Jump to content


Photo

Red Shifts.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 September 2011 - 06:35 AM

From what I understand, Red Shifts are caused by an object that gives off light photons traveling away from the point of where this same light is being observed. Like looking at a star in the sky that happens to be moving away from you. Basically what makes the Red Shift is that the path of light is being stretched, But is that the only thing that makes a Red Shift?



The Doppler Effect (as mentioned in audio) is often used as an example of how a Red Shift works. But the comparison is not equal. Unlike light passing through empty space, sound requires air in order to travel. Light does not require air so the effects would not be the same.

Being that there is more than one possibility for a red shift that does not always support star moving away from us puts into question the theory of our expanding universe. For all we know, light may Red Shift after it travels a certain amount of light years.

This also goes along the same lines for the explanation of why is the sky blue, and the sunsets red. If the explanations for this were true as they are being taught as, "every" sunset would be red and the night sky would be blue with every full moon. In the picture below, we are looking at our atmosphere from a side angle from space. From this position this effect should not be observable. Unless there is something else causing it.

Attached File  ozonelayer2.jpg   3.98KB   2 downloads

Ozone molecules in the ozone layer become excited when struck by sun light and turn blue. This can be clearly seen from a side angle as only the area where the ozone is is glowing blue. This is why when we look up at the sky we can see the clouds and also tell that the blue color is coming from behind them. Because if the atmosphere were scattering the light making it appear blue, we could not see as far up as we can.

Example: Here in Florida we get fires every summer. If the "light" smoke happens to linger more towards the ground instead of going way up in the air. It causes light to scatter which causes a blue haze to exist all around. This haze messes up depth perception when you look up at the sky. When I look up I cannot see the clouds all I see is blue. So if the atmosphere scattered light and causes this blue sky, then there would be no depth perception. If the ozone does it then you could see far up and where the blue actually exists. and that is what we see.

#2 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 19 September 2011 - 06:51 PM

This also goes along the same lines for the explanation of why is the sky blue, and the sunsets red. If the explanations for this were true as they are being taught as, "every" sunset would be red and the night sky would be blue with every full moon.


The night sky is blue, it's just so faint your eyes can't register it. If you take a long duration picture of the sky at night (i.e. gather lots of light from the night sky) the sky will be blue.

Note the blue night sky in the picture here.
http://www.coe.monta..._OPN1996_b.html

http://en.wikipedia....olor_of_the_sky
In locations with little light pollution, the moonlit night sky is also blue, because moonlight is reflected sunlight, with a slightly lower color temperature due to the brownish color of the moon. The moonlit sky is not perceived as blue, however, because at low light levels human vision comes mainly from rod cells that do not produce any color perception

Ozone molecules in the ozone layer become excited when struck by sun light and turn blue. This can be clearly seen from a side angle as only the area where the ozone is is glowing blue


Could you provide your source for these statements? Your picture does not show any labels so it's impossible to tell what region the blue area is. The ozone layer is found about 20-30km up and the earth's atmosphere extends for a few hundred km so the placement of the blue band you are claiming is ozone doesn't seem to fit. Even at it's highest concentration ozone is only a few parts per million so it seems unlikely that the blue region is due to ozone fluorescing.


This is why when we look up at the sky we can see the clouds and also tell that the blue color is coming from behind them. Because if the atmosphere were scattering the light making it appear blue, we could not see as far up as we can.

Example: Here in Florida we get fires every summer. If the "light" smoke happens to linger more towards the ground instead of going way up in the air. It causes light to scatter which causes a blue haze to exist all around. This haze messes up depth perception when you look up at the sky. When I look up I cannot see the clouds all I see is blue. So if the atmosphere scattered light and causes this blue sky, then there would be no depth perception. If the ozone does it then you could see far up and where the blue actually exists. and that is what we see.


http://www.sciencema...m/sky_blue.html
The pictures in this article do a decent job explaining how light from the sky works.

Your ozone idea implies that if the amount of ozone in the air was reduced the intensity of the blue color in the sky would be reduced. There's no noticeable difference in the blueness of the sky at the poles, even when ozone concentrations there get severely depleted.
There's also the problem of why would there ever be a red sunset if the color isn't due to light scattering. If the sky at noon is blue because sunlight is hitting the ozone layer directly above you, then the horizon sky at sunset should be just as blue as the noon sky since the ozone at the horizon would still be producing blue light. Sunset is just somebody else's noon.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 September 2011 - 11:14 PM

The night sky is blue, it's just so faint your eyes can't register it. If you take a long duration picture of the sky at night (i.e. gather lots of light from the night sky) the sky will be blue.

Note the blue night sky in the picture here.
http://www.coe.monta..._OPN1996_b.html


What I find wrong with this picture and claims are:

1) The picture is done on the horizon. How do I know that the sun did not just set causing what is observed? Why not do this in the "middle" of the night sky? It's because you want get the effect.
2) The claim is that the scattered light from the moon is causing the effect. Where's the moon?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering#Reason_for_the_blue_color_of_the_sky
In locations with little light pollution, the moonlit night sky is also blue, because moonlight is reflected sunlight, with a slightly lower color temperature due to the brownish color of the moon. The moonlit sky is not perceived as blue, however, because at low light levels human vision comes mainly from rod cells that do not produce any color perception


That's a good one. I cannot see but black and white at night?

Could you provide your source for these statements? Your picture does not show any labels so it's impossible to tell what region the blue area is. The ozone layer is found about 20-30km up and the earth's atmosphere extends for a few hundred km so the placement of the blue band you are claiming is ozone doesn't seem to fit. Even at it's highest concentration ozone is only a few parts per million so it seems unlikely that the blue region is due to ozone fluorescing.


When the ozone gets high around here, the whole outside has a blue tint to it.


http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
The pictures in this article do a decent job explaining how light from the sky works.

Your ozone idea implies that if the amount of ozone in the air was reduced the intensity of the blue color in the sky would be reduced. There's no noticeable difference in the blueness of the sky at the poles, even when ozone concentrations there get severely depleted.
There's also the problem of why would there ever be a red sunset if the color isn't due to light scattering. If the sky at noon is blue because sunlight is hitting the ozone layer directly above you, then the horizon sky at sunset should be just as blue as the noon sky since the ozone at the horizon would still be producing blue light. Sunset is just somebody else's noon.


Attached File  atm.gif   4.18KB   1 downloads

The picture from the link you left actually shows what I had explained. The ozone layer is above the clouds and above where airplanes fly. The ozone turning blue would give a depth perception and would not distort seeing anything up to that level of the ozone layer. You ever watch the shuttle go up? I live here in Florida. As the shuttle goes up, when it reaches the blue barrier it's like it punches through it and disappears. If the blue light were scattered all through the atmosphere, the shuttle would gradually disappear in it as it went up. Much like an object would disappear gradually as it went further into smoke. But instead it disappears all at once like it went through a curtain of blue. Which is how it would work if the ozone layer were the source of the blue color.

Question: Light shines all the way through the atmosphere, right? So if the atmosphere in general, and as a whole, scattered the light making the sky blue. How come we can see planes and clouds "clearly"? How is there a depth perception if the whole atmosphere is doing this?

Example: If I take one of those projectors that projects video onto a screen or wall. And I demonstrate by projecting a blue color onto a screen (Screen representing the ozone layer). Can you have depth perception? of course. Now if I put something between the screen and the projector that scatters the blue color. Would you have depth perception then? Nope. Now if i take a gun and shoot a bullet (bullet representation of shuttle) through the screen while there is nothing scattering the light. And you could slow down the bullet to where it took 5 seconds to hit the screen. When would the bullet disappear? Only when it punched through the screen Now if I take and put something between the screen and projector and scatters the light. And repeat the bullet test, when would the bullet disappear? As soon as it went into the part that scattered the light. And you would not see it go through the screen (representation of ozone layer).

Which do we observe that would fit what we see with the shuttle as it goes up?

Now does the light scattering work? Of course. It just does not explain every reason some things are blue.

Another example: The ozone layer filters out a lot of the harmful rays from the sun, right? How do sun glasses work? Certain colors will reflect certain light rays. How would the ozone layer reflect certain light rays without turning a certain color so that those light rays could not pass?

Question: Since space has no atmosphere to scatter light. How is it that from space we can see the upper atmosphere as being blue and the shuttle can see through it from space yet we cannot see back? If the scattering effect worked, all the shuttle would see is blue because all the light from the sun would be scattered before it reached the ground making it impossible to see. But if the ozone is doing it, then they would be able to see where the light goes from the sun all the way to the ground which is what happens. So how does scattering light work one way for us, and another way from space looking back in? It is the same light, the same blue color, right? Scattered light does not explain how somethings work like one way mirrors.

#4 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 20 September 2011 - 05:10 PM

What I find wrong with this picture and claims are:

1) The picture is done on the horizon. How do I know that the sun did not just set causing what is observed? Why not do this in the "middle" of the night sky? It's because you want get the effect.
2) The claim is that the scattered light from the moon is causing the effect. Where's the moon?

If you had read the text that accompanied the picture you'd have seen the answers to your questions.
The star streaks are the best evidence that this picture is indeed taken at night. This picture was taken in the foothills west of Boulder, Colorado near midnight on July 1, 1996, with a full moon to the left and well out of the picture. I used a Nikon EL-2 camera with a 28-mm lens to expose ISO-100 Kodak Ektachrome film at f/3.5 for 13 minutes. Photographs of a moonless sky with the same exposure show the familiar star streaks in a black sky.

If you don't like that picture here's a few hundred more showing the same blue night sky.
http://gizmodo.com/5742383/175-photos-of-day-taken-at-night
If you still think it's some attempt to trick you then try it yourself, borrow a camera that lets you adjust exposure time and take some still photos at night.


That's a good one. I cannot see but black and white at night?

Basically yes, the lower the light levels the worse your color vision. This is also something you can check for yourself if you feel the need.


Could you provide your source for these statements? Your picture does not show any labels so it's impossible to tell what region the blue area is. The ozone layer is found about 20-30km up and the earth's atmosphere extends for a few hundred km so the placement of the blue band you are claiming is ozone doesn't seem to fit. Even at it's highest concentration ozone is only a few parts per million so it seems unlikely that the blue region is due to ozone fluorescing.

When the ozone gets high around here, the whole outside has a blue tint to it.

So your answer to my asking how you know what the blue region in that photograph is ozone is that you think ozone turned the air around you blue? Do you understand that if ozone is blue and a photo shows something blue, it does not logically follow that the photo was a picture of ozone? Not all pictures of blue things are pictures of ozone. I'll repeat my question, can you provide a source for your statement that the blue region in the photograph was the ozone layer?

Just a p.s. Since you are still alive, it seems extremely unlikely that the blue tint you saw was ozone rather than something like smog. Ozone is a fairly toxic gas that isn't visible in safe, low concentrations. Concentrations high enough to produce a visible tint would probably be lethal or at minimum involve severe health problems depending on the duration of exposure.
http://www.ozoneservices.com/articles/007.htm
Note the symptoms and effects of ozone as concentration goes up to lethal levels, and that nowhere is visible tinting of air even hinted at as a warning sign. Instead the only method for detecting ozone mentioned is odor.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/airquality/smog.htm
Actually, it is small particulate matter that gives smog a hazy quality. These small airborne particles come from many sources, including industrial emissions, wind-blown dust from construction sites and roads, and vehicle exhaust. Because ozone is the primary component of smog, many people associate high ozone levels with the familiar urban haze. However, the two don't always go hand-in-hand. While a smoggy day often means that ozone levels are high, ozone may or may not be at hazardous levels. Likewise, we often see very high ozone levels when skies appear clear.


Attached File  atm.gif   4.18KB   1 downloads

The picture from the link you left actually shows what I had explained. The ozone layer is above the clouds and above where airplanes fly. The ozone turning blue would give a depth perception and would not distort seeing anything up to that level of the ozone layer. You ever watch the shuttle go up? I live here in Florida. As the shuttle goes up, when it reaches the blue barrier it's like it punches through it and disappears. If the blue light were scattered all through the atmosphere, the shuttle would gradually disappear in it as it went up. Much like an object would disappear gradually as it went further into smoke. But instead it disappears all at once like it went through a curtain of blue. Which is how it would work if the ozone layer were the source of the blue color.

Example: If I take one of those projectors that projects video onto a screen or wall. And I demonstrate by projecting a blue color onto a screen (Screen representing the ozone layer). Can you have depth perception? of course. Now if I put something between the screen and the projector that scatters the blue color. Would you have depth perception then? Nope. Now if i take a gun and shoot a bullet (bullet representation of shuttle) through the screen while there is nothing scattering the light. And you could slow down the bullet to where it took 5 seconds to hit the screen. When would the bullet disappear? Only when it punched through the screen Now if I take and put something between the screen and projector and scatters the light. And repeat the bullet test, when would the bullet disappear? As soon as it went into the part that scattered the light. And you would not see it go through the screen (representation of ozone layer).

Which do we observe that would fit what we see with the shuttle as it goes up?

Your shuttle example makes no sense. I've seen shuttle launches too and it doesn't just disappear. It gets smaller and smaller until you can't see it with the naked eye. If you use a pair of binoculars you can see it for a much longer time.
Here's a video of a shuttle launch, around 14:00 the shuttle is at 29 miles which is above the ozone layer and you can still see the shuttle clearly enough to watch the boosters disengage. Notice that the shuttle has not disappeared from view as you claim it should have.


If the ozone layer were blocking or overwhelming the light bouncing off of the shuttle this video would be impossible.

Question: Light shines all the way through the atmosphere, right? So if the atmosphere in general, and as a whole, scattered the light making the sky blue. How come we can see planes and clouds "clearly"? How is there a depth perception if the whole atmosphere is doing this?

Some blue light gets scattered, other colors and some blue light doesn't. Light, including scattered blue light, bounces off a cloud and travels to your eyes. We see it as white because the cloud reflected all the wavelengths that hit it, including blue light.

  • The sun shines light toward a cloud and the air around a cloud.
  • Some blue light is scattered away before it reaches the cloud.
  • Some blue light is scattered toward the the cloud from the surrounding air.
  • Light from the sun minus the blue light scattered away plus blue light scattered toward is bounced off the cloud toward your eyes.
  • Light from the sun minus lost blue light plus gained blue light hits your eyes.
  • If you see white clouds the net change in blue was too small to notice.
  • If you see reddish clouds enough blue was lost to notice.
  • If you see bluish clouds enough blue was gained to notice.


Now does the light scattering work? Of course. It just does not explain every reason some things are blue.

Your first post sounded like you are claiming the sky is blue due to the ozone layer and not rayleigh scattering. Are you now saying that the sky is blue because of both rayleigh scattering AND the ozone layer? The main component of the sky's color is the scattering of light, if you want to argue that the color of the gases in the atmosphere plays an extremely small role then that's a minor pedantic issue not worth bothering with imo. If you are still trying to claim that ozone is the primary cause of the blue color of the sky there are enormous problems with that idea as I pointed out at the end of my post. Namely the red coloring of a sunset when it should be blue according to your idea as well as the lack of color change during summer months at the poles when ozone concentrations drop 50% or more.

Another example: The ozone layer filters out a lot of the harmful rays from the sun, right? How do sun glasses work? Certain colors will reflect certain light rays. How would the ozone layer reflect certain light rays without turning a certain color so that those light rays could not pass?

The ozone layer filters UV. UV is not in the visible spectrum, so there is no effect on the sky's color due to UV filtering.

Question: Since space has no atmosphere to scatter light. How is it that from space we can see the upper atmosphere as being blue and the shuttle can see through it from space yet we cannot see back? If the scattering effect worked, all the shuttle would see is blue because all the light from the sun would be scattered before it reached the ground making it impossible to see. But if the ozone is doing it, then they would be able to see where the light goes from the sun all the way to the ground which is what happens. So how does scattering light work one way for us, and another way from space looking back in? It is the same light, the same blue color, right? Scattered light does not explain how somethings work like one way mirrors.


There are quite a few questions and assumptions about how things work that simply aren't correct. You really should check out a book on optics from a library if you are interested in detailed answers about how light works. Here's some brief basic answers to get you started.
The shuttle can see different colors from the side view for the same reason we see rainbows in prisms and the same reason it's possible to see a green flash at sunset. http://www.redshift....GreenFlash.html
It is difficult to see the shuttle during the day because sunlight overwhelms the small amount of light from the shuttle. We can see larger objects like the moon just fine during the day because their larger size allows more light to reflect off and reach us.
The shuttle can see the earth's surface because the planet is very large and sunlight, including blue and non-blue light, reflects off the surface and bounces up to the shuttle.

Light works the exact same way for both ground observers and shuttle observers. The reason you see an empty sky as blue is because blue is the only color that reaches your eye from that direction. If there were an object in the sky you'd see the object because the object would reflect additional wavelengths of light toward your eyes. You can see the earth from space for the same reason you can see objects in the sky.

#5 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 05 October 2011 - 10:01 AM

That's a good one. I cannot see but black and white at night?

Colors are much fainter in low light, yes. You can verify that yourself.


Question: Light shines all the way through the atmosphere, right? So if the atmosphere in general, and as a whole, scattered the light making the sky blue. How come we can see planes and clouds "clearly"? How is there a depth perception if the whole atmosphere is doing this?

It is true throughout the atmosphere, it just takes a very, very, very large distance before the effect is noticeable. Have you ever seen very very far-away mountains ? Or the view from a plane when it's flying really high ? Things get slightly faded and blue-tinted.

I'm not sure what light scattering in the atmosphere has to do with the redshift though.

You say that the Doppler effect isn't the correct analog - but the Doppler effect was first considered as an effect of light, not sound. Either way it's a property of waves, and light behaves as a wave.

Being that there is more than one possibility for a red shift that does not always support star moving away from us puts into question the theory of our expanding universe. For all we know, light may Red Shift after it travels a certain amount of light years."


What other possibilities are those ? Those that are proposed by your audio clip don't match the evidence. When scientists found out that the light of some stars was red-shifted, it wasn't because the stars looked a bit more red. It's the spectroscopic signatures that were all shifted.
You may or may not know that all compounds react to light, and they react to certain wavelengths specifically. Those are called the "emission spectra" and "absorption spectra" of that compound; you can see it if you use a prism to decompose light emitted or passing through those compounds and you'll find lines at certain frequencies, and always the same frequencies. These lines are unique to the compound and can be used to identify it. That's how scientists know that the Sun and most stars are made primarily of hydrogen for example.
What the scientists who discovered the redshift saw was that some stars had an emission spectrum whose pattern was exactly that of hydrogen - except each line was shifted by a small (and identical) amount towards the red side of the spectrum.

This is NOT what one would see if there were filtering substances or magnetic fields in the way. In those cases we'd see more light of longer wavelengths and less light of shorter wavelengths but the emission spectra (if they weren't filtered out) would be in the exact same place.

The only thing that can explain the shift in the emission spectra is if the wavelengths of the light themselves are changing, and doing so in a constant way across all wavelengths. AFAIK the only two known things that can do this are the Doppler effect, and really deep gravity wells. Here we know really deep gravity wells aren't to blame because the redshift is unrelated to a star's mass (and also because gravitational redshift is very, very subtle). But it is related to a star's distance.

If there is another mechanism that can change the wavelength of light in an identical way across all wavelengths nobody has ever proposed it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users