Someone please call them to explain a 'red-shift'

[Jack by the hedge]

That is basic common sense, but then folks will rant with a whole bunch of reasons but not a lick of mathmatics or evidence to back it up.

That must be very frustrating for you, with your well known preference for mathematical explanations.

 

[Bishadi]

You can increase the wavelength of light by passing it through a prism? Can you describe this experiment in more detail?

convert....

see newton's experiment with sunlight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum


i had to return to this post as i see, you asked on an increase or clearly a 'blueshift' analogy.

read on the density of em http://cnx.org/content/m12888/latest/

then we can go into electric and magnetic fields so you can understand what a simple transformer does.

I will assist with your math in this case

 

[Bishadi]

That must be very frustrating for you, with your well known preference for mathematical explanations.

Jack, i asked for evidence and ass oooosual, you rant jack.

How about i just say, put up or shut up?

I comprehend how light can be changed with mass and then perform the evidence.

I asked for evidence and all you can do is whine about my good looks.

ie.... you dont like to see white hot integrity as it burns!

 

[Mojo]

convert....

see newton's experiment with sunlight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

Nope. The prism splits the light into its component wavelengths. It doesn't change the wavelength.

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, Bishadi, have you contacted the writer to give them "what for" yet?

 

[Bishadi]

Nope. The prism splits the light into its component wavelengths. It doesn't change the wavelength.

how it is 'splitting' the light except to slow it (via the mass)?


please, tell us

 

[Bishadi]

Anyway, Bishadi, have you contacted the writer to give them "what for" yet?

no as i figured if all the people here are so perfectly capable of comperhend 'everything' that anyone of you, could have observed the idiocracy of the report.



but so far the majority on this forum are no better with comprehending the error than you

 

[Mojo]

how it is 'splitting' the light except to slow it (via the mass)?

 

[Mojo]

but so far the majority on this forum are no better with comprehending the error than you

So far you have been unable to explain what the error is in a comprehensible way. Has it never occurred to you that if you are unable to communicate your ideas the fault might not lie with those with whom you are attempting to communicate?

 

[Bishadi]

sorry, but i did not know, you have no idea


here is something for kids too

Why does light slow down when entering a prism but speed up when it exits? Where does it get the energy to increase it's velocity?




The reason you treat the light as if it did slow down is an effect of the wave nature of light. We treat light as a wave, with a wavefront propagating with velocity c in vacuum. The wavefront represents a plane in which all the light waves are in the same phase. Now, when this wavefront hits a material, some of the wavelets will hit atoms and excite electrons to a higher energy state. Effectively, the electrons are 'swallowing' the light photon. Every material does this in a different way. The excited electron soon after releases the stored energy in the form of another photon. The key idea here is what happens to the phase of the wave as it gets absorbed and re-emitted. Depending on the resonant or natural frequency of the atom and the frequency of the incoming wave, the emitted photon will have changed phase when compared to it's unaffected brethren.

 

[Bishadi]

So far you have been unable to explain what the error is in a comprehensible way. Has it never occurred to you that if you are unable to communicate your ideas the fault might not lie with those with whom you are attempting to communicate?

i post facts, and the uneducated put up sad faces because they skipped that class.


ie.... you are failing

 

[sol invictus]

It's true that light slows when it enters a prism. Because different wavelengths of light slow by different amounts, and because light refracts through an angle that depends on the amount of slowing (the refractive index), prisms make rainbows.

But this has nothing to do with redshift for at least two reasons:

1) it's only the wavelength and speed of propagation that is affected inside the prism - the frequency is unchanged. Redshifted light is frequency shifted.

2) the effect on the wavelength is present only when the light is inside the glass. It disappears as soon as the light exits the prism, so for that reason alone it cannot explain the differential redshifts observed at earth.

 

[Mojo]

no as i figured if all the people here are so perfectly capable of comperhend 'everything' that anyone of you, could have observed the idiocracy of the report.

The only person I see claiming to "comperhend" everything is you.

 

[Bishadi]

It's true that light slows when it enters a prism.

good start

Because different wavelengths of light slow by different amounts, and because light refracts through an angle that depends on the amount of slowing (the refractive index), prisms make rainbows.

so from one source, you have how many different wavelngths?

What is the 'f' of red?

What is the 'f' of blue?

But this has nothing to do with redshift for at least two reasons:

1) it's only the wavelength and speed of propagation that is affected inside the prism - the frequency is unchanged. Redshifted light is frequency shifted.

funny......

what is the difference of 'red' and 'blue'?

2) the effect on the wavelength is present only when the light is inside the glass. It disappears as soon as the light exits the prism, so for that reason alone it cannot explain the differential redshifts observed at earth.

ie.... are you suggesting that hubble redshift is 'slower' light' or that the frequency was changed from blue and shifted to red?

answer the questions sol.......... as you know, that i know, you are one of the sharpest ones on this forum, but i want to see your honesty outshine your education.

 

[Mojo]

so from one source, you have how many different wavelngths?

In white light (or any "black-body" source), loads.

 

[DC]

i want to see your honesty outshine your education.

comedy pure

 

[Jack by the hedge]

see newton's experiment with sunlight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

Can you direct me to the particular part where you and Newton passed light through a prism and increased its wavelength? Thanks.

i had to return to this post as i see, you asked on an increase or clearly a 'blueshift' analogy.

You think increasing wavelength is blue shift?

I will assist with your math in this case

Uh. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

what medium? No aether out there and space aint a medium.

ie... your conclusions are incorrect as the ONLY think that affects energy are mass (elements/molecules) and energy (electric and magnetic fields).

Now if space had an aether, then you could have a claim to show the 'expanding' part of the universe.

Haha. Medium was the wrong word to use. My apologies. I should have said space is expanding. Do you not think that space and time also affect energy?

You seem to be arguing against the expanding universe theory. I'm going to have to go and read some of your other threads, so as to not risk opening a can of worms on this one. I am interested in what your alternative hypothesis is, though.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

It's not wrong to consider the cosmological redshift to be a Doppler shift. Sol explains it as well as I've ever seen it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5560587&postcount=11

Thanks for the link, Edd. And thanks for the post Sol.

 

[drkitten]

so from one source, you have how many different wavelngths?

From most sources, an infinite number -- the frequency spectrum is a continuum. For that reason, questions like :

What is the 'f' of red?

What is the 'f' of blue?

don't really make sense, as both 'red' and 'blue' come in several shades, as you can confirm for yourself with a prism or a trip to the local paint store.

But in general, the wavelength of violet light (in vacuum) is "around" 400 nm; the wavelength of blue light is "around" 475 nm, and the wavelength for red "around" 650. You can calculate the actual frequency by dividing the speed of light by the wavelength.

You end up with around 450 THz for red, and 650 THz for blue.

ie.... are you suggesting that hubble redshift is 'slower' light' or that the frequency was changed from blue and shifted to red?

The actual frequency has shifted via spatial expansion; the effect is similar to the frequency shift involved in the Doppler effect of sound.