I don't mind challenges to the "new" cosmology presented in
the monograph, in fact I've adjusted the next draft as a
direct response to others' comments, esp. from this forum.
Science is science.

Personal or professional maligning are another, unacceptable
commodity, as we all know. Phrasing such as "your failure to ..."
or "if you honestly admitted your mistakes" or the like are not
conducive to genuine scientific intercourse.

[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.

Even so, is there anything else about the monograph you object to?
[/quote][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]

The monograph did not explicitly take a stance on the
wave-particle duality issue nor explain why the skin idea
"works" on both points of view.

Is there anything else in the monograph you want to address?

[QUOTE=davar55;308240]Ugh, hate these multi-quote dissections[/QUOTE]Then just give us a straightforward, non-evasive answer to this:
[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]

I've never requested that you respond to more than one post, or more than one point within a post, within a single post of your own.

("The monograph did not explicitly take a stance on the wave-particle duality issue nor explain why the skin idea "works" on both points of view." does not answer my question. I asked whether you agree with my statement about the photon's frequency, not what your monograph says.)
- - -

[quote=davar55;308240]not have to address a hundred points in every post.[/quote]An exaggeration straw man like that is often used by people who are trying to evade giving a straightforward honest response.

A) Nowhere have I posted "a hundred points" at a time.

B) Even when I posted a single point, such as
[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]you haven't given us a straight, honest answer without dragging in things I didn't ask about. The question I ask there could be answered by "yes" or "no".

C) You've always been free to address a single point at a time in each of your posts. If I've raised four points in one of my posts, you're free to respond to a single one of those posts in each of four separate posts of your own. (Now, if you posted three times, each responding to only a single point, and some time has passed without a fourth, I might repeat asking about that fourth point.)

I did not specify whose posts made many points at a time ...

Of course the number was a deliberate exaggeration for effect ...

Evasive and dishonest are not words of endearment ...

The author of the monograph prefers to discuss science with friends ...


Relative to the atom emitting the photon, just about everything
else in the universe is moving.

Point by point is slow going. If there's a better explanation of the
cosmological red shift that satisfies the entire remainder of the
monograph's cosmological explanations and can be stated briefly,
I'd love to hear it.

[QUOTE=davar55;308240]
I answered the question about the three components of the em-shift.[/QUOTE]I didn't ask about the three components of the em-shift.

[quote]I answered the cause of the distance component in the monograph.[/quote]I didn't ask about the cause of the distance component.

[quote]Doppler shift due to rel.vol. of the light source and us is H.S. stuff.[/quote]I didn't ask you whether that was H.S. stuff.

[quote]The monograph did not fail to explain D-shift, it simply explains C-shift because it's about cosmology, not specifically physics.[/quote]But the monograph's statements are incompatible with D-shift. That's why I'm trying to find out where the error arises by asking about your understanding of the D-shift.

[QUOTE=davar55;308447]I did not specify whose posts made many points at a time ...

Of course the number was a deliberate exaggeration for effect ...[/quote]Do you think exaggeration for effect is a legitimate part of genuine scientific intercourse?

[quote]Evasive and dishonest are not words of endearment ...[/quote]Then, don't evade, and be honest.

[QUOTE=davar55;308243]
Is there anything else in the monograph you want to address?[/QUOTE]There are many other things in the monograph that I want to address. I've been trying to start by addressing the single issue of the Doppler shift, because the monograph contains statements that are incompatible with it.

At the moment, where I am in addressing that issue is trying to find out whether or not you agree with me that the 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. (I started asking you about that right after quoting the part of your post where you wrote "... emits a photon of a frequency determined by a difference in energy levels, which is then recorded by a spectrometer", but you haven't yet given a straight answer without diverting to other issues.)

This was in post#253.

[QUOTE=davar55;282048]Let's see ...

According to the monograph, and in fact, there is no expansion of
space-time, the universe is a 4-d sphere of fixed, finite size.

Cosmological red-shift is explained as being caused by an across-
the-spectrum "leakage" of photonic (EM) energy into and through
the 4th-dimensional fold ("the skin"), diminshing the received light
both intensitywise and, because of the small porosity of the skin,
in a skewed frequency distribution that results in a red shift which
is approximately proportional to the DISTANCE of the far object
and hence is linear, corroborating (I think) Hubble's formula.

Relativistic red-shift, due to gravity against photons, is small.

There is a minor red or blue shift due to relative velocities of
the distant objects which must be factored in, but it too is
relatively small compared to the distance factor.[/QUOTE]

I stick by the last paragraph. In the cosmology monograph,
certain ideas precede others, and the infinite regress of time
and the fixed, finiteness of space, take logical precedence
over the em-shift, hence over any explanation of the shift.

I make that a little clearer in draft 3, not yet finished.
But in order to be honest and nonevasive (as always)
I clarify: the cosmological expansion does not exist, is
merely the currently accepted paradigm for explaining
the em-shift, which is explained in the monograph as
due to the 4th spatial dimension, hence one shouldn't
begin challenging that part of the monograph by
propounding the expansion as primary explanation of
the shift (as in we're all moving away from each other).

We observe the shift, then try to explain the cause.
The monograph does that with a different conclusion.

As I previously asked, but you haven't yet answered:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;308208][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]Clarification: "that photon's frequency" is measured with respect to the reference frame of the atom where the electron is emitting the photon.

davar55,

As I've previously stated, I think your monograph contains statement that are not compatible with real observational data. The incompatibility is in the area of explaining the cause of spectral shifts.

In order to give you my sincere technical critique, I need to determine as closely as possible where your understanding (which led to your statements in your monograph) and my understanding (which sees an error in certain monograph statements) diverge.

Thus I am asking you a series of questions that go along a logical train of thought between the understanding of what causes spectral emission/absorption lines and your monograph's "skin" theory of cosmological redshift. You've answered my first question (what causes spectral lines) along that logical path, but haven't yet answered my second question (is an emitted photon's frequency affected by the motion of other objects -- my answer is no, but I don't know whether you agree with me.)

It occurs to me that perhaps your reluctance to respond to my latest question indicates that we've come to the point of divergence -- that you do _not_ agree with me about the noninfluence of other objects' motions upon the emitted photon's frequency. In that case, perhaps if I reword my inquiry, we can get a better grip on this issue.

- - -

Revised question:

A) Do you think that other objects' motions can affect the emitted photon's frequency (as measured in the reference frame of the atom where the emission takes place)?

B) If your answer to A) is "yes", then is that where your "skin" theory begins to come into the path of physics logic that I'm trying to follow, or is your "yes" answer to A) based on something other than your "skin" theory?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;309032]
Revised question:

A) Do you think that other objects' motions can affect the emitted photon's frequency (as measured in the reference frame of the atom where the emission takes place)?

B) If your answer to A) is "yes", then is that where your "skin" theory begins to come into the path of physics logic that I'm trying to follow, or is your "yes" answer to A) based on something other than your "skin" theory?[/QUOTE]

Reference frame of the atom? That's hardly inertial, as atoms tend to move and get accelerated.

I think what you're asking me is how can a constant frequency photon
of light exhibit red shift or produce the phenomenon we measure as
red shift. Am I correct?