Anybody else on this forum have an interest in physics?

Huh. Did you know that if someone steals your social security card and you cancel it immediately, that person can still pose as you while getting medical care? Funny, I know, but it just happened to me.

 

Blue-shift. A falling object (in this case light) is gaining energy and therefore the shift is blue.

The gravity of every object continues to infinity. Therefore, the resulting spacetime curvature also continues to infinity. However, after a certain point, the individual values are negligible. BUT! Sum up an infinity of negligible values and you get a value that is measurable again. This then could be the source of the spacetime curve that causes light to lose energy (or at least a portion of the loss).

It is my observation (real or illusion) that once something is called negligible, people (including scientists) treat the value as zero and then forget about it... Bad idea, in my opinion.

Red-shift and Blue-shift are the same phenomenon. Red-shift is caused by the lose of energy and blue-shift by the gaining of energy according to the formula E=hf (Energy equals Planc's constant times the frequency.).
This was to be point 1) of my "Science Proven Beyond A Doubt" post that would have been step one for explaining "my" theory.


Point 2) Causes of photon frequency shift (called Red-shift & Blue-shift) include entering (Blue-) or leaving (Red-) a gravity well (General Relativity), accleration of the observer (Special Relativity), and the relative motion of an photon source to an observer.

Point 3) The Curvature of the Universe is currently Unknown. There are many solutions to General Relativity that may exist.

 

To an inside observer. But, to everyone watching from outside, it's a red-shift. However, if you're in a black hole, you won't get a meaningful picture of the universe. This is because the blue-shift is so severe, that all light entering the black hole would become gamma rays and kill you. I'd like to see someone sit inside of a black hole and then get out to tell someone else what just happened. However, when I first spoke, I was speaking of what happens to light from an outside observer's point of view, i.e. the only point of view a human can safely have without being torn to pieces as they get closer to the event horizon, or simply frozen in time until the death of the black hole, at which point the only other people in the universe would be individuals who had been likewise frozen in time by a black hole.

So which is it? Does the curvature of space continue to infinity, or is it unknown?
Even if a field of gravity does continue onto infinity, the effects of gravity weaken proportional to the distance from the massive object, by a factor of two by every radius of distance (so if you're 4 earth radii away from our planet, you weigh 1/16th of your earth weight). This means that there are indeed places in space with almost no curvature, due to the majority of space not being filled with anything save for a few molecules.
It's known that light traditionally travels in straight lines. However, in cases of gravitational red-shift, to an outside observer, the light is curving (though the light itself is moving straight, and simply following the curves of spacetime). This is also the principle behind gravitational lensing, the way light will distort to bend around a galaxy or star, or in the case of a black hole, allow you to see what's directly behind it.
However, it's been shown earlier this year that light does not directly interact with gravity. If it did, then gravitational lensing would be apparent all around the stars of the universe, as opposed to just within the plasma layer of said stars. Also, if it were true, there'd be obvious Einstein rings around every single star in the universe. Instead, it's been shown that light only curves when passing through severely distorted space-time, and otherwise travels unhindered through the vacuum. This means that, unless it travels through severely curved spacetime (either right around the event horizon or through the plasma rim of a star), it won't be falling inward toward anything. As a result it will not be red-shifted by traveling in the vacuum of space unless the space between the body emitting the light and the body receiving it is expanding.
If what you're suggesting is true, it would be apparent to people studying light that's traveled trillions of miles in space before arriving at earth from distant stars and galaxies. However, if you're really interested, you might want to take on physics as your field of study and try to prove it.
It's been known for a while now that redshift is caused by the curvature of space, either by expansion or by curvature toward a massive body (which is still technically expansion), but it should be noted that neither case is the result of the doppler effect, because there's no motion involved.
If the universe was always the same size, then yes, all redshift would be due to the forces of gravity on spacetime. But, if what you said is true, then light from every galaxy that's far away from us would be red-shifted, including ones in our local cluster, unless I missed something in your explanation. What's been shown, however, is that all galaxies outside of our cluster are moving away from us at an increasingly rapid rate (causing redshift), while the ones in our cluster are moving closer together (causing blueshift). The blueshift is indeed a doppler effect, and not because of light entering a gravity well. The reason being; earth has a higher gravity potential than anything we can observe outside of our galaxy that produces light, and gravitational blueshifts only occur when the gravity potential of the receiving body is lower than the source.
To add onto that, the redshift of distant galaxies is increasing, and nothing in what you said allows for redshift to increase without gravity increasing. But, if that were the case, it would mean that everything in the static universe is somehow gaining mass. The key is that, in cases of cosmological redshift, the redshift detected is far greater than subluminal speeds allow, which means the very space between objects is stretching out. The net effect of this is that there are galaxies receding from us faster than their light can travel. It's not due to gravity, it's due to the very opposite of gravity, i.e. dark energy.
Also, the cosmic background radiation isn't related to emissions from a star or galaxy, but the homogenous hydrogen plasma that permeated the universe before it expanded enough to cool off. This, in turn, allowed more complex bodies to form, while leaving the photons left over from the big bang to lose frequency as the whole mess increased in size.
The problem with what you're suggesting about the redshift in the universe is that the three different types we know of are only appropriate at different times;
Doppler is only appropriate for bodies relatively close together, moving apart at plausible speeds
Gravitational is only appropriate when light is leaving a gravity well
Cosmological is only appropriate for distances beyond a few million lightyears, where the expansion of the universe comes into play
Several reasons for the redshift of distant galaxies were proposed, but the reason chosen, the very reason we have today, was the only one that seemed plausible. It's possible that someone in the past actually had your same idea, but it was overtaken by something that made a bit more sense. Gravity wells are finite in size and don't exist in the majority of space in the universe. In the case of vast distances, the expansion of the universe is taken into account to explain redshift, because there just aren't bodies with enough mass and sufficient density to stretch passing photons in intergalactic space.

 

A mild interest, but enough to hold a debate.

Until we are actually able to replicate a universe, theoretically and practically, I'm not sure if we're able to accurately say how this expansion is occurring.

In my head, I see it the universe not as a three-dimensional container, but as a four-dimensional organic product that uses the energy within itself to grow larger. (The fourth dimension being time).

Because we're at a fixed point in the universe, we can only comment on what's going on around us based on where we are. Hence the 'tired light' theory; the further away we perceive something, the more time it takes for the information to return, and the more likely we are to interpret it as 'slowing down'.

Light is a form of energy, and energy has its own mass; I think that's why we gravity wells and such can alter the course of light. Thus, if gravity wells can redirect energy, I think it directs the 'growth' of the universe. But what puts the gravity wells there?

 

These are two incompatible statements with entirely different meanings/applications. the "resulting spacetime curvature" is not a constant, but rather an ever diminishing value. While point 3 deals with basic structure of the universe itself.
Think of it this way, the structure of the surface of the earth is that a sphere, but when you view a map, it is treated as a plane. In like manner, the "maps" that we make of the universe are of flat spacetime, but the observable universe is too small of a portion of the entire universe to determine whether or not the universe is indeed "flat".

Basically, my "resulting spacetime curvature" statement was poor wording on my part.

This statement intrigues me. Got a link? Because if it's true, my understanding of mass must change.

Okay, here we have a miscommunication problem. If you are an outside observer, you can't "see" light that is falling into a black hole; you can only see light that is leaving the black hole. When light leaves a black hole, it is losing energy and therefore red-shifted. When light is falling into a black hole, it is gaining energy and therefore blue-shifted.

 

The WMAP spacecraft was sent out to study the universe, and the data collected suggested the spatial curvature of the universe is extremely close to zero. Its functions ceased in September of last year.

Light has no mass. It's affected by the curvature of spacetime caused by gravity, but is not directly attracted to objects with a mass great enough to distort space. http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

Anything that can reflect or gives off light will, upon nearing the event horizon of a black hole, red shift until it is no longer visible. You are technically correct, but that's because I forgot to explain my contribution to the conversation.
I notice you didn't comment on the entirety of my last post. In fact, you only mentioned a gap in my relation of an example of redshift around a black hole, my quoting of two incongruous statements, and how one sentence intrigued you, which, I might add, was on top of the most informative portion of my post and would've sated your curiosity. You didn't address how your theory would explain increasing redshifts of distant galaxies as all universal bodies simultaneously gaining mass out of nowhere, increasing the distortion of lightwaves traveling through open space. I understand how that would work, but that doesn't mean it makes sense for every case of redshift in the universe. This is because there aren't rampant gravity wells rapidly gaining magical mass throughout the universe. If there were, the universe would be shrinking; not stable in size, and certainly not expanding.
You're completely ignoring where I did actually consider your theory and used actual physics to show you how you might need to re-think it.
If you really want to know if you're correct, there's a website called google that might help you out.
Or there's bing.
Or yahoo.
Or wikipedia.
"miscommunication problem" indeed.

 

I never said it was your fault. But my mind also wasn't clear as to whether it was my fault. It was intutition that prompted that statement. But if there is no disagreement with the statements that followed about red- and blue-shift, then there should be no worries and if there is a disagreement, I must have missed it as my mind is at max capacity on this subject and keeps dropping below the levels I need to maintain focus while reading your posts. And if so, could you point it out as succiently as possible?

And if you haven't noticed yet, all my theories arise as a result of lacking a crucial piece of information. (Information that I tend to find in books I have already read after I figure it or find it out elsewheres.) So my theories tend to be as the aether theories that arose as a result of the missing piece information that light travels at constant velocity as a result of it being an electromagnetic wave (and therefore breaks with classical mechanics): Debunked. Therefore, let my theories serve as problems to determine what data is necessary to disprove them and so provide a better understanding of the subject matter.

As to the curvature of space, it requires mass. And there is apparantly insuffience mass to create suffiecent curvature for my idea to hold merit, not to take from you if you already said that.

 

Xyle, you said right in the start of the thread that your theories happened due to you personally missing something.
I did try to tell you a few times what you were missing, but I guess I didn't have the wording exactly right, or, you didn't read the entirety of my posts and instead only read up to where you could correct something I said.
Even when I suggested a theory with a similar background to yours, you didn't say "Hey, it's interesting that someone else thought universal expansion was a silly reason for red-shift," you instead pointed out that it wasn't useful to you only because of how he described the method of redshift.
Even when I posted a link to something that would've explained my point much better than I could, you ignored it and latched on to mistakes I made in a previous post.
Then, I make a post that accurately explains my ideas, and by the time you post you've apparently only read the very last line of my previous post and then explain the very same point I made in your own words, apparently upon further research on your part-this is good, don't get me wrong, but frustrating.
It just doesn't seem like you're actually reading people's posts and only find small things to disagree with.

 

Watch out, the physicists are getting catty.

Edit: What has happened to my sloganizer sig, or did DF edit it? Not the Alaskan Pipeline thing which I've just changed it to, it was some algebra or something.

 

Bad habit of auto-correcting others and assuming responsiblity for their education (I did in-class tutoring when I went to school), my apologies. I must try to remember to only offer help when asked. (But then, how do others know that they can ask unless I offer unwanted help, first?)

Someone else's success or someone else's mistake? What makes the edges of science interesting is going "where no man has gone before." To discover that I am treading ground that others have walked, only increases my desire to go further afield.

Hadn't read the link. Right-clicked the link and downloaded it; took it home; then read last night on my own off-line computer. Gave the impress that the whole of General Relativity is wrong. Plan on going back to the site and downloading the images and following the links. Reminded me of science article that I read that said if you remove the transformations (or something like that) General Relativity breaks down to something that is compatible with the Standard Model.
Wouldn't it be a riot if General Relativity is wrong and it only took mankind a hundred years to learn that because we want it to be right? But then, I want General Relativity to be right.

"apparently upon further research on your part" -- I suppose I wasn't clear. Even after reading your words, I have no idea what the words reveal about what you know. It is like the words turn into puzzle pieces that mix in with the puzzle pieces that I already possess. And I have no memory of where the pieces originate. Even the pieces that are newly acquired. So the "research" may have been your post.

 

I think I speak for everyone when I say that I think you speak for everyone about what everyone thinks when you speak to everyone.

 

I hope that guy gets hit by a fucking train or something.

 

What gives you the right to speak for me!

 

This is from my third post in the thread. You only read my post before that, and you even managed to read that spacetime only curves around sources of mass in that post, without actually using it to make sense of your theory. I'll embolden and color where it is;

It was the fourth sentence in a seven-sentence post. You were capable of commenting on it, but it didn't really register until I made several more posts explaining the same thing.

So then how do you know whether or not something you "know" or have "learned" is in a book you've "read"? Something written on the internet or in a book is easy enough to look up and confirm. Simply summarize the concepts and search them. You'll find out fairly straight away whether or not the author of either case is bullshitting, telling the truth, or simply mistaken. I made dozens of searches on your theory to see if there was anything related to it, and the only thing I could find was Tired Light. It was meant to encourage you. More power to the person who can prove that all redshift is due to the curvature of spacetime toward a source of mass. All I was doing was explaining to you how you may need to tweak it to have it make more sense.
As far as your reading comprehension, all thoughts and memories are in segments, and arranged much like disorganized "puzzle pieces" until we choose to verbalize them or concentrate on them. I've just never encountered someone who is able to delineate where their information comes from while still being unable to attribute new information to its possible source.

 

Cattier and cattier, meow - I think we all know this thread should be Anyone else on this forum have an interest in chemistry? Chemists make washing powders for god's sake, beat that!

 

That phrase was in my post, but I edited it because I thought it was in poor taste after reading the whole thing over. I don't know if he's telling the truth or not about his formation of memories, but I'd rather not purposely insult him on the possibility he's telling the truth.
I got annoyed that I explained the same thing several times before he came to the same realization on his own.
Imagine if you were explaining to someone how a battery works, over and over again, while they comment on small mistakes in your wording until finally, by their own merit, they say "Hey! Batteries are simple! It's basically two different metals acting as electrodes in an electrolyte, allowing them to exchange electrons and make a current. Wow, that means my theory that they worked by (insert something refuted by modern chemistry here) doesn't hold any ground."
Chemists rely on physics to make their washing powders.

 

Whoa whoa whoa! I saw how that phrase was in the post originally where you directly insinuated he had demtenia, how you edited it to what I put so it was a bit more nonchalant as a rhetorical question and then how you edited it further to what it is now - whilst I'm not at uni and I stay awake til all hours of the night I see all!

Seriously Gross if he's pressing your buttons then don't rationalise with him, I know wayne-scales put a bit strongly:

Did you read a lot of The Truth (As I see it) in your absence? Xyle can be a bit unreasoning. And you're completely right people do say chemistry is only a practical application of physics; fortunately I kill everyone I meet who holds that idea and hide them under my floorboards to stop it from spreading.

 

Yeah, after this particular post -the one being read now- I'll be leaving this thread. I didn't actually read "The Truth (As I See It)" in its entirety, so I missed out on some stuff.
I go through stages while editing posts; first, I'll go with my gut. Then, I'll retract a bit and, while still going off my gut, edit to something less dickish. Then, if I decide even that was going too far, I'll just say something innocuous. I won't deny that I am utterly flabbergasted. I just should've known better than to keep digging deeper into the issue, because now, after what happened with wayne and smuel (of what I saw in my old thread), and ultimately what I just saw here, I kinda think Xyle's a troll.
Hopefully you have plenty of lime to keep the smell from propagating. Personally? I kill all of the old people I meet who say the US dollar was worth more in the past.

 

If someone wants him to get hit by a fucking train too right he's a troll; unfortunately in Xyle's case I think he's unwittingly so. I also go through similiar editing processes, I just try to make sure no one finds out afterwards so I seem more debonair and slick with the finished product.

And lime? There's no scent, I eat most of them first to absorb their knowledge.