So, to put light and sound on the same level, let's consider the electro-magnetic nature of sound and light as photons. When we receive the light we see the photons arriving at specific periods giving us the frequency (colour). When those photons arrive at elongated periods (or further apart), we see it as a lower frequency (or red shifted). If we were to receive light at a faster period (closer together) we'd perceive it as blue shifted.
In order for light to travel as waves it would have to have a medium to travel through, thus the fictional "Ether". Light travels as photons, but acts like waves as well, the dual nature of light. Einstein has theorized this.
Sound isn't traveling faster as an object making the noise gets closer, the sound is bunched up and the frequency of those sound waves reaching us has increased causing us to hear the sound at a higher pitch. ...to be continued...
...Say a jet fighter travelling at 500mph, fires a rocket forward [and the speed of the rocket is 300mph], then to me on the ground the rocket is travelling at 800mph. I ask this because if at an airport and you watch people standing still on the moving walkway and someone hurries past them,
he's definately going much faster!! So, do waves not have this feature?
Hope this makes sense. thanks i appreciate your time.
In this case, the wavelength (frequency) is the dimension that changes, not the amplitude. The speed of sound depends on the medium it's traveling through, so it's not correct to say it's "fixed," but, yes, unlike when you throw a ball from a moving car and a bystander with a different reference frame sees the ball moving faster than you do, the sound waves only propagate at the speed the air will allow. That's what causes sonic booms, BTW -- and aircraft running over its own sound waves.
When you say the "size" of the wave, do you mean the amplitude? Also, if the propagation speed of the air waves is the same either side of me [stationary], does this mean that the speed of sound, like the speed of light, is
independant of the speed of the source? This is the thing i don't get. Do waves and "things", objects, act differently. Is it true for all waves? contd.....
i ask this because if at an airport and you watch people standing still on the moving walkway and someone hurries along past them, he's definately going much faster!! So, do waves not have this feature? Hope this makes sense. thanks.
If this is a fact, is it true for all waves?, but not things or objects? This is what i find difficult to get. Say a jet fighter travelling at 500mph fires a rocket forward, and the speed of the rocket is 300mph. Is the rocket actually travelling at 800mph.[to me on the ground] contd....
When you say that the actual "size" changes, do you mean the amplitude? Also, if the propagation speed is the same either side of me [stationary] does that mean that the speed of sound, like the speed of light , is fixed regardless if the source is moving? contd....
i don't get it. how can you compare sound waves, which are longitudinal waves, to light waves, which are transversal waves. Into the bargin, didn't Einstien say that the speed of light never varies, ever!
You are correct that we're oversimplifying in order to make the phenomenon easier to understand, but the sound waves aren't changing speed, either. The speed of sound in the air to the right of you is the same as the speed of sound in the air to your left. What changes is the actual size of the wave, not how fast it propagates.
Light travels as a photon in the vacuum of space. It does only travel at one speed, the speed of light.
The red shift is not because light has slowed down, rather the photons of light reaching us at a longer period (spaced out between photons). That period is the frequency at which the light reaches us, not the speed. That's what causes the red shift, a lower frequency.
Radio waves travel exactly like this. That's why we can have channels on the radio, diff freq's, arriving at light speed.
A bunch of non-sense. The speaker doesn't even look convinced of what he is reciting. Why are some moving toward us? Kind of undermines the whole everything is expanding from a single point theory. These people love to make stuff up, so they can seem so intelligent.
When their theories are disproved! They have no loose. It's on to the next.
I see your point about blue shift. The astronomer failed to mention that blue shift has little or no relevance to the "expanding" universe. Blue shift is indeed observed when a star is in orbit around a central mass. During the period of orbit when it is coming closer to us, it appears blue and as it moves round the other side away from us, it appears red.
thats what science is.. if we just accepted everything we would never advance. sounds kind of like a religion i know thats based on a book and even after its proved wrong they stick to it. and he dosnt look unconvinced he looks like hes explaining it to idiots like us!
Howie47: the universe is expanding *globally*. It means that not *all* galaxies are moving away from us, but most of them are. Compare that with people living in big towns moving to countryside on week-ends. It is like an "expansion" of cars. Fridays, most cars drive away from the town, but it does not mean that no car at all drives toward the town.
Howie47: the universe is expanding *globally*, meaning that most of galaxies move away from us, but it does not mean that all do. Fridays, most cars are moving away from big towns to countryside, it is like an "expansion" of cars, but it does not mean that *no car at all* moves toward the town at the same time.
I don't understand. He said galaxies that are farther from us are moving away from us faster. Those galaxies have more of a red shift which they used to determine how far away from us they are. Huh? Sounds like circular reasoning. How could you know that the galaxies with more of a red shift are farther from us in the first place?
That's an observational effect. The Universe is expanding (we think) at a fairly uniform rate, but the closer something is to us, the slower it appears to be moving relative to us (since we're moving along with it).
I still don't get it. All we can tell from Earth is how fast something is moving relative to us using the red-shift. Once we know how fast it's moving relative to us then we figure out how far away from us.
"the closer something is to us, the slower it appears to be moving relative to us"
How can we know how far away something is from us before figuring out how fast it is moving relative to us?
OK, this is really hard to do without visuals, but imagine that you're standing in the middle of a chess board. One person is standing in the space next to you, and someone else is standing next to them, and a third person standing next to them. That 3rd person is 3 spaces from you, the 2nd person is 2 spaces from you, and the one next to you is 1 space from you. (continued in next comment)
Now add one space between each of you on the chessboard. The one next to you is now 2 space away. Person 2 is now 4 spaces away. Person 3 is now 6 spaces away. Person 1 only moved 1 space relative to you, but person 3 moved 3 spaces relative to you. Person 3 appears to be moving faster (going farther in the same amount of time), even though everyone only moves one space.
I understand all of that except for the last statement. "Person 3 appears to be moving faster even though everyone only moves one space." It's not true that everyone moved only one space. If person 3 started out only 3 spaces away and then ended up 6 spaces away then they must have moved 3 spaces. Let me put it this way. If things that are farther from us are moving faster away from us then does that mean that everything is constantly accelerating away from us? How can that be?
You're not confused at all. That's the paradox of expansion. Only one space appears between any two people, but the farther they are away from you, the faster they appear to be moving (to you). But from their point of view, they haven't moved, and you're moving away from them. No one is moving, yet everyone is.
Exactly. their logic is very fuzzy here. since it is moving away faster it's light is red. Which tells us it's moving faster. Not how far it is. Since some are moving toward us. The whole theory of the big bang is idiocy. Also this guys recital of the theory, and facial expressions, says he isn't even convinced.
The universe is expanding, superzealander is confusing the idea of a straight line as observed by us and that when considering space-time. Abstractly it is hard to imagine anything with more than 3 spacial directions. We have to consider space like a balloon, so a straight line drawn on a balloon would eventually come full circle back to the start, but if we expand the balloon it has further to travel, hence the red shifting.
The Universe may have been be expanding but the red shift can only tell us what direction those objects were moving at the time the light left them which in many cases is millions of years. No one know for sure.
Superzealander that's quite a brilliant way of seeing it (the straight line thing), but I think you're jumping gun about redshift (I pretty sure the scientific community is unanimous on this one).
A straight line would evnrually arrive back at the point it started (about 60 billion years later). Universe is not expanding. Redshift is caused by something scientists do not understand yet.
please explain the straight line thing to me... is the universe not ever-expanding? or is it shaped far differently than the average layman (me) believes? (an ever-expanding sphere).
superzealander is referring to a theory of the structure of the Universe called a "non-Euclidean Universe" where straight lines aren't really straight, they just appear to be in the local Universe. The latest observations from distant-Universe observing missions don't support this model, but rather is "flat" (straight lines are really straight) and either infinite or significantly larger than we will ever be able to observe.
" It is concluded that either earth is indeed the center of the Universe or the cosmological redshift interpretation is not correct. " from
THE RED-SHIFT HYPOTHESIS FOR QUASARS:. IS THE EARTH THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ? II. Y. P. VARSHNI. Dept. of Physics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada ...
( + When and Where Did Motion First Start ? )
Finding the Center of the Universe is Easy.
The Center of the Universe is where MOTION First Started .
Thinking about this though... would this mean that everything that we can see is probably all roughly moving the same way as us but expanding, as predicted by the big bang theory? Everything we see is from one small section of one side of the explosion, which is still spreading out as we make our way away from the point of the inital cause, provided that the big bang theory is correct?
Exactly. From our point of view, we're staying still, but someone in another galaxy would see themselves standing still, but us moving away from them.
Q; Does the Red Shift of Cosmic Light , prove the Earth is at the center of the Universe ?
A; Yes , if Motion started on Earth then the Earth would be at the center of the Universe .
It is possible Human Beings created particles that traveled back in space-time to start motion in a motionless gravity vacuum field even 60 Billion Years ago.
Q: Would that mean Human Beings are baby gods ?
A: Yes, Human Beings are baby gods and most likely create baby universes.
The earth is at the center of the PERCEIVED Universe, but that's just an illusion. Someone standing on a planet at the edge of the visible Universe would perceive themselves as the center of the Universe. The Earth is actually moving in the expanding Universe just like everything else is, but because we're moving along with it, we don't see it.
Yes, ( The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat " contained theren ..the source of the heat is the microwave backround ? ) I agree with your position , but in theory IF Motion was somehow created in the location of the present Earth , via a time machine ? or other photon particles , maybe 60 Billion Years ago , then the place where motion started should be at the center of the universe ?
No, you can't make such assumptions. They'd make for nice Sci-fi, but there is NOTHING that would suggest that. Reread SpitzerJim's comments, watch this video, and think about it some more.
And NO, the earth couldn't be at the center of the universe simple because it is a very well known fact that it is in orbit around the sun, which is in orbit around the center of what we refer to as The Milky Way. Google it ^.^
Thanks for this video. Even though it might not be entirely correct if you are to believe johnmc2, it helps explain to a length where you can read more on your own without feeling like it's gibberish.
This (otherwise great) video gives the impression that a receding star will look red and an approaching one will look blue. This is not the case - in red shift, for exampleUV light shifts into the visible range, "replacing" the shifted violet light. The whole spectrum shifts
Thank you for the help.
GameMusic4u 2 years ago 28
GREAT explination, yet proves proof og big bang
jakeavakian 2 years ago 7
So, to put light and sound on the same level, let's consider the electro-magnetic nature of sound and light as photons. When we receive the light we see the photons arriving at specific periods giving us the frequency (colour). When those photons arrive at elongated periods (or further apart), we see it as a lower frequency (or red shifted). If we were to receive light at a faster period (closer together) we'd perceive it as blue shifted.
UnderManiac 2 years ago
In order for light to travel as waves it would have to have a medium to travel through, thus the fictional "Ether". Light travels as photons, but acts like waves as well, the dual nature of light. Einstein has theorized this.
Sound isn't traveling faster as an object making the noise gets closer, the sound is bunched up and the frequency of those sound waves reaching us has increased causing us to hear the sound at a higher pitch. ...to be continued...
UnderManiac 2 years ago
...Say a jet fighter travelling at 500mph, fires a rocket forward [and the speed of the rocket is 300mph], then to me on the ground the rocket is travelling at 800mph. I ask this because if at an airport and you watch people standing still on the moving walkway and someone hurries past them,
he's definately going much faster!! So, do waves not have this feature?
Hope this makes sense. thanks i appreciate your time.
mackenzie235 2 years ago
In this case, the wavelength (frequency) is the dimension that changes, not the amplitude. The speed of sound depends on the medium it's traveling through, so it's not correct to say it's "fixed," but, yes, unlike when you throw a ball from a moving car and a bystander with a different reference frame sees the ball moving faster than you do, the sound waves only propagate at the speed the air will allow. That's what causes sonic booms, BTW -- and aircraft running over its own sound waves.
SpitzerJim 2 years ago 4
When you say the "size" of the wave, do you mean the amplitude? Also, if the propagation speed of the air waves is the same either side of me [stationary], does this mean that the speed of sound, like the speed of light, is
independant of the speed of the source? This is the thing i don't get. Do waves and "things", objects, act differently. Is it true for all waves? contd.....
mackenzie235 2 years ago
i ask this because if at an airport and you watch people standing still on the moving walkway and someone hurries along past them, he's definately going much faster!! So, do waves not have this feature? Hope this makes sense. thanks.
mackenzie235 2 years ago
If this is a fact, is it true for all waves?, but not things or objects? This is what i find difficult to get. Say a jet fighter travelling at 500mph fires a rocket forward, and the speed of the rocket is 300mph. Is the rocket actually travelling at 800mph.[to me on the ground] contd....
mackenzie235 2 years ago
When you say that the actual "size" changes, do you mean the amplitude? Also, if the propagation speed is the same either side of me [stationary] does that mean that the speed of sound, like the speed of light , is fixed regardless if the source is moving? contd....
mackenzie235 2 years ago
i don't get it. how can you compare sound waves, which are longitudinal waves, to light waves, which are transversal waves. Into the bargin, didn't Einstien say that the speed of light never varies, ever!
mackenzie235 2 years ago
You are correct that we're oversimplifying in order to make the phenomenon easier to understand, but the sound waves aren't changing speed, either. The speed of sound in the air to the right of you is the same as the speed of sound in the air to your left. What changes is the actual size of the wave, not how fast it propagates.
SpitzerJim 2 years ago 4
Light travels as a photon in the vacuum of space. It does only travel at one speed, the speed of light.
The red shift is not because light has slowed down, rather the photons of light reaching us at a longer period (spaced out between photons). That period is the frequency at which the light reaches us, not the speed. That's what causes the red shift, a lower frequency.
Radio waves travel exactly like this. That's why we can have channels on the radio, diff freq's, arriving at light speed.
UnderManiac 2 years ago
Same here lol, cudnt rememba dis part V V V
thanks
AzzyWilliamz 2 years ago
OMG thanks sooo much i get it now! gcse exam tomorrow...oopsies :S
THANKS
aspoosanfulofsugar 2 years ago 2
same!
skatenotwar 2 years ago
A bunch of non-sense. The speaker doesn't even look convinced of what he is reciting. Why are some moving toward us? Kind of undermines the whole everything is expanding from a single point theory. These people love to make stuff up, so they can seem so intelligent.
When their theories are disproved! They have no loose. It's on to the next.
Howie47 2 years ago
I see your point about blue shift. The astronomer failed to mention that blue shift has little or no relevance to the "expanding" universe. Blue shift is indeed observed when a star is in orbit around a central mass. During the period of orbit when it is coming closer to us, it appears blue and as it moves round the other side away from us, it appears red.
Hope that made sense :/
18vallancel 2 years ago
thats what science is.. if we just accepted everything we would never advance. sounds kind of like a religion i know thats based on a book and even after its proved wrong they stick to it. and he dosnt look unconvinced he looks like hes explaining it to idiots like us!
bigblakblob2 2 years ago 2
Howie47: the universe is expanding *globally*. It means that not *all* galaxies are moving away from us, but most of them are. Compare that with people living in big towns moving to countryside on week-ends. It is like an "expansion" of cars. Fridays, most cars drive away from the town, but it does not mean that no car at all drives toward the town.
j9dz2sf 2 years ago
Howie47: the universe is expanding *globally*, meaning that most of galaxies move away from us, but it does not mean that all do. Fridays, most cars are moving away from big towns to countryside, it is like an "expansion" of cars, but it does not mean that *no car at all* moves toward the town at the same time.
j9dz2sf 2 years ago
I don't understand. He said galaxies that are farther from us are moving away from us faster. Those galaxies have more of a red shift which they used to determine how far away from us they are. Huh? Sounds like circular reasoning. How could you know that the galaxies with more of a red shift are farther from us in the first place?
SundaysCybele 3 years ago
That's an observational effect. The Universe is expanding (we think) at a fairly uniform rate, but the closer something is to us, the slower it appears to be moving relative to us (since we're moving along with it).
SpitzerJim 3 years ago
I still don't get it. All we can tell from Earth is how fast something is moving relative to us using the red-shift. Once we know how fast it's moving relative to us then we figure out how far away from us.
"the closer something is to us, the slower it appears to be moving relative to us"
How can we know how far away something is from us before figuring out how fast it is moving relative to us?
SundaysCybele 3 years ago
OK, this is really hard to do without visuals, but imagine that you're standing in the middle of a chess board. One person is standing in the space next to you, and someone else is standing next to them, and a third person standing next to them. That 3rd person is 3 spaces from you, the 2nd person is 2 spaces from you, and the one next to you is 1 space from you. (continued in next comment)
SpitzerJim 3 years ago
Now add one space between each of you on the chessboard. The one next to you is now 2 space away. Person 2 is now 4 spaces away. Person 3 is now 6 spaces away. Person 1 only moved 1 space relative to you, but person 3 moved 3 spaces relative to you. Person 3 appears to be moving faster (going farther in the same amount of time), even though everyone only moves one space.
SpitzerJim 3 years ago
I understand all of that except for the last statement. "Person 3 appears to be moving faster even though everyone only moves one space." It's not true that everyone moved only one space. If person 3 started out only 3 spaces away and then ended up 6 spaces away then they must have moved 3 spaces. Let me put it this way. If things that are farther from us are moving faster away from us then does that mean that everything is constantly accelerating away from us? How can that be?
SundaysCybele 3 years ago
You're not confused at all. That's the paradox of expansion. Only one space appears between any two people, but the farther they are away from you, the faster they appear to be moving (to you). But from their point of view, they haven't moved, and you're moving away from them. No one is moving, yet everyone is.
SpitzerJim 3 years ago
Exactly. their logic is very fuzzy here. since it is moving away faster it's light is red. Which tells us it's moving faster. Not how far it is. Since some are moving toward us. The whole theory of the big bang is idiocy. Also this guys recital of the theory, and facial expressions, says he isn't even convinced.
Howie47 2 years ago
omg thanks
helowako 3 years ago
this video is really helpful :) i have an exam on wednesday, and I finally get the red shift :) the animations really helped, thankyou :)
charlottexxsmith 3 years ago
that title can sound bad...
SeaSwimmer1995 3 years ago
thanks alot!!!
Essal888 3 years ago
i have an exam 2morrow this is some really good explanation it really does help with the animation and stuff thx:)
shahpesh 3 years ago
Thanks ... I have an exam today ... :D
kayleighmatthews 3 years ago
thanks, this will help me study for my test!
08eks 3 years ago 2
I HEARTS YOU!!!!! I finally get it now!!!!!
max345612 3 years ago
Glad we could help!
SpitzerJim 3 years ago
What a nice man....
penorpls 3 years ago
Thanks for that Video, helped me with my Astronomy homework :)
AdamSwainston 3 years ago
Space dont expanding.
New model of an atom
The atomcores expand three-dimentionally, opening up energywaves that have
the nature of expanding electrons and expanding photons. expanding electrons and expanding photons emit also expanding energy...
If you want some perspect for visible universe, take a look that video!
Idea from Kuopio
Etimespace 3 years ago
The universe is expanding, superzealander is confusing the idea of a straight line as observed by us and that when considering space-time. Abstractly it is hard to imagine anything with more than 3 spacial directions. We have to consider space like a balloon, so a straight line drawn on a balloon would eventually come full circle back to the start, but if we expand the balloon it has further to travel, hence the red shifting.
AxeWieldingManiac 3 years ago
Thanks, Im studying A-level physics in UK
I understood how works doppler effect and red shift...thanks
tkfkdgody777 4 years ago
The Universe may have been be expanding but the red shift can only tell us what direction those objects were moving at the time the light left them which in many cases is millions of years. No one know for sure.
Superzealander that's quite a brilliant way of seeing it (the straight line thing), but I think you're jumping gun about redshift (I pretty sure the scientific community is unanimous on this one).
robwind69 4 years ago
wow. good point about red shift is out of date information - hadn't thought of that one.
:~#
LeonSzillard 3 years ago
Every point in the universe is the centre.
A straight line would evnrually arrive back at the point it started (about 60 billion years later). Universe is not expanding. Redshift is caused by something scientists do not understand yet.
superzealander 4 years ago
please explain the straight line thing to me... is the universe not ever-expanding? or is it shaped far differently than the average layman (me) believes? (an ever-expanding sphere).
creed00712 4 years ago
superzealander is referring to a theory of the structure of the Universe called a "non-Euclidean Universe" where straight lines aren't really straight, they just appear to be in the local Universe. The latest observations from distant-Universe observing missions don't support this model, but rather is "flat" (straight lines are really straight) and either infinite or significantly larger than we will ever be able to observe.
SpitzerJim 4 years ago
thank you
creed00712 4 years ago
Hey Guy,
Nice vid!!
looking forchicks or guys! play with on cam Join me there! FLING-CHAT dot COM
G23011415
BigGayAl222 4 years ago
" It is concluded that either earth is indeed the center of the Universe or the cosmological redshift interpretation is not correct. " from
THE RED-SHIFT HYPOTHESIS FOR QUASARS:. IS THE EARTH THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ? II. Y. P. VARSHNI. Dept. of Physics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada ...
( + When and Where Did Motion First Start ? )
Finding the Center of the Universe is Easy.
The Center of the Universe is where MOTION First Started .
dizzo95 4 years ago
Thinking about this though... would this mean that everything that we can see is probably all roughly moving the same way as us but expanding, as predicted by the big bang theory? Everything we see is from one small section of one side of the explosion, which is still spreading out as we make our way away from the point of the inital cause, provided that the big bang theory is correct?
Truthiness231 4 years ago
Exactly. From our point of view, we're staying still, but someone in another galaxy would see themselves standing still, but us moving away from them.
SpitzerJim 4 years ago
Q; Does the Red Shift of Cosmic Light , prove the Earth is at the center of the Universe ?
A; Yes , if Motion started on Earth then the Earth would be at the center of the Universe .
It is possible Human Beings created particles that traveled back in space-time to start motion in a motionless gravity vacuum field even 60 Billion Years ago.
Q: Would that mean Human Beings are baby gods ?
A: Yes, Human Beings are baby gods and most likely create baby universes.
dizzo95 4 years ago
The earth is at the center of the PERCEIVED Universe, but that's just an illusion. Someone standing on a planet at the edge of the visible Universe would perceive themselves as the center of the Universe. The Earth is actually moving in the expanding Universe just like everything else is, but because we're moving along with it, we don't see it.
SpitzerJim 4 years ago
Yes, ( The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat " contained theren ..the source of the heat is the microwave backround ? ) I agree with your position , but in theory IF Motion was somehow created in the location of the present Earth , via a time machine ? or other photon particles , maybe 60 Billion Years ago , then the place where motion started should be at the center of the universe ?
dizzo95 4 years ago
No, you can't make such assumptions. They'd make for nice Sci-fi, but there is NOTHING that would suggest that. Reread SpitzerJim's comments, watch this video, and think about it some more.
And NO, the earth couldn't be at the center of the universe simple because it is a very well known fact that it is in orbit around the sun, which is in orbit around the center of what we refer to as The Milky Way. Google it ^.^
Truthiness231 4 years ago
wow
joshscott911 4 years ago
Thanks for this video. Even though it might not be entirely correct if you are to believe johnmc2, it helps explain to a length where you can read more on your own without feeling like it's gibberish.
MegamiLulu 4 years ago
This (otherwise great) video gives the impression that a receding star will look red and an approaching one will look blue. This is not the case - in red shift, for exampleUV light shifts into the visible range, "replacing" the shifted violet light. The whole spectrum shifts
johnmc2 5 years ago
Yeah, omfg. They stole that cow. Haha.
Devourer09 5 years ago
these are really great!
pjdude 5 years ago
Gotta luv the cow!
sillysot 5 years ago