Give account of the Hubble red-shift phenomenon and the meaning attributed to it by most astrophysicists..?
484184
Hubble found that the more distant a galaxy is the more it's spectrum is red shifted. Red shifts in light indicate motion of the source away from the observer due to the Doppler effect.
407630
Very good.  You are close to the truth.\n\nSpace alternately expands and contracts over a two billion year cycle.\n\nWe are now nearing the end of the expansionary phase.  So all the scientists on primitive planets hypothesize a big bang and talk about red shift.\n\nIn the following phase, scientists on other primitive planets will hypotehsize a fiery, incandescent end in the middle of everything and talk a lot about blue shifts.\n\nThe reasons for this have to do with the benefits of dynamic equilibrium.  Static would not work.  Apparently God already knows about this, but so do some physicists.\n\nSoem Dutch guy named DeSitter was also close, I have heard.
1054358
Being I've had them, I assume they are common. As far as "astral projections" are concerned, I can't imagine they could be verified in any rigorous or scientifically adept way...at least at this time. Have you read much about "remote viewing?" There has been some notable experiments carried out in this area for which I see some correlations.  Your last comment about the third moon of Saturn seems a bit "tongue 'n cheek" which makes me wonder if you're not a major skeptic. That's okay, 'cause I am too... I just try to keep an "open mind."  Entertaining any GUTS theory tends to have that effect on you.
1008044
Hi NY NY 2\n\nQuite a hodge podge of answers above.  let me see if I can clear some misconceptions up for you:\n\nFirst, the evidence. About 8 years ago two separate independent groups announced measurements of the brightness of supernova at a redshift z=1.  (Cosmologists use redshift factor "z" to show how far away something is in space-time by designating how far light from the object is redshifted by the time it arrives at earth.  The redshift is due to the expansion of the intervening space.  Redshift z=1 corresponds to a distance where the wavelength of light has been redshifted to double its original wavelength.).  These results indicated that the universal expansion was accelerating.  Since that time the results have been confirmed, and supporting evidence was found in the detailed mapping of the microwave background.\n\nSurprisingly (you might think) it is very easy to modify the equations which describe the universe's evolution to make the expansion accelerate.  The reason for this is that Einstein originally included such a factor in his early equations.\n\nBriefly, the equations for the universe at large scale talk about gravity and pressures.  Gravity tries to collapse the universe together and pressures push it apart (roughly).  When Einstein came up with his model (1915), everyone thought the universe was static (so called "steady state"), ie it didn't change over time.  So he included a cosmological constant to counteract the collapsing action of gravity and keep the universe steady.  This cosmological constant "pushes outwards" to counter gravities inward push.  By 1928 Hubble's catalogue had convinced people the universe was expanding (not steady) and physicists realised the cosmological constant wasn't required.  Einstein called its original inclusion "his biggest blunder".  It seems that call was wrong.  :o)\n\nNow the cosmological constant is coming back.  To describe an expanding universe you stick it back in and change the values for the density of normal mass-energy and the cosmological constant, and voila - an expanding universe.  The question then becomes: what does this constant physically represent?\n\nAt present cosmologists use the term "dark energy" to refer to a number of possible culprits.  From the equations we know the properties of this dark energy very well.  Some physicists link it to action of the quantum vacuum, some label it "quintessence" (the "fifth force").  \n\nIt is *not* (as suggested above) dark matter or antimatter.  Dark matter is invoked to explain galactic dynamics: galaxies tend to rotate in a fashion which suggests they have more mass than we can actually see.  This missing mass is presumed to be dark (which is why we can't see it).  Dark matter would act like ordinary matter in Einstein's equaitons, and so can't produce an accelerated expansion.  Antimatter also behaves gravitationally like ordinary matter and so it can't be responsible for accelerated expansion either.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
1133287
redshift is a phenomenon in which the visible light from an object is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientifically, it is an observed increase in the wavelength and decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared to that emitted by the source. For visible light, red is the color with the longest wavelength, so colors experiencing redshift shift towards the red part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The phenomenon goes by the same name even if it occurs at non-optical wavelengths (e.g. gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet). At wavelengths longer than red (e.g. infrared, microwaves, and radio waves) redshifts shift the radiation away from the red. The corresponding shift to shorter wavelengths is called blueshift.
153692
I'm sure many of the famous astronomers before him like Edwin Hubble, Harlow Shapley, James Jeans (mentioned by person in an interview) where all important to his work.  Check out some of his papers in the Astrophysical Journal or the Astronomical Jounal and check who the references are.
367501
"The red hues of the sky at sunset and sunrise are caused by the Rayleigh scattering, of blue light, by statistical fluctuations in the density of Earth's atmosphere."\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset\n\n... which is...\n\n"Rayleigh scattering (named after Lord Rayleigh) is the scattering of light, or other electromagnetic radiation, by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light."\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering\n\nCheers!
86706
The pictures you see that are released by nasa or whoever are doctored. If you were out in space you would basically see what you see now. There are some differences in colors of stars, for example bettleguise ( forgive my horrible spelling) is a red giant and is a red colored star. However this really isn't what were talking about here. When you see nebulae and such in those pictures they are quite pretty, blue, red, all sorts of stuff going on there. In the truth of the matter if you could actually "look" through the hubble it would be just plain ole grey's and white's. Sometimes a picture is taken in several different wavelenghts and has each wavelength given as a different color. This is really not as common as some people think. I assure you that those amazing pictures that are full of color were processed to look amazing and not becasue they have these incredible colors themselves.\n\nOh one last thing, if you were up in space and you got a look at the sun it would appear bright white and not the yellow that we are used to here on the ground- the atmosphere gives it the color
835614
The expansion was first predicted theoretically in Einstein's equations of gravity (although he initially changed them to disallow that result). The expansion was first observed using the doppler effect from nearby galaxies. For things moving towards us, light is shifted to be more blue and for things heading away from us, it is shifted to be more red. It was found that the further away galaxies are from us, the faster they are moving away (except for a few close to us whose 'peculiar' motion is large enough). This pattern is maintained to the farthest distances we have been able to see. It also agrees with the theoretical predictions.\n\nIt should be pointed out that even pictures taken a hundred years ago would not be able to show this expansion. The galaxies are simply too far away for speeds of 100 km/sec to have any noticeable effect on the images!\n\nIt should also be pointed out, like one previous poster did, that every galaxy would see the same type of expansion. In other words, if you were in galaxy A that is 500 million light years away from us, you would still see all the galaxies as moving away from you in such a way that the farther they are away, the faster they go.
130164
A wacko theory of Fred Hoyles.\n\nHoyle, who is currently dead, was a very good astrophysics guy. He did a lot of work on stellar structure. He also had a theory about the origin of the universe called the Steady State theory which was a scientific rival of the Big Bang. Eventually a lot of evidence came in supporting the Big Bang, but Hoyle could never shake his belief in Steady State.\n\nThe same thing happened with evolution. He didn't think it was true - not for religious reasons - but he simply didn't believe the evidence. Towards the end of his life he was really losing it, and was very much along on science issues. He even thought the Archaeopteryx\n(http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest)\nwas a fraud, based on absolutely no real evidence.\n\nHe thought that life originated in space, and that complex compounds in space would rain down on planets and seed them with life. There is a serious discussion as to whether or not that helped or caused the origin of life on Earth. Right now that is a minority opinion (I don't agree with it), but not a wacky one.\n\nHoyle though went further. He thought that the fossil record, which to others shows clear and solid evidence of evolution, really recorded changes that occured after "space storms" that lead to massive amounts of space chemicals falling down and mutating existing animals. He even though that human noses point down because that way we are less likely to inhale space born chemicals!\n\nHe got attention for this idea, which is nuts and based on a complete lack of understanding of genetics, among many other things, because of his excellent scientific work earlier in his career.\n\nHe was a nut, but in more ways it was sort of a tragic case. Parallelling Einstein in some respects (Einstein didn't have such wacked out ideas) but both were stuck at dead ends at the end of scientific careers that started out very well.\n\n\nOh, in terms of looking on the internet you need to be careful. Panspermia is one of those ideas which is very popular with scientific cranks. So make sure you have a real science source before taking it seriously.
133999
*Chuckling for such a well thought out question actually has an easy answer* Blueshifted stars...\n\nBlue shift is the phenomenon that the frequency of an electromagnetic wave (such as light) emitted by a source moving towards the observer is shifted towards the blue side of the electromagnetic spectrum (that is, its wavelength is decreased).\n\nAs you would be moving towards those stars and the light they emit is also moving towards you, the Doppler Effect would change the light to a bluish color. The faster you go, the bluer it gets.\n\nIf you were to look behind you, the stars would be redshifted.\n\nFor much more on the topic, see below\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
47579
Steady state theory has no answers for two major astronomical observations.\n\n1. Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)\n2. Hubble expansion.\n\nAs a result the theory has been discarded by the majority of professional astronomers.  The Big Bang theory does provide answers for those two bits of observation.  It may not be perfect but it is the best we got.  That's what theories are...the best explanation until something better comes along.
559307
Check the following links, they'll answer a lot of your questions, especially those related to Hubble, the big bang and time.\n\nFollow the links in the stories for addl. info.
585869
No, otherwise similar phenomena would be observed on Earth. Redshift is caused by the lengthening of the light waves - the peaks and troughs are at relatively the same place on the wave compared to locally generated light, but the length has been "stretched". The amount it is "stretched" depends on how fast ourselves and the object are moving apart - generally, objects at greater distance are moving apart more rapidly, so we see more shift. If matter caused this, it would be constant.\n\nThe opposite is true of distant matter moving towards us. For example, the galaxy of Andromena is moving towards our galaxy, and the light we see from this experiences "blue shift" - ie, the shortening of the light waves.\n\nIf red shift could be explained by interaction with matter, then we would not see blue shift. Or if both were caused by interactions with matter, they would cancel each other out, or we would see a steady "equilibrium" situation with the stretching, where all light reaching us from distance would be shifted by the same amount.\n\nSo no, nice theory though, keep plugging away, we need people to question these assumptions to further develop and refine the theories, or to disprove them if they are false!
1135249
The proof is red-shift.\n\nAs things recede from each other at a high fraction of c (speed of light), the waves stretch out; visible light takes on a higher red content.  The SPEED of light remains the same, but the frequency changes.\n\nConversely, when things approach each other, they blue-shift; the light becomes more blue.
675121
Well, the gravity causes it to elongate and swirl aroud as it approaches the event horizon, kindof like water going down a plug hole. It stretches, so goes through "red shift" - moving towards (or beyond) the red end of the light e-m spectrum.\n\nNot sure what you mean really by this question, but hope the answer helps.
176516
This is an issue of science not religion. Science makes predictions based on observation, and if they come out right the theory is adopted. Based on Edwin Hubble's observations on the spectrum of faraway stars, where certain elements' lines were shifting to red along the time, the conclusion was withdrawn that they were increasing their distance from us, in all directions, therefore, the universe is expanding. Given the rate of expansion it was figured out that between 13 and 15 billion years ago all matter must have been clumped together. recent observations with anisotrophy probes showed that the background radiation of the cosmos dates back from 13.7 billion years. So at that time all matter/energy was clumped together and what we call a quantumn fluctuation set it in expansion. All matter was formed within a trillionth of a second followed by a quick expansion. This is proven by physics by means of mathematical equations that for the common mortal are just beyond mental reach, but fortunately some humans developed a very intelligent brain. Unless of course you prefer to think that a pink unicorn sneezed, and there you got the universe. In which case, be my guest, but deep down inside I'd pity you. (But in fact I know you don't believe such fanciful stories).