• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

i have you complete attention and that is what is funny. You love to hate me.

complete? no sure not, i am multitasking.

and i dont hate you, i feel sorry for you. You are missing the chance here to learn something from people that actually know what they talk about. (no not me)
 
We all know that is untrue. Your habit of flagrantly contradicting yourself is deeply tedious and makes you look increasingly ridiculous.
He'll keep doing it as long as you will respond. I have him on my 'Ignore' list.

He's an attention ... weed? Watering-Can? (Something that has to do with gardening, I think).
 
This is wrong. The speed of light was demonstrated to be a finite value during Newton's lifetime.

To newton, gravity pulled light into the mass, then it speeds up.

There is mass to the 'particle' of light, per newton.


Kind of sad post that you put up.


Sound is what newton worked on to identify a speed.
 
what is success to this argument? The fools have already shown how little they know but that aint a success. A success would be when the unedumacated begin to use their head to combine information and evolve.

You don't seem to be qualified to judge that.

and from a line of sight, mass does that perfectly and with all the evidence you would ever need.

Apart from the slight redshift near very large masses, there is no evidence for masses causing redshift. Prisms don't cause redshift.

... Did I mention that prisms don't cause redshift?

what photon?

EM is not a particle. (what size is the photon of a radio wave?)

Small. However, a radio wave does consist of photons.

you are funny.......

one minute the mass aint causing the change, the next you point out it is.

No, he pointed out the consequence if it did.


Hans
 
To newton, gravity pulled light into the mass, then it speeds up.

There is mass to the 'particle' of light, per newton.


Kind of sad post that you put up.


Sound is what newton worked on to identify a speed.
No.

Hans
 
How many like to read some of the OLD material?

Cosmological redshift


The first issue to be addressed is Hubble's law of redshifts. We assume a model in which Hubble's law is due to absorption of galactic light by the interstellar and intergalactic matter and not due to a Doppler effect. To investigate the underlying mechanisms, we can write Bouguer's law (Bouguer 1729; Mach 1926; Curtis 1978) as applied to the energy of a photon as:

(1) E(r) = [E.sub.0][e.sup.-[[alpha].sub.L]r]

where [E.sub.0] is the initial photon energy, and [[alpha].sub.L] is the mean absorption coefficient of light in the line of sight connecting the source and the earth. Using the Einstein relation (Einstein 1905) namely, E = hv = hc/[lambda], we can obtain a law of redshifts from Eq. (1):

(2) z(r) [equivalent to] [[lambda](r) - [[lambda].sub.0]/[[lambda].sub.0] = [e.sup.-[[alpha].sub.L]r] - 1 [congruent to] [[alpha].sub.L]r]

In this equation z is the fractional spectral shift, [[lambda].sub.0] is the wavelength emitted by the source, and [lambda](r) is the wavelength detected at the Earth. Since we know that z [congruent to] [H.sub.0]r/c where [H.sub.0] is Hubble's constant, Eq. (2) yields [[alpha].sub.L] = [H.sub.0]/c. This is essentially the tired-light model. We will not present any new theory to explain this tired-light behaviour; we will merely review the main models which result in a derivation of Eq. (1).

The first to propose such an idea was Zwicky (1929), and later Hubble himself discussed this hypothesis with an open mind (Hubble and Tolman 1935; Hubble 1936a, b and c, 1937 and 1953). The main obstacle to acceptance of the tired-light model has always been the mechanism behind the loss of energy. On the other hand, as has been pointed out clearly by G. Reber (1986), the main reason for adopting the hypothesis of a Doppler effect as the cause of redshifts has been the assumption that intergalactic space is a void and that nothing happens to light in its journey from a galaxy to the Earth. Nowadays we know this is not the case: interstellar and intergalactic space is full of cosmic rays, clouds of dust, etc. .

An old item to cross reference on the progression of the phenomenon

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES


http://www.physics.org/interact/physics-evolution/text-only/04.html





http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-92138924/hubble-law-redshift-olbers.html



On Hubble's law of redshift, Olbers' paradox and the cosmic background radiation
 
i have you complete attention and that is what is funny. You love to hate me.

Bishadi, a little while ago A Lurker posted this in another thread. I think it applies here as well.

A Lurker said:
And Bedlam received 96,000 individual visits in 1814 alone, as people queued up to laugh at the writhings of the insane. A dignified behaviour, to laugh at the misfortunate? No. But let's not kid ourselves that they don't still do it today still; that the internet hasn't allowed an outlet for the same morbid fascinations; Crank Dot Net has been logging, and laughing at online lunatics since 1997, for instance. And that had approximately 10,400 visits in the last month alone. So... you're on a web page here where you have no friends, on the internet that recognises no virtues or public restraints in general. Now why do you really think you're getting those hits? It's because people are coming to your thread is to see you trapped in your own self inflicted bedlam, and to laugh at it.
 
Bishadi, a little while ago A Lurker posted this in another thread. I think it applies here as well.

Thank you as it shares a fine fact:

the internet that recognises no virtues or public restraints in general



ie... this is a science section of a forum, with JR as the face. IN effect, trying to maintain an honest approach to exposing quacks that try to describe natural phenomenon with magic.

From the core of theology, many hold magic and super natural. From the current sciences, many benchmarks are just like beliefs.

This thread is a perfect example of exposing a 'belief' as nonsense.

So no matter who YOU are quoting, this thread has enough information for anyone to overcome the ignorance of the believers.

This is only one subject but combines a whole bunch.

What is funny, is reason and experience is a greater goal for the reader, than just playing with themselves.
 
Last edited:
Bishadi, care to explain why the picture I posted of the prism with green light going into it has green light coming out instead of a spectrum of light coming out?
 
Bishadi, care to explain why the picture I posted of the prism with green light going into it has green light coming out instead of a spectrum of light coming out?

what wavelength is green?


which ONE is that picture of? No guessing, i want the wavelength from the scientists publications, then what is the material of the prism, (molecular content); then we can address the molcular interaction


basically because the vector change observed (physical evidence) is not enough proof snell laws.

you basically posted the evidence itself, but just don't comprehend it.

sad as hell
 
what wavelength is green?


which ONE is that picture of? No guessing, i want the wavelength from the scientists publications, then what is the material of the prism, (molecular content); then we can address the molcular interaction


basically because the vector change observed (physical evidence) is not enough proof snell laws.

you basically posted the evidence itself, but just don't comprehend it.

sad as hell

molcular is green vector evidence snell?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom