Prev: OFFICIAL - 170 MILLION LIST OF PURE PRIME NUMBERS ANDPLACEMENT TO BE POSTED AT SCI MATH TOMMOROW
Next: OFFICIAL - 170 MILLION LIST OF PURE PRIME NUMBERS AND PLACEMENT TO BE POSTED AT SCI MATH TOMMOROW
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 17 May 2010 15:44


Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On May 15, 2:16 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
> > One can immediately see from those two quotes that you can get the
> > entire wavelength
> > of the entire bridge moved by refraction. So in other words a
> > Refraction Redshift is the
> > strongest possible shifting you could ever summon. Not only can
> > refraction redshift but
> > it can move the entire image.
>
> You apparently do not understand astronomical redshift, which is a
> change in wavelength only, not position or angle.
>
> To reiterate: astronomical redshift is *not* about a white source
> appearing redder, and it is *not* about dispersing red colors into
> different angles. It *is* about noticing and measuring the change of
> wavelength of certain well-known spectral line and edge features.
> Redshift is an observational phenomenon of astronomy which already has
> an observational definition. If you want to present some other
> observed effect, there's nothing stopping you, but it is not
> astronomical redshift.
>
> > By reading what Wikipedia says is the measurement of doppler redshift,
> > is fraught with
> > all kinds of error and assumptions. As it says, "require travelling to
> > the distant star of
> > interest" and to be confident of a "comoving parameter."
>
> You are incorrect. If you had read the text more carefully, you would
> understand measurement of astronomical redshift is an *alternative* to
> traveling to a distant star (or comoving with it).
>
> ...
> > And that a Doppler redshift in theory and practice is fraught with
> > error and unreliable
> > assumptions. Few physicists if any have spent time on the idea that
> > Doppler redshift
> > of light waves runs into contradiction with Special Relativity theory.
> > That Doppler
> > redshift of sound waves is correct, but when Doppler redshift tries to
> > get involved
> > with light waves is at risk of a conflict with Special Relativity.
>
> On the contrary, "Doppler" shift is consistent with special
> relativity. The Wikipedia article on "Relativistic doppler effect"
> demonstrates that.
>
> CM

It had been better if you had stayed away as promised, for you are too
stubborn to learn anything new. Too busy in defending the Big Bang,
rather
than analyze the tenets of the theory, or analyze your own beliefs,
for
you said nothing new from your previous posts.

Special Relativity is inconsistent with a Big Bang that has Space
speeds
of galaxies moving near the speed of light and some books even showing
the Hubble Constant in conjunction with galaxy speeds exceeding the
speed of light. If that
is not contradictory to Special Relativity, then what is. You even
mentioned
that the telescopes should be able to see in the billions of light
years away,
contradicting that the age as reckoned is only 13.75 billion years
old.

In your lack of taking a tutorial, Craig, on the difference between a
stationary
white light into a prism versus a moving white light into the prism.
Your lack of
taking or wanting to take and acknowledge the difference between a
moving
white light into a prism tutorial shows only how stubborn you are in
refusing
to learn, refusing to change, and refusing to admit to wrongness.

There is one item that dismisses both your stubborn refusal and
dismisses
my insistence. A experimental test. A test that even Craig can
undergo, but
I doubt he will since he cannot even do the Fiberglass or Prism
Experiment.

I posted a test yesterday, calling it the Eclipse-Test. It is an easy
experiment.

It will decide whether Craig with his Doppler redshift is true or
whether AP
with his Refraction redshift is true. This is how science is always
done,
Craig. Not by your stubborn and biased personal definition of
redshift, but rather by unbiased experiment that anyone can repeat.

A physics test, that does not care if Craig is right or wrong, nor
does it care
if AP is right or wrong. For that is real physics.

So, Craig, get yee outside with a telescope, and find some object that
is
purported to be Doppler redshifted to some large amount. The larger
the
purported redshift, the better is the choice. Next, get a computer
filtering that eclipses the "seen object". Do not eclipse it by
overeclipsing. I
mean, eclipse it at a "least minimum eclipse." Wait a week or a month
and reimpose
the previous eclipse on the object. If the eclipse is breached by the
object,
means that AP is correct with the Refraction redshift, because the
object is
not moving away from Earth but is moving towards Earth with a
concurrent
high redshifting.

So, Craig, make yourself useful for a change. Everyone has heard and
read
your opinions on this matter. But now is the time to test whether you
are
correct or wrong. Try this Eclipse-Test on the Great Wall, and try it
on a few
quasars. I am confident that what you will find is those objects are
not moving
away from Earth with a huge redshift, but rather, surprizingly, moving
towards
Earth at a large speed. So try it Craig instead of repeating your
biased opinions.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: OFFICIAL - 170 MILLION LIST OF PURE PRIME NUMBERS ANDPLACEMENT TO BE POSTED AT SCI MATH TOMMOROW
Next: OFFICIAL - 170 MILLION LIST OF PURE PRIME NUMBERS AND PLACEMENT TO BE POSTED AT SCI MATH TOMMOROW