Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant
From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_hia.no)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:56:27 +0200
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:j6jum0tmafj6urpp3tvl1cuqfd19r065n9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:02:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:e75rm0lur5q2k4mhlsbqnbduaqcuvbk72a@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:09:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >Did you really not get the irony, Henry?
> >> >Even with the smiley? :-)
> >> >
> >> >Since it is common knowledge that the light from
> >> >the outskirts of distant galaxies is red shifted
> >> >like the rest of the galaxy, I thought it impossible
> >> >to miss the irony.
> >> >
> >> >And - as you confirm - it is blazingly obvious that
> >> >your theory predicts that it should have been blue shifted.
> >> >Thus it is blazingly obvious that this prediction of your
> >> > theory is wrong, and your theory is falsified.
> >>
> >> Paul, you are so stupid when you are desperate.
> >
> >I think it is apparent who is desperate. :-)
> >
> >Henri Wilson is now going to explain why his own
> >blazingly obvious conclusion is wrong:
> >
> >> I have given several reasins for redshift. Escape enegry is just one of them.
> >>
> >> It is highly likely that light from the outskirs IS redshifted, but it will be
> >> redshifted less than average.
> >
> >Of course. Nothing new about that. But the well known and well
> >confirmed gravitational shift is utterly negligible in this context,
> >and it doesn't increase with distance which is the prime
> >characteristics of the cosmological red shift.
>
> Oh? And who confirmed that?
> Have you actually measured all galaxy distances with long rods?
Oh yes, that's right.
We have of course no way to estimate the distance to galaxies.
Right?
Since the distance is measured by the red shift only,
this is typical SRian circular reasoning.
Right?
The cosmological red shift is a myth.
Right?
A galaxy with z=5 may in reality be closer than
a galaxy with z = 0.1.
Right? :-)
> >To call it "a principal reason for red shift" is utter nonsense.
>
> My program www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe
> allows one to calculate the amount of redshift incurred by light escaping one
> galaxy and arriving at another.
>
> The typical redshifts are significant althoiugh it is pretty hard to place a
> firm figure on galactic densities and density gradients..
Sure, Henry.
And if measure the red shift of an arbitrary galaxy, we will
obviously see that the light from its outskirts is blue shifted
while the light from its centre is very red shifted, won't we? :-)
> >> >Sometimes you are incredible slow to get the point, Henry! :-)
> >>
> >> Sometimes you are too thick to understand the full story, Paul.
> >
> >I am responding to YOUR words:
> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >| A principal reason for red shift is that light slows down as it escapes the
> >| gravity field of a galaxy. When it enters the milky way, it speeds up again.
> >|
> >| Our solar system lies on the outskirts of our galaxy so most light reaching us
> >| from 'average regions of average distant galaxies' is traveling at less than c.
> >|
> >| If our galaxy had been much larger than average and we lay nearer to its
> >| centre, the chances are that we would see everything blue shifted, since
> >| average light would be traveling at greater than c when it reached us.
> >
> >.. which you now have demostrated are nonsense with the words:
> >" The blue shift you mention is exactly what my theory predicts.
> > It is blazingly obvious!"
> >
> >The blue shift which blazingly obvious is exactly what your theory
> >predicts is never observed.
>
> More blue shifts would be observed if we lay near the centre of our galaxy.
... and we would have a cosmological blue shift in stead of red shift.
Right? :-)
Paul
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Ken, need help with this"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant"
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: question about the red shift and the hubble constant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
