View Full Version : Is There Another Evidence For Universe Expansion?

2005-Feb-06, 05:39 PM
Hello every one
Being very glad to be just a reader in this fantastic site and forum
I'm not A Physicist but someone interested in what you do :ph34r:
i have a Question that really puzzled me too much to try to search an advice!

Theory Of Big Bang And Expanding Universe
what i know that the evidence for this expansion the Red shift of light coming from those billions years far stars ,what seen to be due to its outward motion
Is there another evidence?
or a more clear , examined and proved evidence for the Doppler effect to occur in light as in sound?&#33; :unsure: :unsure: <_<


Please, there is no need to yell.

2005-Feb-06, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Avi_batool@Feb 6 2005, 05:39 PM
Is there another evidence?
or a more clear , examined and proved evidence for the Doppler effect to occur in light as in sound?&#33;
Hi Avi, welcome to the UT forum.

The Doppler effect in light is very well established experiementally in the lab, and in police infrared "radar" guns, as well as in tools using the Mossbauer effect, and many other things in common use today. Velocity-based redshift is not imaginary.

Concerning whether there is specific evidence that it is velocity and not some other cause that is making the distant galaxies show a red shift, the main proof for me comes in the form of time dilation in the light curves of supernovae, which indicates there there is a relativistic velocity of these objects. It should be noted that several alternative theorists are disputing this, as being the result of biased evidence, becuase acceptance of this as fact pretty much kills all theories that says that the universe is not expanding.

2005-Feb-09, 05:38 PM
Hello Antoni

Thank u very much my dear:)

Velocity-based redshift is not imaginary

yeah , i really tried to get an overview about these theories
Nearly the main controversial point they put their load on it is the the photon loss of energy through "his" billions years travel
James Hall " Not Stewart" said that it&#39;s the Star Shine Field of the two closely adjacent photons that changed the wavelength of both of them

Stewart Hall And Others comment on the loss Of energy just by what the photon meets during his journey

well , this will be the explanation for those Red stars
I guess that stars that give blue sign are not reside in the street behind the Moon , too short to lose any energy of their photons energies&#33;&#33;
Are not their at some billions of years too??? :huh:

waiting ur reply and corrections Mr Antoni :rolleyes:


2005-Feb-09, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Avi_batool@Feb 9 2005, 05:38 PM
waiting ur reply and corrections Mr Antoni
The tired light theories do not explain time dilation in supernova light curves. They also have trouble becuase light based images should be blurred if the photons are interacting many times along the way. Spectra should be blurred because of the statistical nature of these interactions. Red-shifting should not happen in the same proportions at high energies as low [gamma vs. optical vs. radio]. All of these and more are strong arguments against tired light. But some people just don&#39;t like the idea of universal expansion, and refuse to embrace the evidence.