hoola Posted July 24, 2023 Share Posted July 24, 2023 (edited) 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, 2023 by hoola 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 24, 2023 Author Share Posted July 24, 2023 (edited) 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, 2023 by hoola 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 24, 2023 Author Share Posted July 24, 2023 (edited) 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, 2023 by hoola 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Whole Posted July 24, 2023 Share Posted July 24, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted July 24, 2023 Share Posted July 24, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 24, 2023 Author Share Posted July 24, 2023 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted July 24, 2023 Share Posted July 24, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 24, 2023 Author Share Posted July 24, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted July 24, 2023 Share Posted July 24, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ kihara Posted July 25, 2023 Share Posted July 25, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 25, 2023 Share Posted July 25, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 25, 2023 Author Share Posted July 25, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 26, 2023 Author Share Posted July 26, 2023 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoola Posted July 30, 2023 Author Share Posted July 30, 2023 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now