Speed of light...

What would happen to the red shift of light for very distant objects if
there was some sort of phenomena related to the very distant leading
edge of the remnants of the Big Bang? I guess I'm thinking that on a
classical scale when light passes through a material, it slows down in
that material, and these effects are definitely observable. Of course,
there are other phenomenae (i.e., absorbtion spectra) that are also
observed, but I'm conveniently assuming that the scale of things cancels
them out.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is what if the concept of "dark
matter" or whatever does exist Way Out There, and while not directly
affecting light like we see with classical optics (i.e., chromatic
aberation, absorption spectra, etc), there are manifestations on the
behavior of light at a large enough scale that are analogous to some of
these behaviors, but because at the distances involved some of them just
get cancelled out, and what we are left with is just red shift?

What if way out at the edge of our known universe, there are objects
even more distant than what the edge of the universe is at right now,
and their light has been coming through the leading edge of the Big
Bang, but somehow been phase-shifted to make it appear that they're
going away faster, but they really aren't, and that because we do not
have a portal for light that does go purely through a vacuum for 15
billion light years, that it can't really be directly observed?

I guess I'm thinking of something like a very slight difference in
"universe vacuum density" between where we are at now, the outer limits
of the Big bang, and whatever lies past it, that might cause an effect
like this with light that has passed through it?

What happens if light is passing through a wave front in a very slightly
non-full vacuum universe, could the motion of that wave front distort
light in the same way as if that light was coming straight through a
pure vacuum from a source moving the same way?

"Corey Lawson" corey.lawson@att-dot-net wrote in message
...
What would happen to the red shift of light for very distant objects if
there was some sort of phenomena related to the very distant leading
edge of the remnants of the Big Bang? I guess I'm thinking that on a
classical scale when light passes through a material, it slows down in
that material, and these effects are definitely observable. Of course,
there are other phenomenae (i.e., absorbtion spectra) that are also
observed, but I'm conveniently assuming that the scale of things cancels
them out.


Don't assume that objects further away are somehow "closer" to the leading
edge of the big bang.

There is no centre to the expansion of the Universe; the people in those
galaxies far, far away might like to think that we are close to the edge of
the big bang.

And because there is no centre, there is no leading edge either.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is what if the concept of "dark
matter" or whatever does exist Way Out There, and while not directly
affecting light like we see with classical optics (i.e., chromatic
aberation, absorption spectra, etc), there are manifestations on the
behavior of light at a large enough scale that are analogous to some of
these behaviors, but because at the distances involved some of them just
get cancelled out, and what we are left with is just red shift?


Well, yes, in principle. There is a similar theory known as "tired light".

The trouble is that we know that objects receding at high speed have red
shifts. This can be demonstrated using simple mathematics. Other
explanations of the red shift have to invent whole new mechanisms which
operate in a precise manner to exactly duplicate the effects of simple
doppler shift. I don't know the optical effects of dark matter, or if it
exists, but if it does exist it would be extremely surprising if its optical
effects exactly duplicated doppler shifting.

There is a second problem with these types of theories. Light which is
red-shifted has less energy (doesn't matter if that red shift is due to
doppler
shift or some other mysterious cause). If the red shift is caused by darm
matter, that dark matter must be absorbing energy. Which means that it must
be getting warmer; that energy has got to be going somewhere. Where?


What if way out at the edge of our known universe, there are objects
even more distant than what the edge of the universe is at right now,
and their light has been coming through the leading edge of the Big
Bang, but somehow been phase-shifted to make it appear that they're
going away faster, but they really aren't, and that because we do not
have a portal for light that does go purely through a vacuum for 15
billion light years, that it can't really be directly observed?


Its not "phase shifting", its a change in frequency. And there is no leading
edge.
And how come we see red shift at all scales - compartatively close objects
have a little red shift, distant objects have a bigger red shift, if it is
somehow linked to the "leading edge" of the Big Bang?


I guess I'm thinking of something like a very slight difference in
"universe vacuum density" between where we are at now, the outer limits
of the Big bang, and whatever lies past it, that might cause an effect
like this with light that has passed through it?


See above.

What happens if light is passing through a wave front in a very slightly
non-full vacuum universe, could the motion of that wave front distort
light in the same way as if that light was coming straight through a
pure vacuum from a source moving the same way?


There is no wave front, as any point in the Universe (including the tip of
your nose or a galaxy 10 billion light years away) could be considered as
where the Big Bang occured.
Red shift occurs for objects that are comparitively close as well as those a
long way away.

These two facts seem to shoot down your theory.

"Corey Lawson" corey.lawson@att-dot-net wrote in message
...
What would happen to the red shift of light for very distant objects if
there was some sort of phenomena related to the very distant leading
edge of the remnants of the Big Bang? I guess I'm thinking that on a
classical scale when light passes through a material, it slows down in
that material, and these effects are definitely observable. Of course,
there are other phenomenae (i.e., absorbtion spectra) that are also
observed, but I'm conveniently assuming that the scale of things cancels
them out.


Don't assume that objects further away are somehow "closer" to the leading
edge of the big bang.

There is no centre to the expansion of the Universe; the people in those
galaxies far, far away might like to think that we are close to the edge of
the big bang.

And because there is no centre, there is no leading edge either.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is what if the concept of "dark
matter" or whatever does exist Way Out There, and while not directly
affecting light like we see with classical optics (i.e., chromatic
aberation, absorption spectra, etc), there are manifestations on the
behavior of light at a large enough scale that are analogous to some of
these behaviors, but because at the distances involved some of them just
get cancelled out, and what we are left with is just red shift?


Well, yes, in principle. There is a similar theory known as "tired light".

The trouble is that we know that objects receding at high speed have red
shifts. This can be demonstrated using simple mathematics. Other
explanations of the red shift have to invent whole new mechanisms which
operate in a precise manner to exactly duplicate the effects of simple
doppler shift. I don't know the optical effects of dark matter, or if it
exists, but if it does exist it would be extremely surprising if its optical
effects exactly duplicated doppler shifting.

There is a second problem with these types of theories. Light which is
red-shifted has less energy (doesn't matter if that red shift is due to
doppler
shift or some other mysterious cause). If the red shift is caused by darm
matter, that dark matter must be absorbing energy. Which means that it must
be getting warmer; that energy has got to be going somewhere. Where?


What if way out at the edge of our known universe, there are objects
even more distant than what the edge of the universe is at right now,
and their light has been coming through the leading edge of the Big
Bang, but somehow been phase-shifted to make it appear that they're
going away faster, but they really aren't, and that because we do not
have a portal for light that does go purely through a vacuum for 15
billion light years, that it can't really be directly observed?


Its not "phase shifting", its a change in frequency. And there is no leading
edge.
And how come we see red shift at all scales - compartatively close objects
have a little red shift, distant objects have a bigger red shift, if it is
somehow linked to the "leading edge" of the Big Bang?


I guess I'm thinking of something like a very slight difference in
"universe vacuum density" between where we are at now, the outer limits
of the Big bang, and whatever lies past it, that might cause an effect
like this with light that has passed through it?


See above.

What happens if light is passing through a wave front in a very slightly
non-full vacuum universe, could the motion of that wave front distort
light in the same way as if that light was coming straight through a
pure vacuum from a source moving the same way?


There is no wave front, as any point in the Universe (including the tip of
your nose or a galaxy 10 billion light years away) could be considered as
where the Big Bang occured.
Red shift occurs for objects that are comparitively close as well as those a
long way away.

These two facts seem to shoot down your theory.

From Corey L.:

What would happen to the red shift of
light for very distant objects if there was
some sort of phenomena related to the
very distant leading edge of the
remnants of the Big Bang?

Although there is no 'edge' to the BB as Mr. Webb pointed out, take a
look at this Hubble Deep Field pic. It shows the most distant object yet
imaged (in 1996), a galaxy of extreme redshift lying at the very edge of
visibility- http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

Other HST imaging concentrates on type 1a supernovae, the 'standard
candle' of luminosity at cosmological distances. Well, the most distant
1a SN are found to appear 'dimmer than they should be' at a given
redshift. This anomalous dimming is interpreted as further evidence of
'ever-accelerating expansion' of the universe. And this is based on the
assumption that space is 'pure void' or 'nothing'.

I guess I'm thinking of something like a
very slight difference in "universe
vacuum density" between where we are
at now,.... that might cause an effect like this with light that has
passed through it?

Exactly. Such a cosmological density gradient might exist if space is
*not* a 'pure void' but is a very real medium amenable to compression/
rarefaction and density gradients. If so, then the most ancient light,
propagating from denser space into 'our' less-dense space *would* lose
amplitude, just as is seen in the anomalous dimming of the distant 1a
SN. And 'ever-accelerating expansion' would be a grand illusion based on
the 'pure void' assumption. The expansion curve would swing away from
'accelerating expansion' toward DEcelerating expansion and a closed
universe.

All 'tired light' theories BTW, are predicated on the space-as-pure-void
assumption.

oc

From Corey L.:

What would happen to the red shift of
light for very distant objects if there was
some sort of phenomena related to the
very distant leading edge of the
remnants of the Big Bang?

Although there is no 'edge' to the BB as Mr. Webb pointed out, take a
look at this Hubble Deep Field pic. It shows the most distant object yet
imaged (in 1996), a galaxy of extreme redshift lying at the very edge of
visibility- http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

Other HST imaging concentrates on type 1a supernovae, the 'standard
candle' of luminosity at cosmological distances. Well, the most distant
1a SN are found to appear 'dimmer than they should be' at a given
redshift. This anomalous dimming is interpreted as further evidence of
'ever-accelerating expansion' of the universe. And this is based on the
assumption that space is 'pure void' or 'nothing'.

I guess I'm thinking of something like a
very slight difference in "universe
vacuum density" between where we are
at now,.... that might cause an effect like this with light that has
passed through it?

Exactly. Such a cosmological density gradient might exist if space is
*not* a 'pure void' but is a very real medium amenable to compression/
rarefaction and density gradients. If so, then the most ancient light,
propagating from denser space into 'our' less-dense space *would* lose
amplitude, just as is seen in the anomalous dimming of the distant 1a
SN. And 'ever-accelerating expansion' would be a grand illusion based on
the 'pure void' assumption. The expansion curve would swing away from
'accelerating expansion' toward DEcelerating expansion and a closed
universe.

All 'tired light' theories BTW, are predicated on the space-as-pure-void
assumption.

oc

Photons never slow down. Their speed is set at 186,000 mps Those that
are convinced light going through super cold sodium is slowed to 3 miles
per hour must answer the logical question were does it get the energy
once outside the sodium to get back to its 186,000mps speed? Man showing
photons going at different speeds through different mediums is very bad
thinking,and his experiments he uses to prove this have a much better
analysis than slowing down. Best to think why light takes 100,000 years
to reach the sun's surface. Here good thinking is used. Bert

Photons never slow down. Their speed is set at 186,000 mps Those that
are convinced light going through super cold sodium is slowed to 3 miles
per hour must answer the logical question were does it get the energy
once outside the sodium to get back to its 186,000mps speed? Man showing
photons going at different speeds through different mediums is very bad
thinking,and his experiments he uses to prove this have a much better
analysis than slowing down. Best to think why light takes 100,000 years
to reach the sun's surface. Here good thinking is used. Bert

Check this out - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._stoplight.htm


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Photons never slow down. Their speed is set at 186,000 mps Those that
are convinced light going through super cold sodium is slowed to 3 miles
per hour must answer the logical question were does it get the energy
once outside the sodium to get back to its 186,000mps speed? Man showing
photons going at different speeds through different mediums is very bad
thinking,and his experiments he uses to prove this have a much better
analysis than slowing down. Best to think why light takes 100,000 years
to reach the sun's surface. Here good thinking is used. Bert

Check this out - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._stoplight.htm


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Photons never slow down. Their speed is set at 186,000 mps Those that
are convinced light going through super cold sodium is slowed to 3 miles
per hour must answer the logical question were does it get the energy
once outside the sodium to get back to its 186,000mps speed? Man showing
photons going at different speeds through different mediums is very bad
thinking,and his experiments he uses to prove this have a much better
analysis than slowing down. Best to think why light takes 100,000 years
to reach the sun's surface. Here good thinking is used. Bert

Buffy Thanks for that Harvard site,but again I stand by my own
thoughts,"light does not slow down" That Harvard team said light went
in and did not come . Buffy my "Spin is in theory tells me why." In my
very fast pictures I have stopped a light beam an inch and a half from
its source. I showed all this at MIT,and Harvard is just a stones throw
away. If I did not do some research,and thinking on my own these
Harvard guys would get away with murder. I have spent more work,and
thinking on photons then all of them Harvard boys combined. Bert