Starship Asterisk*

Sputnick wrote:Ignorance about what?

About everything you say. It's incredible. It's either a joke or an intentional continued pointless harangue.

Mixed with belligerence, ignorance makes an ugly cocktail.

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Nobody has had any success explaining redshift in this context as anything other than a relativistic consequence of the expansion of space. The failure to identify any other plausible mechanism is one of the reasons that the BBT is considered fundamentally correct by the vast majority of scientists.

Absorbtion.

Not a chance. These things are testable in the lab, and have been tested. Absorption and scattering (which are related) can cause reddening of the light, but they do not result in a spectral shift. That is, the overall envelope of the spectrum may be altered so that more energy present at longer wavelengths, but the position of spectral absorbance or emission lines does not shift.

No known physical process can explain the observed distance-redshift relationship except for relativistic redshift. This is something that has been looked at very closely for more than 50 years.

Sputnick wrote:
Absorbtion.

Is this another joke?

No. And I hope that all my jokes have a practical point as well as humour.

May I ask where you read that the observed redshifts of galaxies, supernovae (other than in the Local Group), the ICM (intra-cluster medium), quasars, and GRBs are explainable by (or using) absorption (absorbtion)? Or is this a creative idea of your own?

I read it somewhere .. sometime .. during the past 40 years. Other than that . . I have no idea, but I think perhaps it is also suggested in Plasma Cosmology, which I think perhaps may be a great reason why PC is ignored by the concensus who are sold on Big Bang. To me, absorbtion of light by Dark Matter seems easily accepted .. and if Dark Matter turns out to be a reality, a matter which absorbs, for instance, all things being possible in science, that the matter absorbs wavelengths other than red .. well, let's get a beakerfull of Dark Matter, a candle, a bottle of wine, two or more glasses (or shall we drink straight from the bottle under a bridge, conducting our experiment by sifted sunlight).

Chris Peterson wrote:This is something that has been looked at very closely for more than 50 years.

Yeah, but only by people like you.

Sputnick wrote:absorbtion of light by Dark Matter seems easily accepted

Huh? I thought CDM didn't interact with EM.

Sputnick wrote:the matter absorbs wavelengths other than red

Huh? How could this explain red shift?

Sputnick wrote:If you won't listen to Einstein, you're not going to listen to me .. and your comment certainly validates what I have been saying, that your mind is closed.

I'm happy to listen to Einstein. Like I said, he was a clever guy, and said lots of good things (outside the realm of science). Many I agree with, many I do not. He's not some god, though. We aren't all obligated to take everything he said as gospel. His opinions about the intersection of science and philosophy are interesting, for multiple reasons. Einstein's opinions about physics carry great weight; his opinions about philosophy do not. (My own philosophical viewpoints are more in line with Feynman than with Einstein.)

BTW, if you value Einstein's opinions so highly, how do you deal with the fact that he accepted absolutely that the Universe is expanding, and that relativistic redshift was our evidence of this?

Sputnick wrote:...I am finding my time pretty well wasted anyway.

Nereid wrote:In light of this stark difference which seems to have emerged, is there any point in continuing this thread?

@Nereid, you are new Captain Obvious. Sputnick does not see the science the way you do. Do we really need whole thread to find it out?

apodman wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:This is something that has been looked at very closely for more than 50 years.

Yeah, but only by people like you.

I hate to pass on an opprtunity to comment on anything apodman says, but I can't understand what you are saying here.

apodman wrote:

Sputnick wrote:absorbtion of light by Dark Matter seems easily accepted

Huh? I thought CDM didn't interact with EM.

Sputnick wrote:the matter absorbs wavelengths other than red

Huh? How could this explain red shift?

Okay .. allowing more red to go through than the other wavelengths.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:If you won't listen to Einstein, you're not going to listen to me .. and your comment certainly validates what I have been saying, that your mind is closed.

I'm happy to listen to Einstein. Like I said, he was a clever guy, and said lots of good things (outside the realm of science). Many I agree with, many I do not. He's not some god, though. We aren't all obligated to take everything he said as gospel. His opinions about the intersection of science and philosophy are interesting, for multiple reasons. Einstein's opinions about physics carry great weight; his opinions about philosophy do not. (My own philosophical viewpoints are more in line with Feynman than with Einstein.)

BTW, if you value Einstein's opinions so highly, how do you deal with the fact that he accepted absolutely that the Universe is expanding, and that relativistic redshift was our evidence of this?

I have no doubt that the universe is in motion .. 'the heavens and the earth flee from the throne of God' - expanding is another concept. Like you said, Einstein may be right or wrong, but I feel definitely he is correct about the need for physicists to move into philosophy, as they will have no other way of explaining some effects, or possibly of imagining hypotheses from which research and results may spring.

makc wrote:

Sputnick wrote:...I am finding my time pretty well wasted anyway.

Please include the context .. or not .. it doesn't matter.

makc wrote:

Nereid wrote:In light of this stark difference which seems to have emerged, is there any point in continuing this thread?

@Nereid, you are new Captain Obvious. Sputnick does not see the science the way you do. Do we really need whole thread to find it out?

This discussion is not about finding out what I or Nereid think is science .. it is about finding out what science is. (Now we see through a universe darkly). According to Einstein, the 'science' of philosophy needs to become involved in the science of Physics. That is something I learned last night. Learning is good, Yes?

Sputnick wrote:I read it somewhere .. sometime .. during the past 40 years.

That's a long time when it comes to cosmology. Extend your reading scale far enough and you could argue that the Universe sits on the back of a turtle (or a stack of turtles).

To me, absorbtion of light by Dark Matter seems easily accepted .. and if Dark Matter turns out to be a reality, a matter which absorbs, for instance, all things being possible in science, that the matter absorbs wavelengths other than red .. well, let's get a beakerfull of Dark Matter, a candle, a bottle of wine, two or more glasses (or shall we drink straight from the bottle under a bridge, conducting our experiment by sifted sunlight).

It is possible that dark matter interacts weakly with EM, and therefore absorbs light. However, people have looked for such absorption and not found it. So there are some well defined upper limits on the degree to which dark matter can interact with light. That point aside, however, you are confusing the effects of absorption with what happens when light is redshifted. Suppose you take a low pressure gas lamp, containing a mixture of gases, and light it. If you pick your gases carefully, you might see something you'd call white light. Now, put a medium between you and it that selectively absorbs shorter wavelengths, and the light will appear reddish. That is reddening not redshift, and it is, in fact, observed astronomically. What's the difference? Well, if you look at the light from the lamp with a spectroscope, you'll see distinct emission lines associated with the different gasses. When you have the filtering medium in place, the shorter wavelengths will show less intensity, but the spectral bands will be in the same place they are without the filtering medium. But if you take the lamp and put it on a sled, and slide it away from you, you'll see the actual position of the spectral lines move. For example, the alpha Balmer line of hydrogen, which is at 656nm when the lamp is at rest, will be seen at a longer (redder) wavelength when the lamp is moving away. This is redshift (in this example, Doppler redshift, not relativistic redshift). This isn't something that needs esoteric equipment to measure, or assumptions about distant galaxies. This is an experiment you can do in a home lab, with pretty simple stuff. Amateur astronomers can easily measure both Doppler and relativistic redshifts.

One interesting consequence of redshift is that actual color isn't involved. For instance, a distant object may appear more blue because of redshift. Suppose it had two major emission lines, one in the near UV, and the other in the red. If it were not redshifted, it would look red to the eye. If it were moving away fast, or were far enough away that space was stretched, those lines would shift to longer wavelengths. The UV band would shift into blue, and the red would shift into IR. The result would be that the source that was red when stationary would now appear blue. Pretty obviously this result (which as I said, is demonstrable in the lab) cannot be explained by an absorption process that is selective for short wavelengths.

apodman wrote:

Sputnick wrote:Ignorance about what?

About everything you say. It's incredible. It's either a joke or an intentional continued pointless harangue.

Mixed with belligerence, ignorance makes an ugly cocktail.

I'm sorry you see it that way, Apod. However, that is the way I see the Big Bang crowd, so I suppose in consideration of every particle having an anti-particle, and those particles whizzing through our brains all the times, these differences of opinion are unavoidable.

Sputnick, did you noticed how Nereid nickname appears in red everywhere? This means, in particular, that within realm of this forum, science is whatever she says it is. Resistance is futile

Sputnick wrote:

apodman wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:This is something that has been looked at very closely for more than 50 years.

Yeah, but only by people like you.

I hate to pass on an opprtunity to comment on anything apodman says, but I can't understand what you are saying here.

I'm clearly mocking you, Sputnick.

and by the way, I have fixed quotes 4 times in this thread after you, Sputnick. how hard is to get it right?

Sputnick wrote:

apodman wrote:

Sputnick wrote:absorbtion of light by Dark Matter seems easily accepted

Huh? I thought CDM didn't interact with EM.

Sputnick wrote:the matter absorbs wavelengths other than red

Huh? How could this explain red shift?

Okay .. allowing more red to go through than the other wavelengths.

That's what we mean by "ignorance".

(edit: I havent paid attention enough... this post doesnt make sense)

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:If you won't listen to Einstein, you're not going to listen to me .. and your comment certainly validates what I have been saying, that your mind is closed.

I'm happy to listen to Einstein. Like I said, he was a clever guy, and said lots of good things (outside the realm of science). Many I agree with, many I do not. He's not some god, though. We aren't all obligated to take everything he said as gospel. His opinions about the intersection of science and philosophy are interesting, for multiple reasons. Einstein's opinions about physics carry great weight; his opinions about philosophy do not. (My own philosophical viewpoints are more in line with Feynman than with Einstein.)

BTW, if you value Einstein's opinions so highly, how do you deal with the fact that he accepted absolutely that the Universe is expanding, and that relativistic redshift was our evidence of this?

I have no doubt that the universe is in motion .. 'the heavens and the earth flee from the throne of God' - expanding is another concept. Like you said, Einstein may be right or wrong, but I feel definitely he is correct about the need for physicists to move into philosophy, as they will have no other way of explaining some effects, or possibly of imagining hypotheses from which research and results may spring.

To continue with what Chris P said ...

The application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe as a whole is what gives you (any unbiased, independent thinker, as well as Einstein) "the Universe is expanding". But it's not just any old expanding, it's a particular, specific expansion, "a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric" (or similar), to be precise.

Now comes the really interesting part ... "Plasma Cosmology" rejects this application of GR! And it does not by any grueling tests, rigorous examination, careful experimentation and observation, ... it does so, well, just because (and that is what makes PC non-science).

So how do you decide, Sputnick, which bits of what Einstein said you regard as correct, and which you regard as not correct?

Sputnick wrote:I have no doubt that the universe is in motion .. 'the heavens and the earth flee from the throne of God' - expanding is another concept. Like you said, Einstein may be right or wrong, but I feel definitely he is correct about the need for physicists to move into philosophy, as they will have no other way of explaining some effects, or possibly of imagining hypotheses from which research and results may spring.

So you feel strongly that Einstein was correct in his philosophical opinion about how physicists should view the world, but doubt his scientific opinion that the Universe is expanding? Wow, that really runs argumentum ad verecundiam through the ringer!

You do need to be careful quoting Einstein. It's kind of like quoting the Bible. For any point you wish to make, you can usually find one that contradicts it.

Nereid wrote:So how do you decide, Sputnick, which bits of what Einstein said you regard as correct, and which you regard as not correct?

How about a side bet, N? I bet Sputnick will write more words than Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity combined without addressing the question.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:I read it somewhere .. sometime .. during the past 40 years.

That's a long time when it comes to cosmology. Extend your reading scale far enough and you could argue that the Universe sits on the back of a turtle (or a stack of turtles).

To me, absorbtion of light by Dark Matter seems easily accepted .. and if Dark Matter turns out to be a reality, a matter which absorbs, for instance, all things being possible in science, that the matter absorbs wavelengths other than red .. well, let's get a beakerfull of Dark Matter, a candle, a bottle of wine, two or more glasses (or shall we drink straight from the bottle under a bridge, conducting our experiment by sifted sunlight).

It is possible that dark matter interacts weakly with EM, and therefore absorbs light. However, people have looked for such absorption and not found it. So there are some well defined upper limits on the degree to which dark matter can interact with light. That point aside, however, you are confusing the effects of absorption with what happens when light is redshifted. Suppose you take a low pressure gas lamp, containing a mixture of gases, and light it. If you pick your gases carefully, you might see something you'd call white light. Now, put a medium between you and it that selectively absorbs shorter wavelengths, and the light will appear reddish. That is reddening not redshift, and it is, in fact, observed astronomically. What's the difference? Well, if you look at the light from the lamp with a spectroscope, you'll see distinct emission lines associated with the different gasses. When you have the filtering medium in place, the shorter wavelengths will show less intensity, but the spectral bands will be in the same place they are without the filtering medium. But if you take the lamp and put it on a sled, and slide it away from you, you'll see the actual position of the spectral lines move. For example, the alpha Balmer line of hydrogen, which is at 656nm when the lamp is at rest, will be seen at a longer (redder) wavelength when the lamp is moving away. This is redshift (in this example, Doppler redshift, not relativistic redshift). This isn't something that needs esoteric equipment to measure, or assumptions about distant galaxies. This is an experiment you can do in a home lab, with pretty simple stuff. Amateur astronomers can easily measure both Doppler and relativistic redshifts.

One interesting consequence of redshift is that actual color isn't involved. For instance, a distant object may appear more blue because of redshift. Suppose it had two major emission lines, one in the near UV, and the other in the red. If it were not redshifted, it would look red to the eye. If it were moving away fast, or were far enough away that space was stretched, those lines would shift to longer wavelengths. The UV band would shift into blue, and the red would shift into IR. The result would be that the source that was red when stationary would now appear blue. Pretty obviously this result (which as I said, is demonstrable in the lab) cannot be explained by an absorption process that is selective for short wavelengths.

Excellent respnse in every way, Chris, thanks .. I printed it out and will take it home and read it again, along with Einstein.

Nereid wrote:So how do you decide, Sputnick, which bits of what Einstein said you regard as correct, and which you regard as not correct?

arent we all do it same way? by comparing to our own oppinion?

makc wrote:Sputnick, did you noticed how Nereid nickname appears in red everywhere? This means, in particular, that within realm of this forum, science is whatever she says it is. Resistance is futile

Yes, I did notice that redshift .. however .. I keep trying to persuade her to get drunk with me, red or white it would not matter much to me, even if I do prefer red, I would make the sacrifice for her sake, if need be. You're a wonderfully funny person, Mak.

makc wrote:

Nereid wrote:So how do you decide, Sputnick, which bits of what Einstein said you regard as correct, and which you regard as not correct?

arent we all do it same way? by comparing to our own oppinion?

Exactly - I've already trashed Einstein's opinion of an expanding universe .. well, sort of in a maybe kind of way. If I were around in his day, or he around now, perhaps I could persuade him to accept the 'universe on a slide' theory.