =1". In other words, the gravitational collapse of space must be in inverse proportion to the expansion of the universe. It struck me that a cyclical equilibrium between these two actions would be far more logical than the convenient coincidence of Big Bang Theory. Tests of the CMBR have since proven that this balance does exist and that ultimately space is flat.
Einstein proposed that the gravitational collapse of mass causes space to collapse. The fact is that this process releases tremendous amounts of radiation. Why doesn't this radiation result in the expansion of space? This is a point that I've heard raised by others.
An interesting article;
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626

What if space does expand, but the universe doesn't? This would result in additional pressure on gravitational collapse. Exactly the effect currently assigned to dark matter.

It is a given that light passing through gravitational fields is magnified by a lensing effect and this is how we observe some of the most distant sources. What if this results in a blue shift? When you consider the distribution of galaxies across the universe, the further light travels, the more residual gravity fields it will cross. The resulting blueshift would reduce the overall redshift of distant sources, so the closer sources would have a greater average redshift. This creates the impression that the rate of expansion is increasing. Which would explain the effect assigned to dark energy.
Much is made of the CMBR as being predicted by BBT, but could there be other reasons for it. One of the problems it posed for BBT was that it was so smooth that information would have to travel at twice the speed of light for opposite sides of the universe to be similar.
Well, we have expanding energy/radiation and collapsing mass. Where is the connection? Could it be that empty space can only hold a minor amount of radiation in solution before it starts to condense out? Say this phase transition level is 2.7k(much like 32f is the freezing point of water) After this it starts to condense out as hydrogen.
What is the other side of the cycle? Gravitational vortexes of collapsing matter and radiating energy. Rather then black holes being some infinitely dense mass, or some hole into another dimension, what if they are essentially the eye of the storm, with most of the activity being what we see, much like a hurricane swirling around its center? Some energy does fall in, but this could be the source of the jets of protons shooting out the poles. So the matter is turned back into energy.

Of course, the experts say the universe and time and space, began in an instant, some 15 billion years ago, necessarily expanded faster then the speed of light to a size far greater than the visible universe and is ninety six percent invisible to everything but the math.
I suppose so, but I'm not going to hire any cosmologists as my accountants, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Chronos]

Gravitational lensing bends light, it does not red, or blue, shift it. It works pretty much the same as an optical lense.

 

[Chronos]

Wow, forgot about my post.

Ok, Chronos, black holes do not have a distinct visible characteristic that makes it different from any other object. How hard is that to grasp?

They have characteristics that are not visible. That is the part that cannot be explained by any other explanation than they are black holes.

Visible characteristics of the black hole itself are unknown.

Agreed, a black hole has no visible characteristics. That is why we suspect they exist.

We do not know how the object inside the black hole that causes the disturbance in space-time visually looks like.

Agreed.

How can we note this unseen-visible characterstic to be different than a visual characteristic of another object? We can only distinguish the outer region of a black hole from an outer region of a similar object.

Any other object would have observable characteristics.

Take a room that has a width of 50m, a height of 10m and a depth of 50m. Place two light bulbs in the room at opposite ends of the width. One light bulb is a regular house-light bulb, while the other is a standard bulb you would find in an office building (those long ones). This room is made of clear glass. It is surrounded by a bigger room that is made of material that does not let light get through. You turn one of the lights on. Let's say the common house light. You allow an observer to observe this. You tell the observer he can go to any edge of the room as long as he does not pass half the width. You tell the observer that there is another light in the room that is off. You ask him to identify how do they visually differ. He responsds "One emitts light, the other doesnt." Is that really what you want? No, you know the observer is wrong.

The observer is correct.

The other bulb can emitt light if it were turned on. He did not describe the visual characteristics. I.E. the shape of the bulbs. You know that one bult is rod shaped, while the other is a bulb shape.

Irrelevant.

russ_watters, I know what a black hole is. I understand the concept. You just miscomprehend what I'm asking.

Russ is correct, you are incorrect. Do the math and you will see Russ is correct. Do not trust your intuition. Relativity does not obey it. Seriously, look at the math. Relativity is very hard conceptually. As Eddington said years ago.. 'Who is the third person who understands it?'