Given by the fact that electromegnetic energy cannot be seen and how the radiation from distant galaxies supports the big bang theory? it can easily be said that...I dont know the answer. (0_0)
The observation that red shifts of distant galaxies gets greater the further away the galaxies are.
Light is electromagnetic radiation. It does not need a medium to support it.
Three important pieces of evidence are:* The redshift of distant galaxies. This means that galaxies are moving away from us. * The percentages of elements and isotopes. This closely matches predictions from theory. * The cosmic background radiation. This, too, closely matches predictions from theory.
We have detectors on our bodies to detect electromagnetic radiation that we refer to as 'light',and also radiation in the far infrared that we refer to as 'heat'.A lot of people think we're also able to detect EM radiation in other bands, but scientific experimentationdoesn't support that.Yet ? ~ ~ oooweeeooo ~ ~ ~ ~
The radiation was 100 times more than expected and they were certain it did not come from our galaxy. They reasoned that the Big Bang had released a tremendous blast of radiation and scattered the matter that condensed into galaxies.
The light from distant galaxies is redshifted. The only reasonable explanation for that is that the galaxies are moving away from us.
The observation that red shifts of distant galaxies gets greater the further away the galaxies are.
The first concept is that of the redshift, which is the observation that light from distant galaxies appears to be shifted towards longer wavelengths. This indicates that these galaxies are moving away from us. The second concept is the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a faint radiation that is present throughout the universe and is thought to be leftover electromagnetic radiation from the early stages of the universe. Together, these concepts support the idea that the universe is expanding.
Light is electromagnetic radiation. It does not need a medium to support it.
Three important pieces of evidence are:* The redshift of distant galaxies. This means that galaxies are moving away from us. * The percentages of elements and isotopes. This closely matches predictions from theory. * The cosmic background radiation. This, too, closely matches predictions from theory.
It's evidence for what you meant to say but didn't ... that the speed of light isindependent of frequency.
either starlight spectra or moving galaxies.
Mainly, the redshift of distant galaxies, which indicates that they are moving away from us. Also:* Calculations, to the effect that the Universe can't be static. * The microwave background radiation, which agrees closely with the theory. * The percentage of elements (and isotopes) in the Universe, which also closely agrees with the theory.
The redshift of distant galaxies is believed to be a result of the Doppler effect - in other words, the light is shifted towards lower frequencies ("redshifted") due to the fact that the galaxies move away from us.
We have detectors on our bodies to detect electromagnetic radiation that we refer to as 'light',and also radiation in the far infrared that we refer to as 'heat'.A lot of people think we're also able to detect EM radiation in other bands, but scientific experimentationdoesn't support that.Yet ? ~ ~ oooweeeooo ~ ~ ~ ~
Redshift: The only reasonable explanation for the redshift is that most galaxies are moving away from us.As for the cosmic background radiation and the chemical composition, both of these closely match what is expected from the models about the Big Bang.
The radiation was 100 times more than expected and they were certain it did not come from our galaxy. They reasoned that the Big Bang had released a tremendous blast of radiation and scattered the matter that condensed into galaxies.