Prev: Domain of Applicability Embedded in a 4d Manifold
Next: Two slit experiment is FALSE
From: HVAC on 27 Jun 2010 06:29

"Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message
news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest
part of the gravitational field close to the star. The question is
whether the light red shifts because it is sapped of energy by the
star's gravity as it moves away from it, or it a result of the
difference in time frame between the star's surface and the observer.
If you have a pulse generated by a ticking clock, the pulse will seem
to be slower if the clock is placed on a star's surface where time is
more dilated. When atoms emit light of a characteristic frequency, it
follows that they would emit light of a slightly lower frequency if
located on the Star's surface. So is it one or the other, or is a
little of both going on?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So much utter trash is posted here as science that
you'd think the poster is a professional dumpster-diver.

Wait a tick.....He IS !


Red shift is a product of relative speed. Period.




From: Brad Guth on 27 Jun 2010 12:55
On Jun 27, 3:29 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest
> part of the gravitational field close to the star.  The question is
> whether the light red shifts because it is sapped of energy by the
> star's gravity as it moves away from it, or it a result of the
> difference in time frame between the star's surface and the observer.
> If you have a pulse generated by a ticking clock, the pulse will seem
> to be slower if the clock is placed on a star's surface where time is
> more dilated.  When atoms emit light of a characteristic frequency, it
> follows that they would emit light of a slightly lower frequency if
> located on the Star's surface.  So is it one or the other, or is a
> little of both going on?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> So much utter trash is posted here as science that
> you'd think the poster is a professional dumpster-diver.
>
> Wait a tick.....He IS !
>
> Red shift is a product of relative speed.  Period.

And since your relative speed is always naysay/negative, so what's
your point?

Shouldn't a black hole (of which there are countless numbers of those
to pick from) always have a very red-shifted shell?

Shouldn't looking just over the event horizon of a BH always indicate
those arriving photons as blue-shifted?

For this objective proof, how about using Sirius(B) as a nearly point
source of extreme gravity?

~ BG

From: Double-A on 27 Jun 2010 13:21
On Jun 27, 3:29 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest
> part of the gravitational field close to the star.  The question is
> whether the light red shifts because it is sapped of energy by the
> star's gravity as it moves away from it, or it a result of the
> difference in time frame between the star's surface and the observer.
> If you have a pulse generated by a ticking clock, the pulse will seem
> to be slower if the clock is placed on a star's surface where time is
> more dilated.  When atoms emit light of a characteristic frequency, it
> follows that they would emit light of a slightly lower frequency if
> located on the Star's surface.  So is it one or the other, or is a
> little of both going on?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> So much utter trash is posted here as science that
> you'd think the poster is a professional dumpster-diver.
>
> Wait a tick.....He IS !
>
> Red shift is a product of relative speed.  Period.


The trash that I, a self-admitted dumpster-diver, post pales in
comparison to the breath-taking ignorance posted my you, who claim to
be a scientist.

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

Double-A


From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 Jun 2010 18:11
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:29:01 -0400, "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message
>news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest
>part of the gravitational field close to the star. The question is
>whether the light red shifts because it is sapped of energy by the
>star's gravity as it moves away from it, or it a result of the
>difference in time frame between the star's surface and the observer.
>If you have a pulse generated by a ticking clock, the pulse will seem
>to be slower if the clock is placed on a star's surface where time is
>more dilated. When atoms emit light of a characteristic frequency, it
>follows that they would emit light of a slightly lower frequency if
>located on the Star's surface. So is it one or the other, or is a
>little of both going on?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>So much utter trash is posted here as science that
>you'd think the poster is a professional dumpster-diver.
>
>Wait a tick.....He IS !
>
>
>Red shift is a product of relative speed. Period.

Yes. Earth lies on the outskirts of our galaxy. Average cosmic light is emitted
much closer to the centres of other galaxies.
Since light slows as it escapes galactic gravity and speeds up as it falls
towards other masses, it is obvious that average starlight is arriving at Earth
at speeds lower than c and is therefore redshifted.



Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: BURT on 27 Jun 2010 19:36
On Jun 27, 3:11 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:29:01 -0400, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message
> >news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
> >No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest
> >part of the gravitational field close to the star.  The question is
> >whether the light red shifts because it is sapped of energy by the
> >star's gravity as it moves away from it, or it a result of the
> >difference in time frame between the star's surface and the observer.
> >If you have a pulse generated by a ticking clock, the pulse will seem
> >to be slower if the clock is placed on a star's surface where time is
> >more dilated.  When atoms emit light of a characteristic frequency, it
> >follows that they would emit light of a slightly lower frequency if
> >located on the Star's surface.  So is it one or the other, or is a
> >little of both going on?
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >So much utter trash is posted here as science that
> >you'd think the poster is a professional dumpster-diver.
>
> >Wait a tick.....He IS !
>
> >Red shift is a product of relative speed.  Period.
>
> Yes. Earth lies on the outskirts of our galaxy. Average cosmic light is emitted
> much closer to the centres of other galaxies.
> Since light slows as it escapes galactic gravity and speeds up as it falls
> towards other masses, it is obvious that average starlight is arriving at Earth
> at speeds lower than c and is therefore redshifted.
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gravity can take away fundamental energy. The energy at emission goes
down when leaving gravity.

Mitch Raemsch

Mitch Raemsch
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Domain of Applicability Embedded in a 4d Manifold
Next: Two slit experiment is FALSE