[QUOTE=davar55;262301]I'm prerty sure I understand this, but that's just absorption producing a lower intensity, not what Cheesehd and lava are trying to demonstrate,[/QUOTE]Yes, it _is_ what lavalamp and I are trying to demonstrate -- absorption lines producing a lowering of observed intensity at those wavelengths.

[quote]i.e. the shift in intensity downward in all frequencies toward the red,[/quote]No, that's not what lavalamp and I are trying to demonstrate.

[quote]which I am suggesting is NOT demonstrated by Cheesehd's data/example[/quote]Correct, but it wasn't _intended_ to demonstrate the latter ("shift in intensity downward in all frequencies toward the red").

[quote]because his "trough" at 6550 should be represented by a "peak" since the spectral lines represent the wavelengths at which MORE (not less) light is produced.[/quote]That part of your statement would be correct _if_ I had been trying to illustrate an [I]emission[/I] line ... but I specifically stated early in the example that it was illustrating an [I]absorption[/I] line, not an emission line.

[QUOTE=davar55;262309]If you start with: the universe has always been (and I
would continue that "like it is now") then no big bang explanation
is necessary.[/QUOTE]How about instead you start without a conclusion, and try to deduce what happened previously by looking at only the observable evidence?

The universe doesn't care what you find more philosophically pleasing.

[QUOTE=lavalamp;262311]How about instead you start without a conclusion, and try to deduce what happened previously by looking at only the observable evidence?

The universe doesn't care what you find more philosophically pleasing.[/QUOTE]

Here I disagree, in that metaphysics and epistemology trump science.

IOW if a scientific theory tries to violate the law of identity or
the law of causality or a few other fundamental precepts, it
may SOUND convincing but it's still wrong.

The infinite reress of time and the no-beginning-ness of the
universe are (arguably) provable.

OK...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;262307]Okay, up to "in which the laws of physics were not quite what they are now".

As I understand it, BB cosmologists contend not that any physics laws were different then than they are now, but only that, just as special relativity is asymptotic to Newtonian mechanics at speeds << c, so too do current physics laws that hold under "ordinary" circumstances diverge in extreme conditions to produce results that are not a linear extrapolation of what happens in nonextreme circumstances.

IOW, what we know of current physics laws in our "ordinary" conditions may not yet incorporate asymptotic terms that become apparent only in extreme conditions. So, it's not that laws of physics were then (BB) not quite what they are now, but rather that additional terms of those laws may be apparent only in near-BB conditions. The laws haven't changed, but our current understanding of them is incomplete.
...
Does that mean you do not yet have ready your theory's explanation for the example I posed? It's okay with me to wait until you have that ready, if that's the case.[/QUOTE]

Fine, if I've explained it poorly, I'll do better in draft 2.

And how do two masses attract or two like charges repel,
before the existence of any mass or charge?

[QUOTE=davar55;262312]Here I disagree, in that metaphysics and epistemology trump science.

IOW if a scientific theory tries to violate the law of identity or
the law of causality or a few other fundamental precepts, it
may SOUND convincing but it's still wrong.

The infinite reress of time and the no-beginning-ness of the
universe are (arguably) provable.[/QUOTE]You have essentially admitted that you are going to try and fit the facts to your conclusion, rather than the other way around. I don't see how you can possibly make any progress this way.

Why even bother figuring out the theory when you have your conclusion already? Go start a religion around it.

[QUOTE=davar55;262306]But those dips (troughs) should be peaks, shouldn't they?[/QUOTE]

Read Xilman's explanation again. There are neither peaks nor troughs in the original hot gas. As it comes through the cold gas, the narrow frequency is absorbed and re-radiated in random directions. If you could see only the emissions from the cold gas, you would see peaks there. But you cannot distinguish the two. You see essentially none of the hot gas emissions at the frequency because it was all absorbed - but you see essentially all of the hot gas emissions in the neighboring frequency. In the absorbed frequency you see only the cold gas emissions that happened to continue towards you - a small fraction of the incoming light in this frequency, hence a trough compared to the neighboring frequencies.

[QUOTE=davar55;262314]I'll do better in draft 2.[/QUOTE]I'm looking forward to it, whenever it's ready.

[quote]And how do two masses attract or two like charges repel, before the existence of any mass or charge?[/quote] "before the existence of any mass or charge"? You mean before the Big Bang?

[QUOTE=wblipp;262316]Read Xilman's explanation again. There are neither peaks nor troughs in the original hot gas. As it comes through the cold gas, the narrow frequency is absorbed and re-radiated in random directions. If you could see only the emissions from the cold gas, you would see peaks there. But you cannot distinguish the two. You see essentially none of the hot gas emissions at the frequency because it was all absorbed - but you see essentially all of the hot gas emissions in the neighboring frequency. In the absorbed frequency you see only the cold gas emissions that happened to continue towards you - a small fraction of the incoming light in this frequency, hence a trough compared to the neighboring frequencies.[/QUOTE]Perhaps the misunderstanding is that I didn't make explicit that the absorbing gas was also assumed to be at a cosmologically significant distance and so its light would also be subjected to a red shift.

Numerous examples are known.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;262342]Perhaps the misunderstanding is that I didn't make explicit that the absorbing gas was also assumed to be at a cosmologically significant distance and so its light would also be subjected to a red shift.
[/QUOTE]I think you're just going to confuse davar55 with that.

Your explanation in post #225 is fine just as it stands, with no added assumptions. Further elaboration about red shifts and cosmologically significant distance should be made separately from the basic explanation of absorption lines, I think.

In fact, as it stands this latest statement of yours misleadingly implies that a cosmologically significant distance is required in order for a source's light to be subjected to a red shift. Red shifts have more than one cause.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;262372]I think you're just going to confuse davar55 with that.

Your explanation in post #225 is fine just as it stands, with no added assumptions. Further elaboration about red shifts and cosmologically significant distance should be made separately from the basic explanation of absorption lines, I think.

In fact, as it stands this latest statement of yours misleadingly implies that a cosmologically significant distance is required in order for a source's light to be subjected to a red shift. Red shifts have more than one cause.[/QUOTE]Ok. Thanks for posting the additional material. I had rather assumed from context that we were discussing only cosmological red shifts.

Paul

I'n nearly ready to post draft 2 of the monograph, and want to
try to clear up some issues.

[QUOTE=lavalamp;246849]When you look at a star, the further away you are, the dimmer the star looks since the light has spread out more and therefore less energy reaches you. But the star is still the same colour, providing you are stationary relative to it. Why does this fourth dimension somehow cause a drop in frequency (aka redshift) rather than just a dimming of the light?[/QUOTE]

According to my theory, intensity diminshes over distance for two
reasons. Yes, the light "spreads out", but also some portion gets
subracted by the skin dimension.

This subtraction occurs over all frequencies, but because the pinholes
of the skin are small, proportionally more low wavelength light/EMR
gets through the skin, so that the entire spectrum is red-shifted,
measurably approximately linearly wrt to distance traveled.

If a distant light source radiated exactly at a single frquency of EMR,
(which I've never heard of and don't think possible), then according
to my theory, the light would NOT be cosmologicall\y red-shifted, only
diminished in intensity by its partial subtraction through the 4th dimenson.

This last point might have a way of being tested, and thereby verify
the Big Ball Theory's explanation of the red-shift, in contradiction
to the BBT.