recently a dialogue about webb telescope findings has been going on speculating that the age of the universe is twice previous estimate of 13.7 b years. The discrepancy seems indicated by early star and galaxy formations appearing much older than standard bb model.  Since light is affected by gravity, could not the mass of the early universe cause an additional red shift factor adding to the well measured expansion of space?  Would not such a far away and immense combined mass function as to simulate a dispersed black hole effect acting upon light beams observed here? 

Edited July 24, 20232 yr by hoola

if gravitation is causing red shift, would not observations of distant objects within space get red shifted by even more distant mass during he first half of it's travel to us, and then blue shifted by proximate gravity of our local universe on the second half? I thought red shift was caused by a yet to be determined mechanism, and an expansion of space in real physical terms, not just appearance due to any gravitational distortions.

Edited July 24, 20232 yr by hoola

despite the deleted post,  I still wish to discuss the question as to why recent webb findings seem to indicate a longer age of the universe than previously thought. If the gravitation in both distant and proximate masses acting upon light coming to us from a great distance causes a pseudo red shift  due to a non linear affect upon a light beam traveling toward us, in that a red shift effect predominates any blue shift occurring in the overall travel path. Could gravitation affecting light coming to us from the early universe be a factor here, and is illusory, making the universe only13.7 billion and only appearing much older

Edited July 24, 20232 yr by hoola

I will make the bold state and bet that you are wrong. If you are in fact human, you will most likely be intrigued. Reply if interested. 

A cosmological redshift of these distant galaxies has a magnitude of about 10. My back of the envelope estimate of gravitational redshift caused by a galaxy has a magnitude of about 10^-6. The latter cannot significantly affect calculations based on the former.

_{well, axe, I am interested in why you think I'm wrong, and I am pretty sure I am wrong too.  You imply a possible good idea on the subject....intrigue me.... (if you are a human too)}

18 hours ago, hoola said:

recently a dialogue about webb telescope findings has been going on speculating that the age of the universe is twice previous estimate of 13.7 b years.

It appears this estimate is from one recent paper.  His estimate of the age of the universe seems to incorporate a form of the 'tired light' hypothesis.  I wouldn't start changing the textbooks quite yet.

I heard about the "tired light" and also that the early universe ran on slightly different fundamentals.  Perhaps "tired light" is due to a gravitational effect on the light as it transverses the great distance to us and gets red shifted by the collective mass it is transiting from.

13 minutes ago, hoola said:

I heard about the "tired light" and also that the early universe ran on slightly different fundamentals.  Perhaps "tired light" is due to a gravitational effect on the light as it transverses the great distance to us and gets red shifted by the collective mass it is transiting from.

"Tired light" is not due to a gravitational effect. All gravitational effects on light from the dynamics of homogenous isotropic distribution of mass and energy are already accounted for in the cosmological redshift.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230711133118.htm&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwivipmb6aiAAxW7U6QEHWy0D2QQFnoECAAQAg&usg=AOvVaw1xn9rH4C5E90mojFshqDLz

The idea of 'tired light' I happen to get along with it and i think it's deeper than it appears/sounds since it requires re-evaluation of photon properties and the concept of electromagnetism.... However the issue of replacing cosmological constant with a constant accounting for evolution of coupling constants does not appear to be clearer to me.

16 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

It appears this estimate is from one recent paper.  His estimate of the age of the universe seems to incorporate a form of the 'tired light' hypothesis.  I wouldn't start changing the textbooks quite yet.

This came up in another thread

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132052-tired-light-split-from-entropy-energy-and-the-speed-of-light/

They did a fit to some data, but now what has to happen is seeing if other data fits the model. 

  What if dark energy is the overall reaction mechanism to a light beam? By adding a plank level viscosity to space proportional to distance ^2.

or the same thing with dark matter for the culprit. Until we know more about either, can they be ruled out?  Could it be the underlying mechanism of one or both functions?

what about virtual particle pairs, appearing as "the flux". If they manifest as tiny exclusion zones, wouldn't photons have to deviate around them, causing a physical extension of the true distance between points, due to these path deviations that become more than trivial when considered in vast distance?

the mechanism of the apparent age increase may be that light coming from the early universe is coming from a region with much more mass. Our observations of that light is from a region of much less mass, given that the universe's expansion is continuous, and started from a certain region, it follows that there is more mass towards the origin region than away from it. This would be true to any observer at great distance from the origin source. This seems the mass differential to explain the exaggerated webb age findings. IOW, there is simply more mass facing the observer (webb) than behind it red shifting the readings, and not "tired light".

But the redshift is pretty much isotropic, as is the CMBR. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that would lead to abandoning the idea that the universe is isotropic, nor a mechanism that would lead to that situation.

it seems that there is a long standing issue with the architecture of the universe. It is stated that (IF) there was a BB, there was a certain point where everything started. This argues against isotropic distribution of the mass contained within it. In addition to the mass towards the center point of the BB, there is also the shell material that flowed in the opposite direction of the BB from our perspective, adding to the overall mass red shift of our observations from webb. When one considers the issues surrounding isotropic evidence, shouldn't one take into account the empty space that material has yet had time to invade? If one considers that this yet occupied is part of the universe, and if that space surrounding the occupied shell is infinite, or nearly so, then the universe is isotropic only when considering how it appears from inside it.

Edited July 9, 20241 yr by hoola

26 minutes ago, hoola said:

it seems that there is a long standing issue with the architecture of the universe. It is stated that (IF) there was a BB, there was a certain point where everything started. This argues against isotropic distribution of the mass contained within it. In addition to the mass towards the center point of the BB, there is also the shell material that flowed in the opposite direction of the BB from our perspective, adding to the overall mass red shift of our observations from webb. 

No credible discussion of the topic would refer to the center of the BB.

Indeed no reputable article or model describes our universe as anistropic or inhomogeneous. The evidence is far too strong on a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

 

 in an essentially infinite universe,  with a finite time of anything material or energetic to reach into what must be a much larger volume, does this not affect the consideration that the "bulk" universe is isotropic when considering most of space is empty, hiding behind a light speed horizon?. 

Edited July 9, 20241 yr by hoola

The Big Bang has no spatial 'origin', because it happened everywhere.
The Big Bang does have a temporal origin, however, and this implies that the further away we look, the farther back in time we see.
Since we all acknowledge that the universe is expanding, it follows that looking back at earlier periods we see regions of higher density, compared to nearby regions.
In fact, if we look back at a distance shortly after the beginning of the Big Bang, we see a region where temperature/density was high enough to dissociate atoms. But this density did not red shift light as it comes towards us.
It is red shifted by an expansion of about 1040 times, such that we see that temperature ( the CMB )  as 2.7^o instead of 3500^o.

IOW, the Big Bang model already explains it.

Sorry, Posted expansion factor and CMB temp from memory, and they are wrong, but can't edit my post any longer.
Should be 3000^o K and 1100 times.

Edited July 10, 20241 yr by MigL

no prob and thank you