Re: Need recent data for red shift vs. distance for stars

Ok.  My theory basically is that there should be another explanation to the
red shift than doppler shift.  My theory
suggest that light, like any other particle, is radio-active. So a phton of
light has its energy given:

E = h <v>

Where v (nu) is the frequency, and it's momentum given as:

p = h/<lambda>

Where lambda is wave length.  Now if a light be radio active and instead of
H atom or nutron emits another photon
we would have:

E = h <v1> = h <v2> + h <v3>

The reason that I put < > is that the average frequency and not a sharp
frequency, because of uncertainty principle.
Now, let's assume that v3 is balck body radiation associated with 4 Deg K
that is coming from all corners of universe.
Now if we crunch the numbers and try to find out what is the half life of
the light.  That is light coming from closer objects
may have gone through a few radio active reaction and the light that is
coming from far.   So in general we have:

E=h<v1-n.v3> + n h <v3>

This could mean that the reason that the far objects have larger red shift
than closer objects is because the light coming from
them has gone through many radio active like reaction.  Also this could
explain why there is a background 4 Deg K radioation.
Further more, it suggests that 4 Deg K radiation pattern may be a
fundamental particle (photon) in our universe.

The problem with doppler shift is that it asumes light will not change
indefinately.  This of course is the case in earth, solar system
or our galactical neighbourhood.  But we should not assume this is the case
for over 1000s of light years distance (or time) frame.

Looking at it from classical point of view: Using Maxwell's euation we can
drive the speed of light to be constant and a function
of  u and e of free space.  It is widely assumed that u and e are constant
all over universe. We know u and e could become tanser in
say ferride materials, so it  is possible that some where far from our
galaxy u and e are not constats and have tenser like
property.  Or u and e have very small non axial component that are many
order of magnitude smaller than the axial componant.  This
means  the light over large distances could go through rotation and/or
frequency despersion.  Further more we have not proven that
u and e of free space are not time dependent.

So there are these and many other questions that make me want to examine
"the red-shift caused by doppler shift effect" religion
scientifically.

Regards,
Babak Sehari

Ps.  Please feel free to point me to a prove why u  and e are not a function
of time or 100,000s light year from earth space have the
same property as around here, or photon's half life is indefinate.  Then I
accept your "the red-shift caused by doppler shift effect"
religion.

"eyelessgame" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Babak Sehari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > I would like to thank all the people who posted their answer to my
question.
> > I trying
> > another theory to explain the red shift.  Therefore, I needed the data.
> > Upon completion
> > of my calculations I post the results for your review.
> >
> > Thansks,
> > Babak
>
> You're just a /tad/ premature in coming up with "another theory to
> explain the red shift" if you are so uninformed as not even to have
> the redshift data available to you.  Exactly how much of this have you
> studied?
>
> With your alternative theory, be sure to explain the CMBR, the
> cosmological constant problem, the recent speedup of the universe, the
> curvature of the universe, the match of redshift to cepheids, the
> younger population stars in higher-redshift galaxies, and about a
> dozen other lines of evidence for the current consensus view.  You've
> got a bit more to explain than just redshift.  Trying to change one
> law of physics is like trying to eat one peanut.
>
> Best of luck, thouhg.
>
> eyelessgame