[QUOTE=davar55;267352]If a distant light source radiated exactly at a single frquency of EMR, (which I've never heard of and don't think possible), then according
to my theory, the light would NOT be cosmologicall\y red-shifted, only
diminished in intensity by its partial subtraction through the 4th dimenson.[/QUOTE]In that case, I can help reduce your ignorance.

The radiation emitted by neutral hydrogen has a wavelength of 21cm when the emitter is at rest with respect to us. Numerous observations made over the last fifty years or so show beyond all reasonable doubt that the radiation emitted by neutral hydrogen at cosmological distances is red-shifted by precisely the "correct" amount. So, for instance, a galaxy which shows an (optical) red shift of 1.5 also has a strong emission line at 31.5cm wavelength, this being the hydrogen emission red-shifted by a factor of 1.5

Time to revise your theory.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;267356]In that case, I can help reduce your ignorance.

The radiation emitted by neutral hydrogen has a wavelength of 21cm when the emitter is at rest with respect to us. Numerous observations made over the last fifty years or so show beyond all reasonable doubt that the radiation emitted by neutral hydrogen at cosmological distances is red-shifted by precisely the "correct" amount. So, for instance, a galaxy which shows an (optical) red shift of 1.5 also has a strong emission line at 31.5cm wavelength, this being the hydrogen emission red-shifted by a factor of 1.5

Time to revise your theory.
[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think I need a revision.

First, a galaxy emits at all frequencies, which is not the scenario
of one frequency I suggested testing.

Second, I believe the value of 1.5 for the shift factor in your example
is derived from the ratio of 31.5cm to 21cm, the observables,
so that this red-shift is determined to be by that factor of 1.5,
regardless of the explanation of the reason for the red-shift.

Third, if a distant galaxy shows an (optical) red shift, my theory
perfectly well explains the observation of a corresponding higher
wavelength line, in that since more light is emitted at 21cm, more
of that wavelength gets subtracted along the journey by the skin.

[QUOTE=xilman;267356]In that case, I can help reduce your ignorance.

The radiation emitted by neutral hydrogen has a wavelength of 21cm when the emitter is at rest with respect to us. Numerous observations made over the last fifty years or so show beyond all reasonable doubt that the radiation emitted by neutral hydrogen at cosmological distances is red-shifted by precisely the "correct" amount. So, for instance, a galaxy which shows an (optical) red shift of 1.5[/QUOTE]... which corresponds to wavelengths multiplied by 2.5 (=1+1.5) ...
[quote]also has a strong emission line at [strike]31.5cm[/strike][/quote]52.5cm
[quote]wavelength, this being the hydrogen emission red-shifted by a factor of 1.5[/quote]

If the observed neutral hydrogen line really is at 31.5cm, then the red shift is 0.5

[QUOTE=xilman;267356]In that case, I can help reduce your ignorance.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;267378]A red shift of 1.5 means that the wavelengths are multiplied by 2.5 (=1+1.5). 21cm becomes 52.5cm

(A red-shift of zero doesn't mean that wavelengths are multiplied by zero ;-)

52.5cm[/QUOTE]
:ouch:
.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;267378]... which corresponds to wavelengths multiplied by 2.5 (=1+1.5) ...
52.5cm


If the observed neutral hydrogen line really is at 31.5cm, then the red shift is 0.5[/QUOTE]Thanks! A really dumb error by me there :blush:

Nonetheless, my point remains in that the line itself is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.


Paul

[QUOTE=lavalamp;262311]How about instead you start without a conclusion, and try to deduce what happened previously by looking at only the observable evidence?

The universe doesn't care what you find more philosophically pleasing.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;262312]Here I disagree, in that metaphysics and epistemology trump science.

IOW if a scientific theory tries to violate the law of identity or
the law of causality or a few other fundamental precepts, it
may SOUND convincing but it's still wrong.

The infinite reress of time and the no-beginning-ness of the
universe are (arguably) provable.[/QUOTE]

Suppose I (or someone else) were actually able to prove
that the universe's existence regresses infinitely into the past

Would not that invalidate the Big Bang theory?

I mean, with no beginning, using the so-called expansion to
conclude the once-upon-a-time small "singularity" becomes
just a hypothetical otherwise explainable.

[QUOTE=davar55;267500]Suppose I (or someone else) were actually able to prove
that the universe's existence regresses infinitely into the past

Would not that invalidate the Big Bang theory?[/QUOTE]Yes.

However, "proof" is exceedingly difficult, even in principle, for scientific statements.

If you could show that experiments and/or observations show more support for an infinite universe than for a finite one, you would be on to something. The catch is the word "if".


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;267509]Yes.

However, "proof" is exceedingly difficult, even in principle, for scientific statements.

If you could show that experiments and/or observations show more support for an infinite universe than for a finite one, you would be on to something. The catch is the word "if".
[/QUOTE]

Could you give an example of something in science
that is actually proven? I wouldn't want to present
a "proof" where the standards are so stringent.
Maybe just an "argument" for.

Here's the latest version (draft 2) of my cosmology monograph. I've
added or edited about 20 percent since draft 1, and it is 14 pages long.
I know it's a work in progess. Comments much appreciated.

[QUOTE=davar55;269695]Here's the latest version (draft 2) of my cosmology monograph. I've
added or edited about 20 percent since draft 1, and it is 14 pages long.
I know it's a work in progess. Comments much appreciated.[/QUOTE]It still has an incorrect description of the red shift and fails to distinguish cosmological red shift (produced by expansion of space-time) from Doppler redshift (produced by difference in relative classical velocities) or gravitational redshift (produced by relativistic stretching of space by mass), thus leaving the impression that the "skin" is supposed to produce all three types of phenomona.

All of those red shifts are not merely a change in the distribution of intensity along wavelengths, resulting in a relative diminution of high frequencies with respect to low frequencies (according to your "skin" theory), but instead are a change in the observed spectral features' wavelengths themselves. Your "skin" theory does not match observed measurements of actual spectra!

For below, I'll speak of only the Doppler red shift resulting from differences in relative (but non-relativistic) velocities at small fractions of the speed of light.

Suppose we have a spectrum from a source that is uniform in intensity except for an absorption line at 6000 angstroms (from a source with relative velocity zero). How do you account for the way that the absorption line at 6000 angstroms shifts to 6100 angstroms from an otherwise-identical receding source (or 5900 angstroms from an approaching source) that is at the same distance? Your theory seems to require that the "skin" somehow knows to diminish the intensity of spectrum from a receding object at 6100 while increasing the intensity at 6000 -- while leaving the intensities from the stationary object unchanged. Where does that intensity increase come from to erase the absorption line at 6000 in the spectrum of one object but not the other?

Is the "skin" somehow supposed to know the difference in relative velocities of two sources at the same distance from the eventual observer? What about the "skin" on the other side of the sources that has to make the opposite change so as to produce the blue-shifted absorption line for an observer on the opposite side looking this way?

Until you correctly describe what the red shift and blue shift actually are, the "skin" part of your theory is baseless.

BTW, why don't you ever mention blue shift?

Let's see ...

[quote]
It still has an incorrect description of the red shift and fails to distinguish cosmological red shift (produced by expansion of space-time) from Doppler redshift (produced by difference in relative classical velocities) or gravitational redshift (produced by relativistic stretching of space by mass), thus leaving the impression that the "skin" is supposed to produce all three types of phenomona.
[/quote]

According to the monograph, and in fact, there is no expansion of
space-time, the universe is a 4-d sphere of fixed, finite size.

Cosmological red-shift is explained as being caused by an across-
the-spectrum "leakage" of photonic (EM) energy into and through
the 4th-dimensional fold ("the skin"), diminshing the received light
both intensitywise and, because of the small porosity of the skin,
in a skewed frequency distribution that results in a red shift which
is approximately proportional to the DISTANCE of the far object
and hence is linear, corroborating (I think) Hubble's formula.

Relativistic red-shift, due to gravity against photons, is small.

There is a minor red or blue shift due to relative velocities of
the distant objects which must be factored in, but it too is
relatively small compared to the distance factor.