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

[RussDill]

I must say, I can see why Bishadi likes Goethe so much:

"Newton's error... was trusting math over the sensations of his eye."

and

"The human being himself, to the extent that he makes sound use of his senses, is the most exact physical apparatus that can exist."

Goethe studies are of course interesting, but they say nothing as to the true nature of light only the human perception of light. Its too bad he didn't actually concentrate his studies on the human perception of light, since he could have laid out so much.

"Yellow is a light which has been dampened by darkness. Blue is a darkness weakened by the light."

Completely untrue scientifically, but does point to the yellow-blue opponent mechanism of human color vision. I think his approach blinded him to the red-green opponent mechanism.

ETA: A little more explanation...Technically, the colors yellowish-blue and reddish-green exist since you can mix red and green and get a color, but the human perception doesn't exist. Those attempting to understand the true nature of light using only human perceptions run into serious issues like these.

http://www.indigoimage.com/blog/2010/02/can-you-see-bluish-yellow-or-reddish.html

And yes, it is trippy.

 

[Bishadi]

An eclipse nite to eclipse the fools; again

http://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/AT304/HTML/AT30402.HTM#Anchor-43793

The beam contains photons of all energies, but most of them cannot interact with the gas—the gas can absorb only those photons having just the right energy to cause a change in an electron's orbit from one state to another. All other photons in the beam—with energies that cannot produce a transition—do not interact with the gas at all but pass through it unhindered. Photons having the right energies are absorbed, excite the gas, and are removed from the beam. This is the cause of the dark absorption lines in the spectrum of Figure 4.7(b). These lines are direct indicators of the energy differences between orbitals in the atoms making up the gas.

The excited gas atoms return rapidly to their original states, each emitting one or more photons in the process. We might think, then, that although some photons from the beam are absorbed by the gas, they are quickly replaced by reemitted photons, with the result that we could never observe the effects of absorption. This is not the case, however, for two important reasons. First, while the photons not absorbed by the gas continue on directly to the detector, the reemitted photons can leave in any direction. Most of the reemitted photons leave at angles that do not take them through the slit and on to the detector, and so they are effectively lost from the original beam. Second, as we have just seen, electrons can cascade back to the ground state, emitting several lower-energy photons instead of a single photon equal in energy to the one originally absorbed.

The net result of these processes is that some of the original energy is channeled into photons of many different colors, moving in many different directions. A second detector looking at the cloud from the side would record the reemitted energy as an emission spectrum, as in Figure 4.7(c). (A spectrum of the object shown in the inset of Figure 4.10, called an emission nebula, would show the same thing.) Like the absorption spectrum, the emission spectrum is characteristic of the gas, not of the original beam.

for anyone trying to learn, read a few chapters within the linked site.

they will kick the pants out of most of the learning anyone on this site can offer.


i almost cries reading a few hours from these folks.


http://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/AT304/HTML/AT30402.HTM

learn a bit on what energy is.

 

[Bishadi]

ie...... fyi....... it means newton lost to goethe on the FACT that the mass is in fact relevant to the spectrum emitted from a prism.


it also means the double slit experiment (particle portion) is wrong (the mass is relevant)


But the best thing to observe is that i am not the only one comprehending to a level of application.

Polymath; many disciplines!

 

[laca]

Bishadi, you really give meaning to being fractally wrong.

 

[Humanzee]

No you have explained nothing. If you have some insight you havent shared it.

Why dont you explain why this is wrong

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

If you can't explain why its wrong then say you can't. Your arrogance is becoming more and more boring. Put up or shut up is the phrase I am thinking of.

 

[Humanzee]

You are fooling no one Bishadi...certainly not the scientists here nor the lurking noobs like myself.

Make an effort or go away

 

[Ririon]

Are you representing your posts? (not even hot air, just tapping keys)

Who would have the gaahl of gorgoroth to be my fan?

i think the art may be black metal.

A personalized Bishadi insult! Just for me!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

about that redshift: are them galaxies they are looking at going away real fast and stretching (shifting) the wavelengh (proposterous) or is there stuff (mass) perhaps between us and the emission affecting the spectrum (emission recieved)?

Yeah, about that - you already admitted that your original claim (that you could demonstrate redshift with a simple prism) was untrue, so how do you expect anyone to believe your unsupported assertion that light passing through some intergalactic medium could be redshifted by it?

You also appear to have misunderstood the conventional model - the light is not redshifted as it departs the receding galaxy, it's over the whole duration of its journey that space expands and so does its wavelength.

 

[commandlinegamer]

A red shift is a straight, sleeveless dress (no tailoring to fit the curves of the body) which reflects light at approximately 640-700 nm wavelength.

Simples.

 

[Jeff Corey]

A red shift is a straight, sleeveless dress (no tailoring to fit the curves of the body) which reflects light at approximately 640-700 nm wavelength.

Simples.

From post #18, http://www.redshift.com.au/images/redshift1.png

 

[Bishadi]

Yeah, about that - you already admitted that your original claim (that you could demonstrate redshift with a simple prism) was untrue,

a prism from a glass of water is changing the light.

You should not post anymore

so how do you expect anyone to believe your unsupported assertion that light passing through some intergalactic medium could be redshifted by it?

because mass affects light and you are not honest enough with yourself or anyone to just get over yourself

You also appear to have misunderstood the conventional model - the light is not redshifted as it departs the receding galaxy, it's over the whole duration of its journey that space expands and so does its wavelength.

again................ to stuck on yourself

did you read the material provided or are you like the who that dont like to read?

 

[Bishadi]

The idea that light sometimes behaves not as a continuous wave but as a stream of particles was first proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905 in order to explain a number of puzzling experimental results (especially the photoelectric effect—see More Precisely 4-1). Further, Einstein was able to quantify the relationship between the two aspects of light's double nature. He found that the energy carried by a photon is proportional to the frequency of the radiation. Thus, for example, a "red" photon having a frequency of 4 1014 Hz (corresponding to a wavelength of approximately 750 nm, or 7500Å) has 4/7 the energy of a "blue" photon of frequency of 7 1014 Hz (and a wavelength of 400 nm, or 4000Å).

the energy is directly proportional to the wavelength. If that light passes thru a gazillion miles of space is it possible there is mass between the emission and detector (telescope)? Could that mass take a little bit of energy and reduce the wavelength (redshift) of the light?

If i pass light thru water, does it redshift the light?

What is the difference oflight going thru mass in space and mass in a cup of water?

 

[Bishadi]

The equivalence between photon energy and photon frequency, or wavelength, completes the connection between atomic structure and atomic spectra. Atoms absorb and emit radiation at characteristic wavelengths determined by their own particular internal structure. Because this structure is unique to each element, the colors of the absorbed and emitted photons—that is, the spectral lines we observe—are characteristic of that element and only that element.

THE SPECTRUM OF HYDROGEN
Absorption and emission of photons by a hydrogen atom are illustrated schematically in Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10(a) shows the atom absorbing a photon and making a transition from the ground state to the first excited state, then emitting a photon of precisely the same energy and dropping back to the ground state. The energy difference between the two states corresponds to an ultraviolet photon, of wavelength 121.6 nm (1216 Å).

how many remember the hydrino thread?

what wavelength was he talking about? Was it UV?


Then how many know how a sponge works when it absorbs liquid?


Is it water upon a sponge?

At least you have material to assist you in understanding how mass and energy work. Unfortunately i aint got a whole lotta time to give this peanut gallery of idiots.

 

[MRC_Hans]

otherwise provide evidence. Show an experiment of redshifting without mass inbetween the points of emission and detection.

Ahh, can I?

Take your car, and drive past a speed-trap at too much speed. You will be pulled over. The speed-gun used doppler shift (=redshift), no mass involved.

But i can show redshifting with a simple prism and sun light. ie... i can provide evidence, can you?

Explain.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

the energy is directly proportional to the wavelength. If that light passes thru a gazillion miles of space is it possible there is mass between the emission and detector (telescope)? Could that mass take a little bit of energy and reduce the wavelength (redshift) of the light?

If i pass light thru water, does it redshift the light?

What is the difference oflight going thru mass in space and mass in a cup of water?

Energy is proportional to wavelength AND intensity.
The energy of each photon is determined by the wavelenght.
The enery of the light beam is determined by the number of photons (per time unit).

If you pass light through water, some of the photons will be absorbed, but the wavelenght will be unchanged.

Hans

 

[Bishadi]

Evidence that a redshift is from mass affecting the light recieved from telescopes;


No matter which direction the light is coming from that is being captured from the galaxies 'way far away', there is an affect (redshift) to the light coming from them galaxies (from all directions). The method of confirming it with common sense is to ask yourself, is the earth the center of the universe or not.

If you think it is, then all them galaxies would appear to be moving away from us (an expanding universe, per se).......

but common sense or even to remotely believe what the dark matter/energy idiots represent; that there is a whole bunch of mass between us and them galaxies.



that is a goethe type of thinking versus a preacher of idiocracy, that thinks we are the center and that all that black is empty space (a vacuum).





So you need to ask yourself if that is what you BELIEVE.

 

[Bishadi]

Ahh, can I?

Take your car, and drive past a speed-trap at too much speed. You will be pulled over. The speed-gun used doppler shift (=redshift), no mass involved.

funny....

the mass, emitted and was imposed for detection.


Try again




Explain.

Hans[/QUOTE]

 

[Jack by the hedge]

a prism from a glass of water is changing the light.

<ad-homs snipped>

But not red shifting it. Try again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If i pass light thru water, does it redshift the light?

No. It doesn't. Wanna try again?

 

[Bishadi]

Energy is proportional to wavelength AND intensity.

The energy of each photon is determined by the wavelenght.

The enery of the light beam is determined by the number of photons (per time unit).

SO is the radar detector measuring the energy or the energy?

ie... is the energy based on the f the A and the quantity of photons?

What is the energy of a gamma photon and a radio photon? Show the size and the frequency of the resonating photon for each too?

If you pass light through water, some of the photons will be absorbed, but the wavelenght will be unchanged.

then what is bending, refracting?

Hans

down, you failed