red shift: doppler or einstein?

md wrote:

When we measure the red-shift of a distant
object, how can we conclude that it moves
away from us? It might also be that it is not
moving away, but it is very heavy instead?

We also observe that the red shift increases
with distance. If it's a gravitational effect, it
would mean that objects tend to be more
massive the further away they are from our
galaxy. That's a pretty silly idea, it makes
much more sense that they are moving away
from us.

Mark

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:05:38 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:08:56 GMT, "David Nakamoto"
wrote:


One way is to take the measurements in a binary system. From the spectral type
of the component stars, an estimate of their distance, and their orbital period,
all measurable through telescopes and some inferring, you can get the pairs
motion around each other and through space, at least in the line of sight. From
this you can eliminate causes of red shift due to motion, eliminate them, and
uncover other red shift effects.

This was, in fact, how gravitationally induced red shift was measured for the
first time, using the white dwarf companion of Sirius, I believe, if not the one
around Procyon, but I believe it was Sirius. The period, mass, and the pair's
mutual motion through space are measurable or can be calculated from the
observed. From this, all red shifts due to motion can be eliminated. Then
because the companion has a high surface gravity, it can produce a gravitational
red shift, which was what was left when the other causes were eliminated, and it
matched what Einstein predicted for the mass of the companion.

Gravity can be ruled out pretty much because it is a feeble effect.
The sun has pretty good gravity 27G but the gravity redshift z = 635/c
= 0.0000021.
A galaxy with this shift would have Doppler velocity of 635km/second
which is very small cosmologically, well, 0.0000021 of c. The distance
computed using Hubble's constant would be 30,000 LY which is only
about 1 2 millionth of the radius of the universe (13BLY).

What makes you think that the radius of the universe is 13 BLY?


Bye,
Bjoern
13 BLY or 1.23x10^26 m is generally recognized as the radius of the
universe. It is the popularly accepted age in yrs x the speed of light
on the TIME axis. It is part of my Dual Space theory and a little
diagram explaining this can be seen at http://www.dualspace.net.
This same theory is also capable of explaining the Pioneer 10 anomaly
on which topic relativity remains mute.

But if you have another number for the radius, feel free to use it and
I think you will find the imputed galactic distance of 30,000 LY for
the Sun will still be an immeasurably low fraction thereof.
John Polasek

If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:17:32 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

13 BLY or 1.23x10^26 m is generally recognized as the radius of the
universe...

It is certainly not "generally" recognized as such. You've just defined
the part that is visible. Most cosmologists consider the Universe to be
a good deal larger than that, however.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"redbelly" wrote in message
oups.com...
md wrote:

When we measure the red-shift of a distant
object, how can we conclude that it moves
away from us? It might also be that it is not
moving away, but it is very heavy instead?

We also observe that the red shift increases
with distance. If it's a gravitational effect, it
would mean that objects tend to be more
massive the further away they are from our
galaxy. That's a pretty silly idea,

why is that a "silly" idea?? you mean "different"?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:38:06 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:17:32 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

13 BLY or 1.23x10^26 m is generally recognized as the radius of the
universe...

It is certainly not "generally" recognized as such. You've just defined
the part that is visible. Most cosmologists consider the Universe to be
a good deal larger than that, however.

_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
What I indicated was the time radius. If you look at my diagram in
http://www.dualspace.net you'll see that the maximum distance could be
pi times that radius, being real space along the arc which subtends a
time axis radius m/l of 10-13BLYR.

John Polasek

If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:05:38 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


[snip]

What makes you think that the radius of the universe is 13 BLY?


Bye,
Bjoern

13 BLY or 1.23x10^26 m is generally recognized as the radius of the
universe.

No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea from?


It is the popularly accepted age in yrs x the speed of light
on the TIME axis.

What makes you think that the age of the universe times the speed
of light gives its radius?


It is part of my Dual Space theory

I.e. it is merely an assertion by you, not "generally recognized as
the radius of the universe".


and a little
diagram explaining this can be seen at http://www.dualspace.net.

You probably mean the diagram in
http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/Expansionofuniverseatwebsite.pdf.

Why do you think the "R" appearing in this diagram can be called
the "radius" of the universe?


This same theory is also capable of explaining the Pioneer 10 anomaly
on which topic relativity remains mute.

It's not clear if relativity is even required to explain it.

BTW, there are hundreds of cranks who claim to be able to explain it.
I see no reason to prefer your assertions over theirs.


But if you have another number for the radius, feel free to use it
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html


and
I think you will find the imputed galactic distance of 30,000 LY for
the Sun will still be an immeasurably low fraction thereof.

I won't dispute that.


Bye,
Bjoern

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:38:06 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:17:32 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:


13 BLY or 1.23x10^26 m is generally recognized as the radius of the
universe...

It is certainly not "generally" recognized as such. You've just defined
the part that is visible. Most cosmologists consider the Universe to be
a good deal larger than that, however.

________________________________________________ _

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

What I indicated was the time radius.

"time radius" is an undefined term which makes little sense.

BTW, you didn't say that you talk about the "time radius" previously.


If you look at my diagram in
http://www.dualspace.net you'll see that the maximum distance could be
pi times that radius, being real space along the arc which subtends a
time axis radius m/l of 10-13BLYR.

Unfortunately for you, the real universe is larger than 2 pi times
13.7 billion light years.



Bye,
Bjoern

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:03:23 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

What I indicated was the time radius. If you look at my diagram in
http://www.dualspace.net you'll see that the maximum distance could be
pi times that radius, being real space along the arc which subtends a
time axis radius m/l of 10-13BLYR.

I understand the basis of your calculation. I was taking exception to
using this figure as the size of the Universe. "Generally" the Universe
is taken to be many orders of magnitude larger than this.

I also take exception to your suggestion that it is "widely surmised"
that a "new physics" is required to explain the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
There are perfectly good explanations based on conventional physics.
These include mundane possibilities related to thruster leakage or
asymmetric heat radiation, and more interesting ones involving dark
matter. At this point, there is no particular reason to favor a
modification of gravitational theory over the simpler explanations.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:22:37 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:03:23 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

What I indicated was the time radius. If you look at my diagram in
http://www.dualspace.net you'll see that the maximum distance could be
pi times that radius, being real space along the arc which subtends a
time axis radius m/l of 10-13BLYR.

I understand the basis of your calculation. I was taking exception to
using this figure as the size of the Universe. "Generally" the Universe
is taken to be many orders of magnitude larger than this.

I also take exception to your suggestion that it is "widely surmised"
that a "new physics" is required to explain the Pioneer 10 anomaly.
There are perfectly good explanations based on conventional physics.
These include mundane possibilities related to thruster leakage or
asymmetric heat radiation, and more interesting ones involving dark
matter. At this point, there is no particular reason to favor a
modification of gravitational theory over the simpler explanations.

_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
It's easy to say "There are perfectly good explanations based on
conventional physics" but the fact is the "mundanes" have been
investigated and discarded. Pioneer 10 was fortuitously special, being
spin stabilized and without thrusters. That would be essential
because even at 20AU, A_p is 16,000 times lower than Sun's gravity.
70 watts were produced by plutonium heat sources on the ends of long
booms and would have needed to point in the same direction..

An article I printed from the web (link is no longer good) quotes
such people as Wilczek, Weinburg, Anderson, Haisch discussing the
problem with every indication that the "usual suspects" have been
exonerated.

I have a new gravity theory which adds a term to Newtons equation and
delivers all of GR and SR results. It results from a 3d universe
flying through time at c (hence the R = cT), rather than relativity's
4 dimensions all soldered together. And c varies with gravity rathwer
than time dilation. There's a sampling at my website
http://www.dualspace.net, where I dissect various gravitational
effects like the GPS corrections. Naturally the derivation up to that
point is not included, as it is difficult to have anyone look at even
two equations.

John Polasek

If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:01:47 -0500, John C. Polasek
wrote:

It's easy to say "There are perfectly good explanations based on
conventional physics" but the fact is the "mundanes" have been
investigated and discarded...

That isn't my understanding. Rather, the problem is that there is no
duplicate of the craft available for experimentation, which leaves the
situation very difficult to test. I'm not saying that something odd
isn't going on, only that there are plenty of ordinary explanations that
can't be excluded (because they are largely untestable). It is
interesting that the anomaly hasn't been detected with other probes
where you might have expected it. Again, my point was only that there is
no reason to prefer new physical principles over much more ordinary
causes.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com