Prev: Perseus-Pisces Supercluster tells us the Cosmos is Elliptic not Euclidean Chapter 3 #87; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Dead stars
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 15 May 2010 14:16


Craig Markwardt wrote:

>
> Even when you are presented with a simple tutorial on the definition
> of redshift, you divert to another topic. Since you decline to spend
> the effort to find out what astronomical redshift *is* (a shift in the
> wavelengths of spectral lines and edges), and instead are trying to
> explain something which redshift *is not* (reddening of a broad-
> spectrum emitter seen through a filter or dispersive prism), your
> explanations are irrelevant.
>
> > > A prism alters the direction of light, but does not take the light
> > > emitted at one wavelength and change it to another wavelength.  Light
> > > emitted (or absorbed) in a spectral line could not appear at another
> > > wavelength.   Therefore your prism "theory" is irrelevant.
> >
> > The motion of the white headlight alters the wavelength in the prism
> > and fiberglass panel experiment.
>
> This claim is unsubstantiated. There is no known experimental
> evidence that a moving white light source "alters the wavelength in a
> prism" -- other than Doppler shift. (And Doppler shift is negligibly
> small for your test case.)
>
> Since you continue to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, and
> can't seem to be bothered to look up basic definitions of the terms
> you are trying to explain, there is no real reason to continue the
> discussion.
>
> CM

I asked Craig to furnish details of Doppler redshift. I did this to
eventually point
out his error filled thinking. Craig never supplied any details but
instead
ranted.

It is easy to look up Wikipedia on two items; one of Refraction and
the other on
Redshift:

--- quoting Wikipedia on Refraction ---

An image of the Golden Gate Bridge is refracted and bent by many
differing three dimensional pools of water
--- end quoting ---


And,

--- quoting Wikipedia on Redshift ---

To determine the redshift, one searches for features in the spectrum
such as absorption lines, emission lines, or other variations in light
intensity. If found, these features can be compared with known
features in the spectrum of various chemical compounds found in
experiments where that compound is located on earth. A very common
atomic element in space is hydrogen. The spectrum of originally
featureless light shone through hydrogen will show a signature
spectrum specific to hydrogen that has features at regular intervals.
If restricted to absorption lines it would look similar to the
illustration (top right). If the same pattern of intervals is seen in
an observed spectrum from a distant source but occurring at shifted
wavelengths, it can be identified as hydrogen too. If the same
spectral line is identified in both spectra but at different
wavelengths then the redshift can be calculated using the table below.
Determining the redshift of an object in this way requires a
frequency- or wavelength-range. In order to calculate the redshift one
has to know the wavelength of the emitted light in the rest frame of
the source, in other words, the wavelength that would be measured by
an observer located adjacent to and comoving with the source. Since in
astronomical applications this measurement cannot be done directly,
because that would require travelling to the distant star of interest,
the method using spectral lines described here is used instead.
Redshifts cannot be calculated by looking at unidentified features
whose rest-frame frequency is unknown, or with a spectrum that is
featureless or white noise (random fluctuations in a spectrum).[16]

--- end quoting ---

Craig was too busy hatemongering than to doing physics.

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.

So I asked Craig to detail what Doppler Redshift involved in
measuring. Never any reply
from Craig, but only more ad hominem towards me.

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."

In other words, Craig with his so called definition of Doppler
redshift is tripe.

My point in posting this is that Refraction phenomenon is the highest
possible
means of getting a redshift, especially if the source of light is
moving relative
to the observer.

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.

And because so much of the Big Bang rests on this falsity of Doppler
redshift with
light, that so much of modern astronomy's distance reckoning of
galaxies and quasars
is totally wrong.


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
From: Craig Markwardt on 17 May 2010 10:06
On May 15, 2:16 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> > Even when you are presented with a simple tutorial on the definition
> > of redshift, you divert to another topic.  Since you decline to spend
> > the effort to find out what astronomical redshift *is* (a shift in the
> > wavelengths of spectral lines and edges), and instead are trying to
> > explain something which redshift *is not* (reddening of a broad-
> > spectrum emitter seen through a filter or dispersive prism), your
> > explanations are irrelevant.
>
> > > > A prism alters the direction of light, but does not take the light
> > > > emitted at one wavelength and change it to another wavelength.  Light
> > > > emitted (or absorbed) in a spectral line could not appear at another
> > > > wavelength.   Therefore your prism "theory" is irrelevant.
>
> > > The motion of the white headlight alters the wavelength in the prism
> > > and fiberglass panel experiment.
>
> > This claim is unsubstantiated.  There is no known experimental
> > evidence that a moving white light source "alters the wavelength in a
> > prism" -- other than Doppler shift.  (And Doppler shift is negligibly
> > small for your test case.)
>
> > Since you continue to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, and
> > can't seem to be bothered to look up basic definitions of the terms
> > you are trying to explain, there is no real reason to continue the
> > discussion.

I note that you did look up some basic definitions, so I continue a
little further.

> I asked Craig to furnish details of Doppler redshift. I did this to
> eventually point
> out his error filled thinking. Craig never supplied any details but
> instead
> ranted.

You are incorrect. In a previous post, which you conveniently
deleted, I provided a short tutorial on doppler shift and redshift,
and links to Wikipedia which you ignored -- until now.

> It is easy to look up Wikipedia on two items; one of Refraction and
> the other on
> Redshift:
>
> --- quoting Wikipedia on Refraction ---
>
>  An image of the Golden Gate Bridge is refracted and bent by many
> differing three dimensional pools of water
> --- end quoting ---
>
> And,
>
> --- quoting Wikipedia on Redshift ---
>
> To determine the redshift, one searches for features in the spectrum
> such as absorption lines, emission lines, or other variations in light
> intensity. If found, these features can be compared with known
> features in the spectrum of various chemical compounds found in
> experiments where that compound is located on earth. A very common
> atomic element in space is hydrogen. The spectrum of originally
> featureless light shone through hydrogen will show a signature
> spectrum specific to hydrogen that has features at regular intervals.
> If restricted to absorption lines it would look similar to the
> illustration (top right). If the same pattern of intervals is seen in
> an observed spectrum from a distant source but occurring at shifted
> wavelengths, it can be identified as hydrogen too. If the same
> spectral line is identified in both spectra but at different
> wavelengths then the redshift can be calculated using the table below.
> Determining the redshift of an object in this way requires a
> frequency- or wavelength-range. In order to calculate the redshift one
> has to know the wavelength of the emitted light in the rest frame of
> the source, in other words, the wavelength that would be measured by
> an observer located adjacent to and comoving with the source. Since in
> astronomical applications this measurement cannot be done directly,
> because that would require travelling to the distant star of interest,
> the method using spectral lines described here is used instead.
> Redshifts cannot be calculated by looking at unidentified features
> whose rest-frame frequency is unknown, or with a spectrum that is
> featureless or white noise (random fluctuations in a spectrum).[16]
>
> --- end quoting ---
>
....
> 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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Perseus-Pisces Supercluster tells us the Cosmos is Elliptic not Euclidean Chapter 3 #87; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Dead stars