The universe may not be expanding after all;
The idea that the universe is unchanging – a constant backdrop that alters only with our parochial view of the heavens – was long ago consigned to the dustbin, thanks to the work of astronomers such as Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. […] the telescope revealed that most galaxies exhibit such a “red shift” – and, moreover, that the extent of the red shift became greater as the galaxies became more distant. The only conclusion was that the universe was expanding. From the point of view of the inhabitants of any one of its galaxies, it looked as if your neighbours were rushing away from you.
[…]
Now that conventional thinking has been turned on its head in a paper by Prof Christof Wetterich at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He points out that the tell-tale light emitted by atoms is also governed by the masses of their constituent particles, notably their electrons. The way these absorb and emit light would shift towards the blue part of the spectrum if atoms were to grow in mass, and to the red if they lost it.
h/t Carter
It’s ok. Al Gore has it covered. He’s setting up a Red Shift Credit Exchange right now.
I have always been suspicious of the ASSUMPTION that red shift is due to Doppler. It certainly exists and the further an object, the more it is red-shifted. Even further away, the objects are red-shifted more, down to the universes equivalent temperature of a 2K or so. And the sky is universally illuminated with the cosmic micro-wave background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
“In his books, Arp has provided his reasons for believing that the Big Bang theory itself is wrong, citing his research into quasi-stellar objects (QSOs). Instead, Arp supports the redshift quantization theory as an explanation of the redshifts of galaxies…”
This has been an ongoing rebellion in astrophysics since the 1960’s and “big bang deniers” have gotten a very similar treatment as AGW deniers (only without the weight of the MSM being involved)
What next, will they claim ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Because consensus is science.
Al told me.
if the universe is 14 billion years old, and the sun is 4 billion years old, and all of the heavier elements come from supernovae, how did the distribution of the stuff that makes up the planet come to be?
steve: Supergiant stars (like eta carina, in the 100-120 solar mass range) go from formation to supernova in the area of as fast as 5 million (not billion) years.
Our sun is relatively long-lived and slow-burning and small as stars go; it’s never going to supernova. The ones that will, burn faster and have a shorter lifespan.
To me, it always looked the same size.
Who ever said it was “settled”? The whole point of science is that it is theories can be questioned and disproven. The very nature of the scientific method actively encourages this, even if individual scientists, and various bodies may not, as it would make them look a little stupid.
And no… that’s not happening in climate change science. Just a reminder… every single major scientific body on the planet concurs that climate change is happening and that human activity is a significant driver. You can see all of those bodies listed here. Don’t believe wikipedia? You are welcome to confirm the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
So, matter may be getting smaller and denser as it gets older, (as do many old men); or space may be getting bigger.
Meh, it’s all relative to me.
Actually, now I’m really confused, because that article seems contradictory. If galaxies increase in mass shouldn’t they blue-shift, according to the first couple of paragraphs? Either I missed something, or the writer doesn’t really understand the material. Maybe I’m just dull…
May I be the first to say that the obvious solution is a Space Tax to prevent Universal Shrink?
“every single major scientific body on the planet concurs that climate change is happening”,
Weather is not supposedly climate, but then again consensus is not science, and quoting Wikipedia which has had contributors banned because they were continually lying, manipulating and destroying any entries that challenged the narrative are definitely not a good source. Check out the boards of your favoured scientific bodies and tell me how many are actually scientists based in climatology. Maybe you could direct them to someone in authority like Dr.Tim Ball and they could compare notes. With the continued ascent of the trace gases and the downward trend of temperature, do you not think it convenient that those in charge decided to rename it Climate change? You cannot believe a press statement, but if you are versed, you can analyze reports, statistics, data Hadcrut, Jaxa, Argo, NSIDC, NOAA, and think for yourself.
P.S. Dave Phillips, who is a true believer has blown another summer prediction,(what a record he has going)Hot and Dry????? Maybe he’s in Phoenix.
Today’s theories, are tomorrow’s mythologies.
John:
“every single major scientific body on the planet concurs that climate change is happening”
This would be far more convincing were it not for the sheer amount of hard evidence pointing to fraud, deception, dissembling etc on the part of the warmist camp. One of the more recent lies to be debunked was the claim that “97% of scientists” believe in CAGW. The author of the original paper upon which that claim was based now herself admits the methodology was cooked, and the real number is substantially below 50%.
Virtually every prediction made by the AGW people has been drastically — one might say catastrophically — wrong. Furthermore the “scientific consensus” on this issue is far smaller and far weaker than people like you like to claim.
The more you push your argumentum ad auctoritatem at people, the harder they’ll push back with: “show me the hard science”. And that’s your undoing, right there.
(For the record, of COURSE humans have some effect on climate — there is ZERO evidence for the “catastrophic” scenarios used to justify ruinous economic and other policies that just happen to coincide with the political goals of the transnational progressivism).
That’s nice John. But theories rely on evidence, not acceptance.
“That’s nice John. But theories rely on evidence, not acceptance.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks LAS I needed a good laugh.
Still suffering bouts of guffaws at LAS’ brain cramp.
I have sometimes wondered about the red shift. The Doppler effect is well known and indeed provides a plausible explanation of the red shift. The idea of the mass of atoms seems a bit more of stretch than realistically plausible. One other theory,rarely discussed is that light over time decays toward the red end of the spectrum. Thus really ancient light such as that seen from the most distant galaxies would have a more pronounced red shift than light from a nearer galaxy because the light of the more distant galaxy is older.
Expanding, shrinking, standing still—face it, scientists do not really know what the universe is about, and I doubt they will genuinely settle many of the details before the Lord who made it all returns to judge the living and the dead.
It is easy to ask why anybody should waste their time in such idle speculation, that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth—and man—and that the Lord has reserved to Himself any details not in Genesis.
It’s far from a waste. The study of the heavens teaches humility as little else can. The students of the heavens are aware as few men are of the true puniness of man’s estate, a small planet drifting across God’s majestic creation that is the universe, the even greater insignificance and helplessness that would be man’s own. Their work confronts them with it every day. Knowing that helps one appreciate just how helpless we would be were it not for the grace and, let it not be forgotten, the love of our Lord.
Contrast that to climate pseudo-science, which attracts fools and the faithless like flies to dung by teaching that man is ever so important, and the hour is late for saving himself through good works, by sacrificing his car to the great goddess Gaia and buying indulgences on the carbon credit market. Never mind that our true Creator could destroy us with a meteorite or a magnetic burst from our own sun that would fry every microchip on the planet and undo Western civilization in an hour.
If half the money frittered away on climate change had been devoted rather to the study of the heavens, we should have learned much more about God’s creation—and saved many souls for good measure. Oh, what might have been!
For what it’s worth, our company is going through some “rebranding”.
Specific research now shows(regarding engineering firms) “Sustainability” as a selling point, according to consumers, has absolutely NO EFFECT on decision making when it comes to awarding contracts.
For me, this was the highlight of the presentation, as I’ve been inundated with AGW propaganda by employers for the better part of a decade. I am happy to hear that the effort was futile, a waste of money, and my particular employer is abandoning this silly marketing scheme.
The folks have dun woke up! Except for John that is.
That said, I’m sure John will argue that those in the engineering field do not understand “science” and are uneducated and so on…..
Damn, I wish I had a Liberal Arts Degree
Doppler shift due to movement requires that the speed of light through the universe is constant.
What if the composition of “space” changes as you move through the universe?
Such that the speed of light is not constant, but varies with distance?
It is always unfortunate when new physics theories find their way promptly into the popular media, whose reporters cannot even formulate them correctly and entirely lack the ability to evaluate them. New physics theories are in fact commonplace. I personally never look at one until counterarguments have been presented. If the counterarguments are weak, then there may be something to the new work.
If you want to see an argument currently in progress, that has not been completely settled, google “MOND”. There are good people on both sides, and MOND is certainly as radical a theory, or set of theories, as has ever been proposed.
It is simply a libel (climate-grade libel) to say that Halton Arp was ignored. In fact his idea that red shifts were not cosmological were given considerable examination. He is the classical example of a scientific worker who held non-standard views but knew enough that they were nonetheless productive of good work.
As for the expansion of the universe, the farther back we look the closer together galaxies appear (relative to characteristic linear dimensions). That is crude Mark I eyeball evidence Again, Type I Cepheids are a good standard candle out to about 30 Mpc. The light curves of Type Ia supernovae provide a standard candle which will go out to several Gpc.
Actually, determining distance is perhaps the central problem of astronomy, and there are many methods known (for which see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder). Each is useful for a different distance range, and all present very considerable difficulties in calibration and application.
The speed of light is only constant in a flat spacetime.
The only thing we are sure is expanding…… is Justin Trudeau’s head.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/690951main_hs-2009-31-a-xlarge_web.jpg
Each galaxy contains trillions of stars,
and billions of earths.
God has created Worlds without number !
I often wonder how many of those billions of worlds are having to deal with carbon headed tree hugging idiots?
What was wrong with my statement again?
Dang it LAS would you stop that! My sides are already killing me and now you go and add to my mirth. Wait you’re serious? You can’t see the stupidity in what you posted?
I agree with LAS, if it’s that the proof of theories depends on evidence, not popularity.
joke (joe)
read yer own garbled nonsense in context “Thus really ancient light such as that seen from the most distant galaxies would have a more pronounced red shift than light from a nearer galaxy because the light of the more distant galaxy is older.”AND SPLIT YER ARSE LAFFING
Lass made sense for once
One of the more recent lies to be debunked was the claim that “97% of scientists” believe in CAGW. The author of the original paper upon which that claim was based now herself admits the methodology was cooked, and the real number is substantially below 50%. Posted by: Steve Macdonald
I’m not disagreeing, however claiming that’s true because Steve Macdonald said so won’t convince anyone, so a link to the source of that statement would be very useful.
Walter as noble as your sentiment might be that is not what LAS posted. LAS said that theories rely on evidence not acceptance, yet over and over and over again we see that popular theories are accepted often in spite of evidence. Most theories are of the little boy’s ‘if you squint your eyes just right that pig looks like a dog’ variety and to prove it the little boy’s buds all agree that they too can see a dog when looking at a pig. AGW is a prime example where acceptance trumps evidence.
nme666 please look at the heading Kate uses Settled Science. What is the irony or can you elevate your mind to that level? The irony is, over and over and over again that ‘science’ accepted a theory the evidence does not fully support. Often the ‘science’ accepted a theory for which no evidence exists! Not meaning to sound mean here sunshine but get in the game will ya!
Yeah well, I recall a discussion with a school-chum, who had become a very prominent astronomer.
He is a sterling example of somebody, who admits that the more you know the dumber you feel.
Rather than dealing with the latest political farce…we considered the “expanding universe”, red shift and faster than light travel.
He allowed my contention, that what we observe of distant objects is extremely dated. In reality, we have no idea where these objects are now, what they are….we can only surmise where they were and what they were billions of years past.
According to “big Bang Theory” the universe expanded at several times the speed of light in the first few seconds/minutes….
Even “Red Shift” may have been erroneously interpreted as a Doppler effect…..sun rise and sunset exhibit the red part of the spectrum without and Doppler cause.
However, at this point what difference does it make?
For now we see only a pale reflection of the reality that lies beyond and from that pale reflection we try to make sense of that which is far greater than our understanding. About the only thing of which we can be certain is our own inability to fully understand.