Blue Shift objects; is there a list/table?

[sounddoctorin]

I know M31 is on the list and I know there aren't a lot of these objects at any distance.

Long ago I subscribed to the thought that EM probably fatigues slowly as it propagates through space or any medium for that matter. :-) I would like to see the actual data we have on blue shifted objects since obviously they are a huge reason of why I believe this. But anyway not really interested in debating that since I'm kind of busy right now. But if anyone has a pointer to the data I'd be much appreciative. -Bob

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are very, very few objects with a blueshift. M31 is one. Looking in the 2000 version of the http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/zcat/" gives only 16 objects with blueshifts. Most of those are quite small.

Tired light has been discredited for decades.

(1) It predicts more blurring than is observed.

(2) It predicts no time dilation for large Z supernovae, contrary to observation.

(3) It shifts only the frequency, not the photon density of a blackbody, so is inconsistent with CMB observations, particularly FIRAS.

 

[sounddoctorin]

There are very, very few objects with a blueshift. M31 is one. Looking in the 2000 version of the http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/zcat/" gives only 16 objects with blueshifts. Most of those are quite small.

Tired light has been discredited for decades.

(1) It predicts more blurring than is observed.

(2) It predicts no time dilation for large Z supernovae, contrary to observation.

(3) It shifts only the frequency, not the photon density of a blackbody, so is inconsistent with CMB observations, particularly FIRAS.

Please educate me. (Mod apparently pulled another post where I talked about this and didn't consider it necessary to even talk to me about it so regardless of my degree I MUST be a total dunderhead :-))

1) THe 'blurring' argument is not the strongest one :-). It's an attempt at a SELF-SUPPORTING argument. It reads like *this*: "We don't know of anything except interactions that would cause blurring"..WELL THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT HERE>>>> Our instruments cannot, due to the GREAT distances over which light must travel to produce measurable red shifting, help us PROVE OR DISPROVE whether this phenomena occurs. Therefore it is USELESS to substitute familiar phenomena in our evaluation. RATHER the argument "Every other wave loses energy when it propagates" takes FAR superior precedence to this straw man. So point one goes to the tired light people when evaluated logically. We're considering an argument from ignorance VERSUS an argument from *precedence*. Far far more powerful philosophically speaking. Especially since a non-causal and perpetual motion fallacy argument enter in as well. When light propagates *something* is acting as a constraint so that the fields can oscillate in their tangential axis. We don't understand the nature of it but it's there.

2) Yes this one I've heard of. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm shows a nice plot of the data. SOME of the data is WAY out which...suggests maybe the apparatus is crummy? I dunno. Or maybe most of the people doing the research wanted it to turn out one way and someone else was just gathering data. Isn't it curious how that one just is right on the flat line? :-) IS IT NOT ALSO CURIOUS how the CLOSER data has a MUCH wider base of statistical deviation?? Hmmmm? I think the study is probably poisoned by people with an agenda possibly. I'd like to know *exactly* how it was carried out before I'd put any stock in it. The problem is there are SO many who make a *religion* out of this..and religions of man tend to corrupt.

3) Again CMB...we are presuming the SOURCE of it based on the MODEL that all the people are ACCEPTING in my observation and *this* producing ill found conclusions like *this* cut from the same page as above:

--------THey say
The local Universe is transparent and has a wide range of temperatures, so it does not produce a blackbody, which requires an isothermal absorbing situation. So the CMB must have come from a far away part of the Universe, and its photons will thus lose energy by the tired light effect.

----I say

OHhh k. So we're presuming we know so MUCH about the 'local universe' here. What an arrogant statement. We do not know whether CMB might be coming FROM what *appears* to be transparent! SUch that it completely OVERWHELMS the background count from anything outside a few light years distance. Again we have no REAL method to test these things because it requires such a vast amount of space to produce detectable CMB if this is true. You can't trace it's source if it's source is...everything :-) It's a background radiation. That's all we know. We can speculate based on a PRESUMPTION what it *might* be...but we can't beat our chest and claim that it proves anything.

. As same page above quotes 'Without some incredible coincidences'. If we really break down the NATURE of these coincidences and compare them to the coincidence of the things I note in FAVOR of believing in light fatigue from a statistical perspective, I think we know who would win that one. So 2 out of 3 of these from a logical analysis actually don't meet muster with what we already know in non-fringe-kook science about the universe. It's getting harder and harder to find people WHO ACTUALLY TOOK a year of E+M and got good grades. Anybody? Hopefully there are some in here besides myself.


For that reason anyway I'd like to see more information on how 2) was performed. We are WAY WAY to far from concluding the source of CMB to start using it as an impressive argument so I'm not really that interested in it at this time but I do want to keep up on actual findings there. 2) would be an impressive argument were it not for the way the data looks...arranged to some degree. And I certainly would call it to question. I've known of crazier things happening than a few dozen people even conspiring to lie about something. Heck when I was in Jr. High a whole class of kids conspired to frame this one kid for something and they threatened to get me in trouble if I didn't go along. I laughed and told the truth. Everybody hated me. So what? They're a bunch of worthless people at that point and I'd rather be around people who tell the truth.

But anyway I think real scientists like to experience the collection of data and scrutinize the procedure and the whole 9 yards. For that reason. IT's simply..unscientific to just accept what people claim at face value.

But hey it doesn't challenge my world view one way or the other. I'm open to whatever the truth is. But so far I'm only seeing *one* argument that seems formidable in favor. And the data is sketchy. I'm seeing

* We're the center of the universe basically due to seeing this perceived expansion in *all* directions where HEY something 3 billion LY away for instance..think about it folks. It's LOCAL SYSTEM (this is going to blow you away...if you've never thought about this...) *were* they all originally at this dot which then began expanding into all that we see in the 'big bang'... the HEY they would have been moving along for what 6 billion years or so? At least? Well in that time let's do a little profile of the ACCELERATION TOWARDS each other due to gravity at a distance of 10 million LY. See...surely out there somewhere is a system sort of similar to ours. Over that many billion years I'm...guessing that the the slight initial velocity components from the 'bang' away from each other would have been swallowed up WHOLE by the gravitational acceleration compounded over that time. And those things would be SCREAMING towards each other so that ALL OF THEIR LOCAL SYSTEM WOULD BE BLUE SHIFTED! ALL OF IT ! NOT A SINGLE EXCEPTION FOR ANY REASON! :-) Oh crumb let me do the calculations. Using typical galactic objects with mass of 10^42 Kg. Let's bust this one out.

Acceleration = 6.67x10^-11 X 10^42Kg/(9.5x10^22M) ^2 (Distance below being 10 million LY for most distant object in this hypothetical 'local system'.) gives us 7.4 x 10^-15 m/sec^2

Ok so to get a rough out of how far an object would move in that amount of time for two objects NOT moving at relativistic bearing speeds to one another :-)... which is certainly the case in this particular scenario... d=.5x a x 6billion years squared... which gives 1.3 x 10^20 meters. My isn't that convenient? The wookie wins again. :-) Recall above that the systems ARE after all... 10^23 M apart almost in this scenario. SOOOOOO...

Sorry but I haven't introduced myself. I'm Bob Weigel. I graduated from Oregon STate with a BS in science Ed in '83 and took more physics at U of O while working for the Inst. of Molecular Biology there to where I have all but one sequence of a physics BS under my belt also. But then years of engineering experience and working problems and contemplating things from a logical approach.

I've been reasoning with people about things for about 22 years on the internet and usually it's dumb kids on myspace forums or whatever because I have a heart to get people to wake up and start RECONSIDERING some things they've been taught as fact. I hope some of you might reconsider this argument and give it another look. There really is more here than meets the eye I believe. -Bob

 

[sounddoctorin]

PS and please hold any comments about my use of qualitative analysis for the sake of those who don't know how to perform higher math. Using the free fall equation makes the point. Yes I *know* that the gravity increases as the things move closer and thus we actually need to evaluate the problem from an energy consideration or do an integral. But the point is over 6 billion years there should be a TON of blue shift in a local system.

So why so few objects that blue shift from our perspective in our local system even?? I went to the link but I don't see mention of blue shift anywhere. Again is there a link anywhere that shows the actual distance/shift amount data for blue shifted objects? Anyone? -Bob

 

[chemisttree]

The Virgo cluster has some galaxies with http://www.seds.org/messier/more/virgo_gal.html"

Perhaps the Sky Catalog 2000, Vol. 2 would be a source of blueshift objects you are looking for.

 

[sounddoctorin]

The Virgo cluster has some galaxies with http://www.seds.org/messier/more/virgo_gal.html"

Perhaps the Sky Catalog 2000, Vol. 2 would be a source of blueshift objects you are looking for.

Excellent. Thanks. I'd done a lot of google searches and hadn't come up with anything very useful. Virgo cluster is about 60 million LY away ish. I'd heard that some of them were blue shifted way back there. I studied to be an astronomer for many years when I was younger but got other directions in life. Saw near all the messier objects in my home made reflectors and read a bit along with the background I got in college bu then it's been just picking up bits here and there over the past decades as I've been working mostly in EE type stuff.

But that's really incredible...we seem to have a swirling cluster there. Yet again noting that there is overall red shift of course. 60Mly is a ways out and I'd imagine if what I believe is true, that there wouldn't be *any* blue shifted objects much beyond that.

The distribution of the data could work with either model really. What really tends it seems to me to favor NOT the big bang... is the distribution of blue shift incidences. Why are there simply none of them when you get past a certain point? And WAY WAY WAY more important...why so few right here local to us? If we've been out here all this time the *majority* of local things, just due to gravity should be tending to blue shift. Not red shift on us. Anyway people are crying for things. I have to get fixing this stuff but it's something to ponder certainly.