Why is Rayleigh light scatter not applied to extra-galactic red shift
interpretation?

The phenomenon of Rayleigh light scatter does not appear to be
considered in the interpretation of remote [extra-galactic] red shift
interpretations. Astrophysics appears to assume that all light always
travels in a vacuum.

Clearly there is emerging importance of space dust in the creation of
molecular hydrogen and planet formation. When an intervening galaxy
lenses light, there likely will be an encounter with matter capable of
invoking the Rayleigh light scatter phenomenon. There likely is such
matter in the origin and recipient stars and galaxies.

Now Scientific American reports that the Astrophysical Journal will
discuss 'a surprisingly heavy early galaxy'.

Rayleigh light scatter accounts for local red shift [intra-solar]
interpretations of 1) the noon blue shift and the sunrise and sunset
red shifts on Earth, 2) red shift on Mars and 3) orange shift on Titan.
The amount and types of matter in these atmospheres appear to influence
the light color. The sun does not appear to significantly change
velocity or distance in these settings.

One begins to suspect that there may be space dust at the boundary
interface of the local group of galaxies to account for the evidence
that most of the blue-shifted galaxies are within this local group.

Should the quantity and category [dust, water vapor] of matter be
included in the interpretation of red shift data? One does not suggest
replacing but rather modifying the current interpretation that seems to
ignore that Rayleigh light scatter may apply.

In article .com, "Doug" writes:
Why is Rayleigh light scatter not applied to extra-galactic red shift
interpretation?

The phenomenon of Rayleigh light scatter does not appear to be
considered in the interpretation of remote [extra-galactic] red shift
interpretations. Astrophysics appears to assume that all light always
travels in a vacuum.

Why do you think that Rayleigh scattering causes a red shift?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Doug wrote:
Why is Rayleigh light scatter not applied to extra-galactic red shift
interpretation?

Cosmological redshift is not just a matter of things looking redder. It's a
systematic shift of all frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum by the
same ratio. Rayleigh scattering has a totally different effect on the
spectrum, so it's quite easy to tell them apart.

Rayleigh light scatter accounts for local red shift [intra-solar]
interpretations of 1) the noon blue shift and the sunrise and sunset
red shifts on Earth, 2) red shift on Mars and 3) orange shift on Titan.

As far as I know, the red tint of the martian sky is due to dust storms --
without the dust, Mars would have a blue sky. See the bottom of this page:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic.../blue_sky.html

-- Ben

To both reply #2&3, within the article referenced by reply #3 - "This
is most correctly called the Tyndall effect, but it is more commonly
known to physicists as Rayleigh scattering--after Lord Rayleigh, who
studied it in more detail a few years later. He showed that the amount
of light scattered is inversely proportional to the fourth power of
wavelength for sufficiently small particles. It follows that blue light
is scattered more than red light by a factor of (700/400)4 ~= 10.
Tyndall and Rayleigh thought that the blue colour of the sky must be
due to small particles of dust and droplets of water vapour in the
atmosphere. Even today, people sometimes incorrectly say that this is
the case. Later scientists realised that if this were true, there would
be more variation of sky colour with humidity or haze conditions than
was actually observed, so they supposed correctly that the molecules of
oxygen and nitrogen in the air are sufficient to account for the
scattering. The case was finally settled by Einstein in 1911, who
calculated the detailed formula for the scattering of light from
molecules; and this was found to be in agreement with experiment. He
was even able to use the calculation as a further verification of
Avogadro's number when compared with observation. The molecules are
able to scatter light because the electromagnetic field of the light
waves induces electric dipole moments in the molecules."

z = H * r / c where z is the redshift, H is the so-called Hubble
constant; r is the distance to the galaxy and c is the speed of light.

z = (Observed wavelength - Rest wavelength) / (Rest wavelength)

z-Total = z-Doppler + z-Gravity + z-Hubble_constant

The observer sees a redshift if z is positive, a blueshift if z is
negative.

Current thinking favors the Doppler explanation.

Since inception, controversy has existed about the origin of the
cosmological redshift - if due to Doppler, gravitational or other
unknown effects.

For example NASA in 1999 commented about the accelerating universe
expansion - "This measurement was made by looking at distant
supernovae. If distant supernovae are different in brightness than
nearby supernovae (eg if there is more dust dimming the light than we
think) then the measurement could be wrong. However, most astronomers
think that the measurements are strong."

According to Lineweaver and Davis in Scientific American 2005 March -
"Astronomers have observed about 1,000 galaxies with redshifts larger
than 1.5 ... receding from us faster than the speed of light" which
they explain as "Instead the space between the galaxies and us is
expanding."

In the local galactic cluster with so many blue shifted objects does
this mean that the space between galaxies is shrinking?

Should the interpretation of the red shift be reevaluated?