Jim Kelley wrote:
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.

What if we and everything around us are still traveling
near the speed of light compared to the center of the
Big Bang? What if our velocity compared to the center
of the Big Bang is actually decreasing. Decreasing
velocity implies decreasing mass, increasing standard
unit lengths, and decreasing standard units of time
all of which might fool our measurements of today.

The Big Bang may have happened 12.5 billion years ago
based on the length of our present seconds, but
measured using the center of the Big Bang as the time
frame reference, how long since the Big Bang?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
The Big Bang may have happened 12.5 billion years ago
based on the length of our present seconds, but
measured using the center of the Big Bang as the time
frame reference, how long since the Big Bang?

How about this: If the length of the unit time changed by a factor of
two then the age of the universe, using the new metric, would differ
from the old by a factor of two. Same amount of time, but a different
number of units of time.

73 ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:
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

The sound of one hand clapping.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Kelley wrote:
How about this: If the length of the unit time changed by a factor of
two then the age of the universe, using the new metric, would differ
from the old by a factor of two. Same amount of time, but a different
number of units of time.

Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon
time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes
longer than our reference second of today. And not
only does the length of a time unit change over time,
it also changes with position.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
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.]

Here I become confused. It sounds as if you are saying that the
oscillation frequency of the "object" would be higher than the
frequency than the Doppler shifted frequency on approach. That sounds
like the reverse of the Doppler effect.


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.

Possibly. Cecil will eventually let us know. I'm still not completely sure.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Jim Kelley wrote:

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


Okay, Jim. Disregard my followup then.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.


Could be. My questions alway revolve around just what - or why - the
effect is. The great thing about Doppler is that it works on so many
scales. We should be able to perform experiments that will go a long way
toward determining if such an effect exists.

What I see however is that there are no great anomalies with the
present model. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean it pretty
much fits.

Relativity also works at speeds lower and more local than across the
universe, Astronauts and their craft who orbit the earth are "younger"
than they would have been if they stayed on Earth. We use accelerators
that act consistently with relativity. We probably should see some of
what you are thinking of.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:

Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon
time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes
longer than our reference second of today.

Such effects would likely have been significant during the first
microsecond or so after the big bang. It was a very big bang, apparently.

73, ac6xg

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:29:28 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Because of the effects of gravity and velocity upon
time, the first "second" was probably many magnitudes
longer than our reference second of today.

Such effects would likely have been significant during the first
microsecond or so after the big bang. It was a very big bang, apparently.

This discussion of "time" (something a human observer could only
appreciate in a current inertial frame) conjures up the conundrum an
amoeba might have in puzzling out whether to stir or shake a martini.

Bartender to the one-cell protoplasm:
"Vodka or Gin?"
Amoeba:
"Can you inform me as to the relativistic implications?"
Bartender:
"You can't bruise Vodka."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

This discussion of "time" (something a human observer could only
appreciate in a current inertial frame) conjures up the conundrum an
amoeba might have in puzzling out whether to stir or shake a martini.

Bartender to the one-cell protoplasm:
"Vodka or Gin?"
Amoeba:
"Can you inform me as to the relativistic implications?"
Bartender:
"You can't bruise Vodka."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Personally, I liken it to debating whether or not the fairies on the
head of the pin are actually dancing.

73 (singular), ac6xg