Are you, or are you not, willing to learn what produces emission/absorption lines?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;307771]Are you, or are you not, willing to learn what produces emission/absorption lines?[/QUOTE]

I too studied physics, in high school plus one year in college.

Is this your only objection to the monograph? It explains, as I said
in a post preceding yours, the em-shift of stars and galaxies as a
consequence of the skin. Is there more in the monograph I should add?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282082]Do you think that your claim of "small" releases you from responsibility for explaining it?

1) This isn't even true! There is no restriction on the Doppler red- or blue-shift that compels it to be "relatively small compared to the distance factor". It is quite possible for a particle to have a relative velocity of 0.9 c when it is only 0.9 meter away from the observer.

2) Even if it were true, see question above re "small".[/QUOTE]

Considering the cosmological red shift as being the vector sum of
three components is fine - distance caused factor, relative velocity
caused factor, and gravity/relativity caused factor.

The distance factor way outweighs the others for light from distant
galaxies and stars, hence it's what I discussed first (see monograph).

For closer celestial objects, the distance light must travel is smaller,
hence the factor is too, and Doppler comes to predominate, hence
the known blue shifts.

Gravity/relativity-related shift is even smaller, except at shorter distances.
I left the math to the physicists.

[QUOTE=davar55;307795]Is this your only objection to the monograph?[/QUOTE]That was not an objection to your monograph.

Furthermore, I did not ask what subjects you had studied in school. It's quite possible to learn what produces emission/absorption lines outside of a class by reading books or having had someone explain the phenomenon to you. (I myself first learned that outside of classes, then later found my understanding ratified by class content and material, and by my ability to answer questions about that subject.)

My inquiry asks whether you are willing to learn what produces emission/absorption lines, in view of your not having yet demonstrated that you do understand that phenomenon.

If you think you do already understand what produces emission/absorption lines, will you please explain that phenomenon in your own words?

If you think that your monograph already explains what produces emission/absorption lines, will you please quote or point me to the portion of text that does that?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;307854]That was not an objection to your monograph.

Furthermore, I did not ask what subjects you had studied in school. It's quite possible to learn what produces emission/absorption lines outside of a class by reading books or having had someone explain the phenomenon to you. (I myself first learned that outside of classes, then later found my understanding ratified by class content and material, and by my ability to answer questions about that subject.)

My inquiry asks whether you are willing to learn what produces emission/absorption lines, in view of your not having yet demonstrated that you do understand that phenomenon.

If you think you do already understand what produces emission/absorption lines, will you please explain that phenomenon in your own words?

If you think that your monograph already explains what produces emission/absorption lines, will you please quote or point me to the portion of text that does that?[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia's explanations are fine. All I added was the separating out of
cosmological em-shift as being caused primarily by distance.
See my previous post,

[QUOTE=davar55;307909]Wikipedia's explanations are fine.[/QUOTE]Whichever Wikipedia explanations you mean, they're not your own words.

You have again and again dodged my request to demonstrate that you understand what produces emission/absorption lines. Various parts of your monograph indicate that you don't understand the cause of that phenomenon. The obvious conclusion is that you do not actually understand that phenomenon, and you are trying to avoid admitting that.

Are you, or are you not, willing to learn what produces emission/absorption lines?

[quote]See my previous post,[/quote]Your previous post contains not a single bit of evidence that you understand what produces emission/absorption lines.

Refusing to admit that you do not understand what produces emission/absorption lines does not make your monograph more correct or error-free.

Which are you more interested in:

truth - getting a sincere technical critique of your monograph, or

bluffing - pretending that you understand something that you're afraid to admit you actually don't know?

Do you think that refusal to admit what you don't know makes you seem smarter or more well-informed, and your monograph more correct, than admitting that you don't understand something?

Real science does not proceed by bluffing; it proceeds by honesty. Do you want to do real science, or just pretend to play a science game?

If you do not understand what produces emission/absorption lines, you will not be able to understand my sincere technical critique of your monograph.

[QUOTE=davar55;307710]
I too value precision and conciseness.[/QUOTE]But do you value honesty?

Or do you prefer to value pretending that you know something in order to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truth about your monograph's flaws?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;308007]But do you value honesty?

Or do you prefer to value pretending that you know something in order to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truth about your monograph's flaws?[/QUOTE]

I've already answered your question about spectral lines, but in one
sentence: a photon excites an atomic electron to a higher shell
(or subshell), which when it falls back, emits a photon of a frequency
determined by a difference in energy levels, which is then recorded
by a spectrometer.

You needn't impugn my honesty or intelligence when you properly
challenge any part of the monograph.

Even so, is there anything else about the monograph you object to?

[QUOTE=davar55;308042]I've already answered your question about spectral lines, but in one
sentence: a photon excites an atomic electron to a higher shell
(or subshell), which when it falls back, emits a photon of a frequency
determined by a difference in energy levels, which is then recorded
by a spectrometer.[/quote]Then do you agree that that photon's frequency will not be affected by whether any other object is moving, relative to the atom where the electron is emitting the photon?

[QUOTE=davar55;308042]You needn't impugn my honesty < snip > when you properly challenge any part of the monograph.[/QUOTE]In post #252, I pointed out that draft 2 "still has an incorrect description of the red shift and fails to distinguish cosmological red shift (produced by expansion of space-time) from Doppler redshift (produced by difference in relative classical velocities) or gravitational redshift (produced by relativistic stretching of space by mass), thus leaving the impression that the "skin" is supposed to produce all three types of phenomona." Your response in post #253, rather than addressing the problem of your monograph's confusion between cosmological and Doppler shifts, your last paragraph had an incorrect statement about Doppler shift.

In post #254 I pointed out the error in your comment about Doppler shift, and illustrated with an example of a nearby object moving at 0.9c. Your response in #255 was about distant objects, not nearby objects. You didn't respond with anything about nearby objects. In #256 I pointed out that you had dodged that situation.

In #263, in response to my complaints about your lack of response to the near-object situation, you said you weren't explaining Doppler shift.

In #284, I pointed out that your own words in #253 _were_ about Doppler shift, but that since then you were dodging to avoid answering about the Doppler shift.

All I wanted was for you "to tell the truth about your theory's failure to explain Doppler shift observations."

I then issued a challenge: "My example of 0.9 c relative velocity at a distance of 0.9 meter is Doppler shift, not cosmological shift. Either tell us how your theory is compatible with such Doppler shift observations, or admit that it fails in that respect -- without trying to change the subject."

You've not yet given us an honest answer to that proper challenge about your monograph in post #284.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;308208]Then do you agree that that photon's frequency will not be affected by whether any other object is moving, relative to the atom where the electron is emitting the photon?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;308212]In post #252, I pointed out that draft 2 "still has an incorrect description of the red shift and fails to distinguish cosmological red shift (produced by expansion of space-time) from Doppler redshift (produced by difference in relative classical velocities) or gravitational redshift (produced by relativistic stretching of space by mass), thus leaving the impression that the "skin" is supposed to produce all three types of phenomona." Your response in post #253, rather than addressing the problem of your monograph's confusion between cosmological and Doppler shifts, your last paragraph had an incorrect statement about Doppler shift.

In post #254 I pointed out the error in your comment about Doppler shift, and illustrated with an example of a nearby object moving at 0.9c. Your response in #255 was about distant objects, not nearby objects. You didn't respond with anything about nearby objects. In #256 I pointed out that you had dodged that situation.

In #263, in response to my complaints about your lack of response to the near-object situation, you said you weren't explaining Doppler shift.

In #284, I pointed out that your own words in #253 _were_ about Doppler shift, but that since then you were dodging to avoid answering about the Doppler shift.

All I wanted was for you "to tell the truth about your theory's failure to explain Doppler shift observations."

I then issued a challenge: "My example of 0.9 c relative velocity at a distance of 0.9 meter is Doppler shift, not cosmological shift. Either tell us how your theory is compatible with such Doppler shift observations, or admit that it fails in that respect -- without trying to change the subject."

You've not yet given us an honest answer to that proper challenge about your monograph in post #284.[/QUOTE]

Ugh, hate these multi-quote dissections

What failure to explain is intended is lost on me, nor any confusions
or flaws in the monograph. It is a work in progress. Says so.

I answered the question about the three components of the em-shift.

I answered the cause of the distance component in the monograph.

Doppler shift due to rel.vol. of the light source and us is H.S. stuff.

Relativistic shift is relativ(istical)ly tiny.

When one refers to posts by number instead of "quoting"
one makes it difficult to follow one's intentions.

The monograph did not fail to explain D-shift, it simply explains
C-shift because it's about cosmology, not specifically physics.

I can't guarantee it, but it would soothe my typing fingers to
not have to address a hundred points in every post.
Maybe one or two.