Is light attached to space?

yeah because it's totally that simple

Why do people who understand so little love to claim they understand everything?

That the CMB is the strongest proof for the Big Bang still remains mysterious to me. It definitely hinges on OP’s question.
Isn’t the CMB just the average temperature (by volume) of the universe? Why would we assume that we can extrapolate towards a plasma that existed 14 BYA

Do you mean matter?

>believing the lie that space is expanding at all points

Ive never understood why it cant simply be the case that other stars are naturally more red than ours.

Exactly, or whatever other explanation you may find for it. In any case the more surrealistic is your claim the stronger should be your proof.

And if your conclusions are used everywhere, even more. This is similar to creating a huge dependence on a piece of code that's not been thoroughly tested, not a good idea.

I think It's not about the color of the star, it's about known patterns of spectral lines being shifted.

Which is the same since in both cases we are talking about the wavelength being stretched aka red-shift.

> being a little more red than normal
Meant exactly that, mainly because most stars aren't actually red to start with.

I assume you be trollin', but one of the assumptions of cosmology is that the universe is more or less them same when viewed from anywhere in it. So if we see alpha centauri as being red shifted from earth, then we assume that alpha centauri sees earth as being red shifted by the same amount.

Does that help?

>Is light attached to space?
Do you just assume that space is a big black wall the the stars and shit are stuck to like posters?

Attached: Wut.gif (320x212, 977K)

>So if we see alpha centauri as being red shifted from earth, then we assume that alpha centauri sees earth as being red shifted by the same amount.

Attached: flat,900x900,070,f.u1.jpg (900x900, 73K)

According to Einstein, gravity is so much a force as it is the 3 dimensional result of things trying to move in a straight line in 4 dimensional space-time. Massive objects like stars and planets deform/bend space-time and smaller objects like spaceships fell this as an attractive force as they fall down the gravity well.

The end of this video has a neat example of this.

Wh-what video?

That’s the question. I don’t know what current theories say about this

So to phrase it more directly: When a gravitational wave expands some piece of space, is that the same kind of expansion as the one proposed in cosmological expansion mechanisms?

it do

yes. that's what fucking red shift is.

Not really,the gravitational waves would have been measured at one wavelength when we received them.
Instead they were stretched out a little, consistent with what inflation theory predicts.
Thus giving inflation theory another plus.

Attached: BlackHoleArt_Lede1300.jpg (2600x1461, 417K)

Redshift can happen by many mechanisms. Redshift!=expansion

you can't redshift individual photons without space expanding as they're passing through

I don’t think you understood the question. Physically, is the portion of the gravitational wave that tends to expand whatever it is that it operates on the same as what cosmological expansion operates on

So we’re ignoring doppler shifting due to relative radial velocities?

This is based on the assumption of its own hypothesis, circular.
The idea of stretchy universe violates the laws of thermodynamics because even without energy being created or destroyed, the change in wavelength of light, which by definition means a change in its energy.

Perceived time dilation preserves the energy of the photon

Hypothetically in a shrinking scenario the universe's shrinking itself would have to be supplying energy to the photons in order to blueshift them and we assume the opposite is also true, that the lost energy in redshift due to expansion would be going towards said expansion.
Doppler shifts in photons are caused by difference in perception between reference frames, the photon itself isn't gaining or losing energy supposedly

an alternative explanation on the doppler effect is the perceived motion of an object can input energy into the photon itself but either way the photon is not changing energy

I dont even know why you’re trying to drive this particular point. Sure maybe cosmological redshift is special from other redshifts. I asked you if you think light is attached to space, you seem to think so right?

Rebka and GPS show that it works, but it doesn't prove that an xray photon has the same energy as non xray wavelength photon.

Making things work is very important, useful, and commendable, but things working doesn't always mean we fully understand them.
I'm not sure I comprehend how perceived time dilation keeps the energy from changing sum, can you explain that more? Are you saying it's the same it just looks different because of my frames of reference?

Essentially yes, the photon does look different based on reference frame. This applies to both your replies. In the case of time dilation, things are redshifted from our perspective because the photon's wave is essentially "stretched" in time, i.e. its frequency is lowered.

But can a photon which is not x-ray be 'bent' by space into a wavelength that is x-ray?

Because how far an x-ray travels through matter like flesh implies an energy difference from photons that don't.

If I could bend space to bend space and change the wavelength of my flashlight into an x-ray light so to speak.

Attached: Bremsstrahlung.jpg (297x269, 33K)

From your frame of reference I don't think you'd perceive light going away from you as contracting. We don't observe red shifts in light moving away from us after all

It's also possible that the act of contracting space would also be removing energy from space itself and putting it into the photon, following on from the logic in this user's response

Wait english physicists use the term 'bremsstrahlung' ?
Why in the fuck? Just use 'brake radiation' or another translation.