Hey there, been watching your videos recently. Just wanted to drop a note and thank you for all the information and the way you explain everything; you'd make a great teacher! I'm looking toward a future of Engineering / Physics, and this is great inspiration for me. Keep it up!
THE ULTIMATE, BALANCED, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 MUST BE (AND IS) F=MA IN BALANCE: Consider THE MAN who actually IS in outer "space". Carefully consider what is THE EYE in necessary and fundamental BALANCE with what is the Sun !!! Great. Importantly, there is NO TIME; as INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL (and NECESSARY) to what is the full and proper understanding and description of physics/physical experience. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is clearly ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. (Accordingly, for example, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!) Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very, slightly in relation to what is THE SUN. Excellent !! Accordingly, I have explained the cosmological redshift !! Fantastic. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. SO, objects (AND MEN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is CLEARLY proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Therefore, ON BALANCE, the cosmological redshift proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. Great. Carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
It's interesting in science how you go out looking to refine observations to an existing model and end up with essentially new scientific data and a newer model to go with it.
6:47 but the question posed earlier that 'how do you know the emitted wavelength' still stands unanswered, isn't it? in terms of spectrum, the above question transforms to - 'how do you know the emitted spectrum'?
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance, then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with acceleration. If so, it is a missing fact in many documentaries about light in the universe?
6:47 but the question posed earlier that 'how do you know the emitted wavelength' still stands unanswered, isn't it? in terms of spectrum, the above question transforms to - 'how do you know the emitted spectrum'?
Why do we need to find relativistic redshift for objects which has redshift greater than 1? and How to find light travel distance and proper distance of a object which has redshift z=11? Please answer both.
Hello Sir, Thank You for your very useful videos. Please can you provide something about gravitational lensing and how can we measure distances using that
I hope you are aware that (lo - le)/le = v/c is an approximation to the relativistic Doppler formula (letter l means lambda). Thus speaking about a cosmological redshift and using a Doppler formula is schizophrenic.
Around 5:33 I talk about this exact question. If we were looking at a single spectral line, we'd have exactly the problem you describe. However, we can find a set of spectral lines for common elements (Hydrogen for instance) and see how the entire set of spectral lines is shifted. Since it is not only the wavelengths of light that are unique to each element but how they are spaced, if we find the spacing of lines associated with Hydrogen, we can uniquely identify where the original should have come from (and then check the spectral lines of other elements using the same shifting to confirm). As an aside, this actually gives us an interesting opportunity to test whether some of the fundamental constants have changed over time. Some constants like the (most notably the fine structure constant) determine the spacing of the Hydrogen spectral lines, so if we look at these spectral lines in very distant sources (quasars are the best for this), were the fundamental constants (and therefore the line spacings) different. Currently, if the fine structure constant has been changing, it has been too small of an effect for us to currently detect.
@@PhysicistMichael Thank you for that detailed response I actually copy and pasted my comment on a bunch of similar videos without watching them to increase the chance of getting an answer haha youve answered my question perfectly. I didn't know different elements had different spacing of light being emitted so I don't really know how to understand that. But it makes total sense that if we know what element is emitting the light then we can know for sure that the light is actually being red shifted
In the graph of redshift vs distance, there seems to be an odd clumping of objects at the 15 Mpc mark that seems to be uncorrelated with the projected linear line. Is there an explanation for this?
Yes, these are the galaxies of the Virgo cluster. While the center of the cluster in general is moving away from us, due to the proper motion of galaxies within the cluster. In their orbits some are swinging towards us, some away, but despite this proper motion the cluster as a whole is still moving away from us
The graph I showed was velocity vs distance, so with v = H0*d the slope of the graph gives H0. The equation I point to right after is the slightly different equation for redshift (z=v/c = H0*d/c) so that was probably not as clear as it could have been.
In this and another video I have seen, the redshift is explained as a result of expansion of spacetime instead of a doppler effect. From that I understand that the photon itself is streached with spacetime. This is confusing since in another video you say that matter in galaxies is not expanding with spacetime. So is photons influenced while other matter is not? Thanks for producing great content.
When we talk about the expansion of the universe, we're talking about the geometry of the universe on very large scales, much larger than individual galaxies or even clusters of galaxies. On large enough scales, the universe is essentially uniform and its geometry is expanding in this nice uniform way. As photons propagate over very long distances between galaxies, they are affected by the large scale expansion. However, on the smaller scales of individual stars and galaxies, the spacetime geometry is dominated by these object's own gravity. So if I have two distant galaxies, on the large scale between the galaxies, the geometry of spacetime is expanding, while on the smaller scales of the individual galaxies, the spacetime geometry is driven by the mass of all the stars and gas in the galaxies instead of the large scale properties of the universe, so on that smaller scale it doesn't expand in the same way. Hope that clears things up a little bit and thanks for watching.
PhysicistMichael Thanks so much for posting these videos. It's great to have enough robust logic and details to understand the theories. I must say I found your video while looking for answer to the same question hoplahey asked, but I find your answe incomplete. True, the motion of macro sized bodies will be dominated by local gravity and other local forces. But a photon is not a macro object, and it's wavelength is hardly affected by gravity or lack off in the redshift model. If the claim is that the photon wavelength is stretched by the fabric of the cosmos expanding, why aren't electron and protons wavelengths expanding in a similar way? Electron wavelength is probably tied closely to the size of an atom, so why aren't atoms in a relatively gravity free Oort cloud not expanding? Will an atom in a nano-gravity environment expand over a long time? Until this is explained, redshift can't really become a claim on the expansion of the universe, because there is a much simpler explanation, i.e. that photons energy decay and its wavelength increases over large periods of time. Are there more experimental data or calculations we should consider?
yaniv148 I googled "photon decay redshift" and found hoplahey and me are not alone in asking this. There's even an article in Nature from 1979 by D. F. CRAWFORD titled "Photon decay in curved space-time" postulating where the decaying photon energy might be going. I dare say scientific consensus seem to prefer cosmological redshift over photon decay to push a theological agenda, or perhaps fund raising dark energy, rather than doing measurement based science which is what physics should be about. Again, PhysicistMichael please, you are an educated physicist studying long time/distance influence on photons, surely you can help us and tell what experimental evidence exist to favor cosmological redshift over photon decay.
yaniv148 hoplahey First, thanks for asking good questions and asking for clarification when my answers are lacking. For the reference you mentioned, I had a look at one of the more recent papers by Crawford which covered a large explanation of his curvature cosmology theory (tired light) and there were a number of things that I found lacking. First, there are a number of well known observational issues with tired light theories (www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm for an easy read summary) and the mechanisms that are proposed as the cause of this, as far as I know, have never been observed in any experiment. However, what struck me even more reading Crawford's paper, was his portrayal of the current big bang cosmology as being spuriously patched together, and thereby we need a better theory. For instance, in his paper, when discussing the CMB temperature he says that for the big bang, the temperature depends on the baryonic density in the universe, which must be measured, so the theory can't predict the temperature; it's a weakness in the theory. This is wrong since we have consistent baryonic density measurements from galaxy rotation curves, x-rays in galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing and they're consistent with the measurements from the observed CMB temperature. This baryonic density (from multiple measurements) used in the big bang cosmology also allows us to predict the abundance of primordial elements after the big bang, and matches with large scale structure formation in the universe. From what I read in Crawford's paper, his curvature cosmology can't really address any of these points (at least without apparently violating the second law of thermodynamics, which is about the biggest red flag you can get in physics). There are a number of points like this where this curvature cosmology theory fails to explain other aspects of cosmology or outright makes predictions which have failed to follow through with observation. The recent announcement of a signal in the CMB polarization which can be attributed to inflation (if it proves to be accurate) will be yet another verification of our understanding of the big bang. On the other hand, tired light theories which are proposed to explain cosmologies that don't involve an expanding universe, have ultimately failed to be supported by observations.
PhysicistMichael Thanks so much for taking the effort to look it up and answer. Especially for telling that it's called Tired Light. I asked Google, and it seems tired light was proposed as an explanation shortly after Hubble observed redshift a 100 years ago, but has stayed on the fringe of physics for most of that time, the consensus being on cosmological redshift, and for good reasons. Tired light are not giving up. For example, to counter the observed time dilution of supernova, they quote evidence that the spectrum of the supernova changes over time which is better explained by tired light, and hit back with Lyman-alpha forest observation of quasar light passing through hydrogen clouds, where expansion predicts a spread which is not observed. It's difficult to take these claims as scientific because being on the Fringe there is no peer review and they can tell us whatever they want. I don't know what to make of lyndonashmore.com/hydrogen_cloud_separation_powerpoint.pdf Inflation is still a big meh for big bang, being based on extrapolation of observations, which not only leads to singularity, but actually breaks even before that and needs inflation to compensate. Compensating with inflation was tried and failed in economics so why should it work in cosmology?) If this new polarity observations holds, it's a start, but still hard to accept. It begs the question, why is nobody asking this? Not even the tired light people. Cosmological redshift should be observed on the Compton Waves of electrons, and expand all matter, why isn't it?
All elements have their own unique set of spectral lines associated with them which act like a fingerprint. Now if we only saw a single spectral line that had been shifted an unknown amount, we wouldn't know what element it came from or what the emitted wavelength was (like seeing one line of a fingerprint). However, if we see, say, a set of spectral lines that have exactly the same spacing that the spectral lines of hydrogen have, then we can say that 1: hydrogen was present in the system that emitted the light and 2: we can see how much that set of lines was shifted.
Hey there, been watching your videos recently. Just wanted to drop a note and thank you for all the information and the way you explain everything; you'd make a great teacher! I'm looking toward a future of Engineering / Physics, and this is great inspiration for me. Keep it up!
Glad to hear it, and if you have any questions about this or any of the other videos I'm happy to try and answer them.
THE ULTIMATE, BALANCED, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 MUST BE (AND IS) F=MA IN BALANCE:
Consider THE MAN who actually IS in outer "space". Carefully consider what is THE EYE in necessary and fundamental BALANCE with what is the Sun !!! Great. Importantly, there is NO TIME; as INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL (and NECESSARY) to what is the full and proper understanding and description of physics/physical experience. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma.
TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is clearly ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. (Accordingly, for example, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!) Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very, slightly in relation to what is THE SUN. Excellent !! Accordingly, I have explained the cosmological redshift !! Fantastic. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. SO, objects (AND MEN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is CLEARLY proven to be ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) Therefore, ON BALANCE, the cosmological redshift proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. Great. Carefully consider what is THE EARTH/ground. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
By Frank DiMeglio
It's interesting in science how you go out looking to refine observations to an existing model and end up with essentially new scientific data and a newer model to go with it.
If is at a consistent rate then it's not accelerating..?
6:47
but the question posed earlier that 'how do you know the emitted wavelength' still stands unanswered, isn't it?
in terms of spectrum, the above question transforms to - 'how do you know the emitted spectrum'?
same question! have you figured out the answer yet?
@@ashishkumarsharma1323 yes, check reply to ray mondburr in the comments section of this video
@@dragonfly9786 yes thanks. I realised that we take help of the spectrum that one element emits.
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance,
then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with acceleration.
If so, it is a missing fact in many documentaries about light in the universe?
Really explains things very well
6:47
but the question posed earlier that 'how do you know the emitted wavelength' still stands unanswered, isn't it?
in terms of spectrum, the above question transforms to - 'how do you know the emitted spectrum'?
Why do we need to find relativistic redshift for objects which has redshift greater than 1?
and
How to find light travel distance and proper distance of a object which has redshift z=11?
Please answer both.
Hello Sir, Thank You for your very useful videos. Please can you provide something about gravitational lensing and how can we measure distances using that
I hope you are aware that (lo - le)/le = v/c is an approximation to the relativistic Doppler formula (letter l means lambda). Thus speaking about a cosmological redshift and using a Doppler formula is schizophrenic.
How can we be sure the light isn't originating in that wave length rather than being shifted to the red side?
Around 5:33 I talk about this exact question. If we were looking at a single spectral line, we'd have exactly the problem you describe. However, we can find a set of spectral lines for common elements (Hydrogen for instance) and see how the entire set of spectral lines is shifted. Since it is not only the wavelengths of light that are unique to each element but how they are spaced, if we find the spacing of lines associated with Hydrogen, we can uniquely identify where the original should have come from (and then check the spectral lines of other elements using the same shifting to confirm).
As an aside, this actually gives us an interesting opportunity to test whether some of the fundamental constants have changed over time. Some constants like the (most notably the fine structure constant) determine the spacing of the Hydrogen spectral lines, so if we look at these spectral lines in very distant sources (quasars are the best for this), were the fundamental constants (and therefore the line spacings) different. Currently, if the fine structure constant has been changing, it has been too small of an effect for us to currently detect.
@@PhysicistMichael Thank you for that detailed response I actually copy and pasted my comment on a bunch of similar videos without watching them to increase the chance of getting an answer haha youve answered my question perfectly. I didn't know different elements had different spacing of light being emitted so I don't really know how to understand that. But it makes total sense that if we know what element is emitting the light then we can know for sure that the light is actually being red shifted
@@Josiah_Harder ruclips.net/video/TbFehcC4MHc/видео.html This one goes into some detail about how/why the spectral lines are produced. Glad to help!
In the graph of redshift vs distance, there seems to be an odd clumping of objects at the 15 Mpc mark that seems to be uncorrelated with the projected linear line. Is there an explanation for this?
Yes, these are the galaxies of the Virgo cluster. While the center of the cluster in general is moving away from us, due to the proper motion of galaxies within the cluster. In their orbits some are swinging towards us, some away, but despite this proper motion the cluster as a whole is still moving away from us
At 7:46 why isn't the slope equal to H_o by C, instead only the hubble parameter?
The graph I showed was velocity vs distance, so with v = H0*d the slope of the graph gives H0. The equation I point to right after is the slightly different equation for redshift (z=v/c = H0*d/c) so that was probably not as clear as it could have been.
In this and another video I have seen, the redshift is explained as a result of expansion of spacetime instead of a doppler effect. From that I understand that the photon itself is streached with spacetime.
This is confusing since in another video you say that matter in galaxies is not expanding with spacetime. So is photons influenced while other matter is not?
Thanks for producing great content.
When we talk about the expansion of the universe, we're talking about the geometry of the universe on very large scales, much larger than individual galaxies or even clusters of galaxies. On large enough scales, the universe is essentially uniform and its geometry is expanding in this nice uniform way. As photons propagate over very long distances between galaxies, they are affected by the large scale expansion.
However, on the smaller scales of individual stars and galaxies, the spacetime geometry is dominated by these object's own gravity. So if I have two distant galaxies, on the large scale between the galaxies, the geometry of spacetime is expanding, while on the smaller scales of the individual galaxies, the spacetime geometry is driven by the mass of all the stars and gas in the galaxies instead of the large scale properties of the universe, so on that smaller scale it doesn't expand in the same way.
Hope that clears things up a little bit and thanks for watching.
PhysicistMichael Thanks so much for posting these videos. It's great to have enough robust logic and details to understand the theories.
I must say I found your video while looking for answer to the same question hoplahey asked, but I find your answe incomplete.
True, the motion of macro sized bodies will be dominated by local gravity and other local forces. But a photon is not a macro object, and it's wavelength is hardly affected by gravity or lack off in the redshift model. If the claim is that the photon wavelength is stretched by the fabric of the cosmos expanding, why aren't electron and protons wavelengths expanding in a similar way? Electron wavelength is probably tied closely to the size of an atom, so why aren't atoms in a relatively gravity free Oort cloud not expanding? Will an atom in a nano-gravity environment expand over a long time?
Until this is explained, redshift can't really become a claim on the expansion of the universe, because there is a much simpler explanation, i.e. that photons energy decay and its wavelength increases over large periods of time.
Are there more experimental data or calculations we should consider?
yaniv148 I googled "photon decay redshift" and found hoplahey and me are not alone in asking this. There's even an article in Nature from 1979 by D. F. CRAWFORD titled "Photon decay in curved space-time" postulating where the decaying photon energy might be going.
I dare say scientific consensus seem to prefer cosmological redshift over photon decay to push a theological agenda, or perhaps fund raising dark energy, rather than doing measurement based science which is what physics should be about. Again, PhysicistMichael please, you are an educated physicist studying long time/distance influence on photons, surely you can help us and tell what experimental evidence exist to favor cosmological redshift over photon decay.
yaniv148 hoplahey First, thanks for asking good questions and asking for clarification when my answers are lacking. For the reference you mentioned, I had a look at one of the more recent papers by Crawford which covered a large explanation of his curvature cosmology theory (tired light) and there were a number of things that I found lacking.
First, there are a number of well known observational issues with tired light theories (www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm for an easy read summary) and the mechanisms that are proposed as the cause of this, as far as I know, have never been observed in any experiment.
However, what struck me even more reading Crawford's paper, was his portrayal of the current big bang cosmology as being spuriously patched together, and thereby we need a better theory. For instance, in his paper, when discussing the CMB temperature he says that for the big bang, the temperature depends on the baryonic density in the universe, which must be measured, so the theory can't predict the temperature; it's a weakness in the theory. This is wrong since we have consistent baryonic density measurements from galaxy rotation curves, x-rays in galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing and they're consistent with the measurements from the observed CMB temperature. This baryonic density (from multiple measurements) used in the big bang cosmology also allows us to predict the abundance of primordial elements after the big bang, and matches with large scale structure formation in the universe. From what I read in Crawford's paper, his curvature cosmology can't really address any of these points (at least without apparently violating the second law of thermodynamics, which is about the biggest red flag you can get in physics). There are a number of points like this where this curvature cosmology theory fails to explain other aspects of cosmology or outright makes predictions which have failed to follow through with observation.
The recent announcement of a signal in the CMB polarization which can be attributed to inflation (if it proves to be accurate) will be yet another verification of our understanding of the big bang. On the other hand, tired light theories which are proposed to explain cosmologies that don't involve an expanding universe, have ultimately failed to be supported by observations.
PhysicistMichael Thanks so much for taking the effort to look it up and answer. Especially for telling that it's called Tired Light.
I asked Google, and it seems tired light was proposed as an explanation shortly after Hubble observed redshift a 100 years ago, but has stayed on the fringe of physics for most of that time, the consensus being on cosmological redshift, and for good reasons.
Tired light are not giving up.
For example, to counter the observed time dilution of supernova, they quote evidence that the spectrum of the supernova changes over time which is better explained by tired light, and hit back with Lyman-alpha forest observation of quasar light passing through hydrogen clouds, where expansion predicts a spread which is not observed. It's difficult to take these claims as scientific because being on the Fringe there is no peer review and they can tell us whatever they want. I don't know what to make of lyndonashmore.com/hydrogen_cloud_separation_powerpoint.pdf
Inflation is still a big meh for big bang, being based on extrapolation of observations, which not only leads to singularity, but actually breaks even before that and needs inflation to compensate. Compensating with inflation was tried and failed in economics so why should it work in cosmology?) If this new polarity observations holds, it's a start, but still hard to accept.
It begs the question, why is nobody asking this? Not even the tired light people. Cosmological redshift should be observed on the Compton Waves of electrons, and expand all matter, why isn't it?
Please explain again how one knows the wavelength from the origin. I did not understand from the video explanation. Thank you.
All elements have their own unique set of spectral lines associated with them which act like a fingerprint. Now if we only saw a single spectral line that had been shifted an unknown amount, we wouldn't know what element it came from or what the emitted wavelength was (like seeing one line of a fingerprint). However, if we see, say, a set of spectral lines that have exactly the same spacing that the spectral lines of hydrogen have, then we can say that 1: hydrogen was present in the system that emitted the light and 2: we can see how much that set of lines was shifted.