Let's have an educational/historical diversion:
Does anyone remember the "ultraviolet catastrophe" of Raleigh-Jeans fame, proving that quantisation was necessary? I want to review the fundamental experimental evidence that anything other than a proton, neutron, electron, and photon actually exist...let's start with anti-matter.

On the science fiction note, subspace was used as a joke on "Star Trek", right along with Phasor -- as in vector subspace, and the sine-phasors of Steinmetz that are still taught to undergraduates for constant-frequency AC analysis. Asimov himself was unwilling to fly on airplanes, long before 9/11 added its unpleasantries.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282352]A 5% Doppler redshifted spectrum with no cosmological shift looks exactly like a 5% cosmological redshifted spectrum with no Doppler shift - how do you explain that?
- - -
BTW, [I]have[/I] you been claiming that your theory represents reality (which is the impression I've had), or are you treating it as a science-fictional idea only?[/QUOTE]

Question two first: no, this is not for science fiction, it is intended as
a falsifiable and demonstrable but not yet demonstrated scientific
theory. And in the sense of incorporating most of classic and modern
physics (but not all, especially not the big bang theory cosmology),
and in the sense that I leave plenty of room for new relevant math
that I haven't completed or done, it is not presented as complete.
As it says, it's a work in progress.

Question one second: red shift is red shift, or more precisely, the
distance-based shift (very tiny except over cosmological distances)
and the relative-velocity shift (small except at rel vols near c) are
both always present and can be added to get the full red or blue shift
(added linearly or lorentzly or whatever math formula is discovered
I have NOT calculated, though I THINK it's linear addition.)

[QUOTE=davieddy;282227]Stick to hardons.[/QUOTE]

I tried to but the equations I see in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron"]neutron[/URL] namely:

[TEX]n^0 \rightarrow p^+ + e^- + \overline{v_e}[/TEX]

and

[TEX]p^+ \rightarrow n^0 + e^+ + v_e[/TEX]

are confusing me as I told you by PM , mainly because it points me to a conclusion:quarks are not a elementary particle type. which under the standard model seems to be disallowed. I'll try and back my conclusion up for everyone else listening. under the equations:
[TEX]n^0 \rightarrow p^+ + e^- + \overline{v_e}[/TEX]

and

[TEX]p^+ \rightarrow n^0 + e^+ + v_e[/TEX]

It appears to me that a neutron decays to a lower energy state through annihilation.[TEX]d\rightarrow{u} + e^- + \overline{v_e}[/TEX] under the first equation meaning that one quark makes leptons a part of itself making that quark not elementary. the second one becomes not elementary from the second one because the transition is the other way but with emission of anti-leptons, so both of the quark types used aren't elementary. but they are listed in all the pictures I've seen of elementary particles a contradiction.

[QUOTE=Christenson;282414]Let's have an educational/historical diversion:
Does anyone remember the "ultraviolet catastrophe" of Raleigh-Jeans fame, proving that quantisation was necessary? I want to review the fundamental experimental evidence that anything other than a proton, neutron, electron, and photon actually exist...let's start with anti-matter.
[/QUOTE]

I kike the idea, but add neutrino to antimatter on the list to reexamine.

We should build from basics up, always rechecking our foundations.
Sort of like rechecking smaller primes before going higher.

[QUOTE=davar55;282452]Question two first: < snip >

Question one second: < snip >[/QUOTE]Okay.

Question zero: How is your cosmological shift theory going to explain why emission and absorption lines, not just maxima/minima of general spectral intensity, are shifted in frequency in a way that is wholly compatible with Doppler shifts?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282476]
Question zero: How is your cosmological shift theory going to explain why emission and absorption lines, not just maxima/minima of general spectral intensity, are shifted in frequency in a way that is wholly compatible with Doppler shifts?[/QUOTE]

Before answering, let me point out that the monograph specifies
that the Universe is finite and round and of such a size as to preclude
two galaxies from being at relative velocities anywhere near c.

This means that the red-shift cannot be explained as a Doppler shift,
becase it's too large (the red-shift) in most cases.

Therefore the expanding universe / big bang explanation fails
at that point.

Enter the monograph's cosmology.

If you accept the foundational parts of the monograph's
cosmological viewpoint, then it's possible to discuss Hubble data.

But the monograph is attempting to describe the cosmological
universe in an axiom-to-higher-concepts manner (not sequentially,
but it's difficult to do that).

So before challenging with Hubble data, consider the original
questions about the universe presented in the monograph.

If there's agreement with everything up to the point where I
explain the Hubble data differently from the BBT, and with
everything after that, then the Hubble data becomes the
focal point.

Thread starting
 

Some of mine meet a slow death, and some fly.
This one (started by Davar55) is turning out to be particularly surreal/amusing/instructive.

@sm88: I think the answer is that proton --> neutron et al involves an input of energy. I think "fusion" would be a suitable example.

@Christenson: What self-respecting physicist would not
know why Planck's constant was so named?

@Davar: in my book, mass is the measure of inertia:
reluctance to change velocity.
Not friction, viscosity or treacle.

@Xilman: I may have liberated two Atkins books from
Blackwells: "Atomic Structure" and/or "Equilibrium Thermodynamics".
Both are excellent.

David

[QUOTE=davar55;282522]This means that the red-shift cannot be explained as a Doppler shift, becase it's too large (the red-shift) in most cases.[/QUOTE](By unqualified "red-shift" there, you mean cosmological red-shift, I presume.)

That doesn't respond to my question, which asks how your theory for the cosmological red-shift explains that the observed effects on emission/absorption spectral lines by the cosmological red-shift look just like the observed effects on emission/absorption spectral lines by the Doppler red-shift.

Your theory seems to say only that the cosmological red-shift causes a spectrum whose zero-shift maximal brightness is at, say, 5500 angstroms would be altered so that its observed maximal brightness (of the background continuum) would be at, say, 6200 angstroms (for some particular magnitude of cosmological red-shift) -- with no effect on the observed wavelengths of emission/absorption lines. But this does not match well-established actual observations and measurements that show that the cosmological red-shift makes emission/absorption lines appear shifted to longer wavelengths! It's not a matter of wavelength-differentiated absorption of spectral intensities, as your theory seems to say.

[quote]Therefore the expanding universe / big bang explanation fails at that point.[/quote]No, you have it backwards -- The expanding universe / Big Bang explanation DOES exactly explain the well-observed wavelength shifts of emission/absorption spectral lines. It is _your_ theory that fails to explain the observations.

[quote]If you accept the foundational parts of the monograph's cosmological viewpoint, then it's possible to discuss Hubble data.[/quote]By "Hubble data", are you referring to data of cosmological redshifts in general, Hubble Space Telescope observations in particular, Edwin Hubble's observations in particular, or what?

Wasn't ignoring you...
 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG2O5dPEomA]Open the door Richard[/url]
See what I mean about rock'n'roll?

David

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282540](By unqualified "red-shift" there, you mean cosmological red-shift, I presume.)
...
By "Hubble data", are you referring to data of cosmological redshifts in general, Hubble Space Telescope observations in particular, Edwin Hubble's observations in particular, or what?[/QUOTE]

No, by red-shift (in that post of mine) I meant the (total) red-shift from
a distant (say) galaxy. I was showing (sort of ) based on the monograph
that given the monograph's foundational parts, (finiteness and so on)
the red-shift cannot be explained as a Doppler shift (because the relative
velocities of galaxies do not approach c, hence cannot account for the
size of the red shift), hence the expansionist conclusion is wrong.

The monograph provides a sufficient explanation for the red-shift:
cosmologically, distance; velocitywise, a small Doppler value; and
relativistically, a smaller gravity over photon quantity.

By "Hubble data" I mean all observational data of red/blue-shift from
light/EM sources in space.

[QUOTE=davar55;282590]No, by red-shift (in that post of mine) I meant the (total) red-shift from a distant (say) galaxy. I was showing (sort of ) based on the monograph that given the monograph's foundational parts, (finiteness and so on) the red-shift cannot be explained as a Doppler shift (because the relative velocities of galaxies do not approach c, hence cannot account for the size of the red shift), hence the expansionist conclusion is wrong.[/QUOTE]Okay, then your monograph is talking about a toy universe, not our real universe, because it utterly fails to match observations.

[quote]The monograph provides a sufficient explanation for the red-shift:
cosmologically, distance; velocitywise, a small Doppler value; and
relativistically, a smaller gravity over photon quantity.[/quote]Basically, you keep insisting that your monograph is correct because ... you want it to be correct, not because its predictions match actual observations.

You appear not to understand what observational data exists. Do you understand what produces emission and absorption lines in spectra? I've pointed out multiple times that your theory cannot explain the redshifts of emission/absorption lines, [I]but you never respond to that criticism[/I], as though you simply do not know what I'm writing about. Why don't you ever say anything about emission and absorption lines that would indicate that you understand them?

I would be genuinely interested in helping you with your theory if you showed that you were willing to learn what observational data exists -- but you don't -- you just keep repeating your same ignorance over and over without making any progress in learning.

In order to convince anyone who is knowledgeable about physics that your alternative theory has any merit, you must first show that you actually understand the current mainstream explanations that you want to overthrow. Otherwise, you're just arguing from ignorance.

I am not interested in continuing to discuss this until you demonstrate that you actually understand (even if you think they're mistaken) the current mainstream explanations of emission lines, absorption lines, Doppler shifts, and cosmological redshifts.