Elemental Puzzle

[petrw1]

http://en.webfail.net/image/oh-chemi...n-picture.html

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

Other than the red shift data, are there any other data/observations that contradict any part of the monograph?

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

All right, all right, but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order, what have the Romans done for us?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by retina

All right, all right, but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order, what have the Romans done for us?

I wish ... I were on the right side of that comment in all your eyes,
but the Hubble Red Shift has been taken as a velocity/Doppler shift
for so long, my re-explaining it as a distance shift has to be a more
complete explanation than I've posted so far. Granted.

Sometimes science evolves, sometimes new conjectures prove true.
I still have to bear the burden of evidence, I know.
I did however ask about contrary evidence and/or inconsistencies.
I guess I'm on my own there.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by retina

All right, all right, but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order, what have the Romans done for us?

Brought peace!

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by retina

All right, all right, but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order, what have the Romans done for us?

They are alleged to have killed Jesus.

Wasn't that enough?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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.

OK, although I know I'm delaying providing more details of my explanation of
the em-shift as being caused primarily by the distance traveled by the light,
not the relative velocity of the source to receptor, I would say only that
I think the BBT is unsatisfactory from other points besides the point that
the red-shift, CBMR, and neutrino background can be alternately explained.
I would challenge the postulate that the conceptual expansion implies a
reverse temporally small origin. Based on the perhaps arbitrary time periods,
there's no guarantee that the Universe has been expanding regularly since
the BB, with no contractive periods.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

OK, although I know I'm delaying providing more details of my explanation of
the em-shift as being caused primarily by the distance traveled by the light,
not the relative velocity of the source to receptor, <snip>

Suppose you are the observer in a laboratory viewing the spectrum of light emitted by a source which, when motionless relative to the observer, emits a spectral line, measured by the spectroscope as 5000.0000 Angstrom wavelength, accurate to 0.0001 Angstrom. Next, make that same source move away from the spectroscope at 30 m/s (0.0000001 c). Assume that motion is sustained long enough to allow an accurate spectroscopic observation. Assume that the distance from the light source to the observing spectroscope is cosmologically negligible.

1) What, according to your theory, is the frequency of that same emission line from the moving source that will be measured by the observer as it now appears, according to your theory?

2) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 3000 m/s (0.00001 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

3) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 300,000 m/s (0.001 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

4) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 30,000,000 m/s (0.1 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

5) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 150,000,000 m/s (0.5 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Suppose you are the observer in a laboratory viewing the spectrum of light emitted by a source which, when motionless relative to the observer, emits a spectral line, measured by the spectroscope as 5000.0000 Angstrom wavelength, accurate to 0.0001 Angstrom. Next, make that same source move away from the spectroscope at 30 m/s (0.0000001 c). Assume that motion is sustained long enough to allow an accurate spectroscopic observation. Assume that the distance from the light source to the observing spectroscope is cosmologically negligible.

1) What, according to your theory, is the frequency of that same emission line from the moving source that will be measured by the observer as it now appears, according to your theory?

2) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 3000 m/s (0.00001 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

3) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 300,000 m/s (0.001 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

4) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 30,000,000 m/s (0.1 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

5) Same assumptions and question, except with the source moving away from the spectroscope at 150,000,000 m/s (0.5 c) but at the same cosmologically negligible distance.

We're talking about the relativistic Doppler effect.

Since the cosmological distance is given as negligible, the value of the frequency observed
will differ from the original value by a multiplying factor related to the source speeds
in each case. The formula is:

f_observed = gamma * ( 1 - beta) * f_source = sqrt { (1 - beta ) / ( 1 + beta ) } * f_source

where the lorentz scaling factor formulas are:

beta = velocity / c
gamma = 1 / sqrt( 1 - beta^2 )
c = 3.0 x 10 ^ 10 cm/sec

Since

lambda = 5000.0 A = 5.000 x 10 ^ -5 cm

we have

frequency = f_source = c / lambda = 6.0 x 10 ^ 14 hz

In the five cases:

1) beta = 0.0000001
gamma = 1.00000000000001
f_observed = 1.00000000000001 * 0.9999999 * 6.0 x 10 ^ 14 hz = 5.9999994 x 10 ^ 14 hz

2) beta = 0.00001
gamma = 1.0000000001
f_observed = 1.0000000001 * 0.99999 * 6.0 x 10 ^ 14 hz = 5.99994 x 10 ^ 14 hz

3) beta = 0.001
gamma = 1.000001
f_observed = 1.000001 * 0.999 * 6.0 x 10 ^ 14 hz = 5.994 x 10 ^ 14 hz

4) beta = 0.1
gamma = 1.005
f_observed = 1.005 * 0.9 * 6.0 x 10 ^ 14 hz = 5.427 x 10 ^ 14 hz

5) beta = 0.5
gamma = 1.1547
f_observed = 1.1547 * 0.5 * 6.0 x 10 ^ 14 hz = 3.464 x 10 ^ 14 hz

This shows a velocity-relativistc Doppler red shift for sources traveling away from us.

It does NOT show that a red-shift is necessarily due to this cause (receding source).

[cheesehead]

Thank you for your response!

Right now, I can't remember how I had intended to proceed when I posted my questions. When my RW life is less hectic (I expect several RW problems to be resolved 3-5 weeks from now), I'll come back to review and regain my chain of thought (and _write notes to myself_ describing that chain so I don't lose it again!).

I genuinely invite you to request that you send me a reminder if I haven't responded before the first week of May. TIA!

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Thank you for your response!
Right now, I can't remember how I had intended to proceed when I posted my questions. When my RW life is less hectic (I expect several RW problems to be resolved 3-5 weeks from now), I'll come back to review and regain my chain of thought (and _write notes to myself_ describing that chain so I don't lose it again!).
I genuinely invite you to request that you send me a reminder if I haven't responded before the first week of May. TIA!

Thanks for your maintained interest. I delayed responding to your
post so as to do some reviewing of relevant material. Also to
work on improving my description of the theory of the em-shift
and some other topics. I'm almost prepared to post a revised
"attachment", and I wouldn't mind resolving some issues first,
especially the em-(red/blue)-shift.