Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Nobody that I know of, but we're getting to the point where we can see
almost that far back.

Seems to me all we can see is back to the point where
things are moving away from our relative position at
less than the speed of light. Did you know that the
red shift is quantitized, i.e. not continuous, even
within the same galaxy?

All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at
the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us
at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.

True, but consider that the red shift frequencies
are discontinuous, i.e. quantized.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?

My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily
100% Doppler effects.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us at
the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.

True, but consider that the red shift frequencies
are discontinuous, i.e. quantized.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?

My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily
100% Doppler effects.


Of course there is gravitational redshift too, but I don't think that is
what you are referring to.

I think you are trying to say that time is variable (forgive if I err)
This means that the speed of light is also variable if only by relation
to that variable time element

Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is
widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

Any effects that alter Doppler at light wavelengths should also be
noticeable at to wavelengths. I have not heard of any such, have you?

This then says that we are not in the "fastest time" zone, because there
are celestial bodies that are blue shifting toward us, or perhaps
not,they are just in a different "time zone"? ;^)

BTW, I erred in my perpendicular statement above. I forgot about
transverse Doppler shift that we would indeed have in a galaxy at right
angles.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is
widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the
universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no.
I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It
is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the
universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no.
I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects.

Which is the gravitational redshift. Or do you propose another type too?


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is
widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the
universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no.
I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

The doppler shift of EM frequency is a relativistic effect, so you got
that sorta right.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Michael Coslo wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

All parts of any given galaxy are not moving toward or away from us
at the same speed, unless the galaxy is perfectly perpendicular to us.


True, but consider that the red shift frequencies
are discontinuous, i.e. quantized.

Is your red-shift issue about the red shift itself, or about the
magnitude of the shift? And if "variable seconds" is the culprit, how
are blue shifted stars accommodated in your model?


My issue is that red-shifts are not necessarily
100% Doppler effects.



Of course there is gravitational redshift too, but I don't think that is
what you are referring to.

I think you are trying to say that time is variable (forgive if I err)
This means that the speed of light is also variable if only by relation
to that variable time element

Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It is
widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

Any effects that alter Doppler at light wavelengths should also be
noticeable at to wavelengths. I have not heard of any such, have you?

This then says that we are not in the "fastest time" zone, because there
are celestial bodies that are blue shifting toward us, or perhaps
not,they are just in a different "time zone"? ;^)

BTW, I erred in my perpendicular statement above. I forgot about
transverse Doppler shift that we would indeed have in a galaxy at right
angles.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

There is an interesting (hypothetical) effect - and maybe this is what
Cecil is talking about. Two systems; A and B, we're A. System B is
moving away from us at relativistic velocity. Sodium yellow light
from system B's street lights looks red from where we're standing in
system A. Lets say we can also measure the atomic transition
frequency of the sodium atoms in system B's street lights and discover
that it resonates at a lower frequency compared to our reference
frame. [Note that if the velocity between the two systems is indeed
relativistic, then visible light will be shifted down into the
infrared. Also note that if we could observe the diaphram of a car
horn as it approached us, we would see that its frequncy of
oscillation visually would be higher than its doppler shifted audible
frequency.] If we assume that sodium behaves the same way everywhere
in the universe (which we usually do) and it transitions at
universally the same frequency everywhere, measured with respect to
its own reference frame, then there must be a difference in the length
of the unit time between the two reference frames in order to explain
the apparent observed frequency difference. We usually assume the
Doppler effect is linear with velocity, but temporal effects are
assumed to increase very non-linearly as the speed of light is
approached. So at modest velocities the apparent shift would be all
doppler, but at relativistic velocities the temporal aspect would
become more significant. I believe this is one explanation for the
apparent 'acceleration' effect, where you look far enough out and
things appear to be accelerating away from us, not just moving away.

73, ac6xg

Correction: The car horn diaphram would of course be oscillating at a
frequency lower than the audible frequency when the car is approaching.

Jim Kelley wrote:


There is an interesting (hypothetical) effect - and maybe this is what
Cecil is talking about. Two systems; A and B, we're A. System B is
moving away from us at relativistic velocity. Sodium yellow light from
system B's street lights looks red from where we're standing in system
A. Lets say we can also measure the atomic transition frequency of the
sodium atoms in system B's street lights and discover that it resonates
at a lower frequency compared to our reference frame. [Note that if the
velocity between the two systems is indeed relativistic, then visible
light will be shifted down into the infrared. Also note that if we
could observe the diaphram of a car horn as it approached us, we would
see that its frequncy of oscillation visually would be higher than its
doppler shifted audible frequency.] If we assume that sodium behaves
the same way everywhere in the universe (which we usually do) and it
transitions at universally the same frequency everywhere, measured with
respect to its own reference frame, then there must be a difference in
the length of the unit time between the two reference frames in order to
explain the apparent observed frequency difference. We usually assume
the Doppler effect is linear with velocity, but temporal effects are
assumed to increase very non-linearly as the speed of light is
approached. So at modest velocities the apparent shift would be all
doppler, but at relativistic velocities the temporal aspect would become
more significant. I believe this is one explanation for the apparent
'acceleration' effect, where you look far enough out and things appear
to be accelerating away from us, not just moving away.

73, ac6xg

Michael Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Doppler effect is readily observable at audio and RF wavelengths. It
is widely accepted that the effect continues at light wavelengths.

The question is: Are all frequency shifts in the
universe caused by Doppler effects? I say no.
I say some frequency shifts are relativity effects.

Which is the gravitational redshift. Or do you propose another type
too?

The "expanding" space between two galaxies could be
a relativity effect and the shorter second due to
relativity effects naturally results in a lower
measured frequency.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
The doppler shift of EM frequency is a relativistic effect, so you got
that sorta right.

The doppler red shift is thought to be because
galaxies are receding from each other. If a
rope stretched between those galaxies doesn't
break with time, what would that imply about
the recession?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com