Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED

In sci.physics.relativity, bz
<bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:10:36 +0000 (UTC)
<Xns96BE5D9F997BAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:7pf2u2-k0r.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> The temperature difference is a big plus, too, if
>> accurately observed. It's fairly obvious that an orbiting
>> planet won't do much to the luminosity characteristics of
>> the central star (it might dim it, but it won't change the
>> observed temperature too much unless the star is moving
>> *very* fast, resulting in various lightshift effects --
>> and stars are too big to move that fast).
>>
>
> The doppler shift, due to orbital motion, moves the ENTIRE radiation curve,
> including emission and absorbtion lines.
>
> Temperature causes the stefans-boltzman curve to shift but the absorbtion
> and radiation lines stay at the same wavelengths!!
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Black-body
>
> Star types are based on temperature and the elements present, not on the
> relative motion of the star.
>
> Red shift and blue shift due to motion is corrected for before the type of
> the star is decided upon.
>

Hmmm...very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body

is almost the exact same page. :-)

But yes, you're correct; the Frauenhofers would not shift
because a star changes its reaction rate -- unless they are
coming out from a blown shell or something, after a nova.
(One might see new ones, as the He3 ionizes, but that's
not a shift.)

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Relevant Pages