Activity

  • tom sarbeck posted an update in the group Group logo of Science -- the kind that requires evidence and reason.Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 9 months, 2 weeks ago

    Claim:
    The hot bang best matches our observations,
    Debunk:
    The hot bang results from:
    1) a hypothesis without evidence that because red shift (light) is a Doppler effect (sound), the universe is expanding, and
    2) its expansion began from an imagined infinitely small and infinitely hot point. (LeMaitre’s ‘primeval atom).
    None of that was observed, so it’s wrong to claim a bang matches observations.

    • Well, as for your first point it’s a wonder that the thousands of airborne weather RADARs I have designed over the years are able to detect turbulence and windshear as they do by looking for opposing doppler shifts of the electromagnetic pulse that we transmit. We then alert you pilot so he or she doesn’t kill you. Its not like we are an audio device. Of course we are just a mini version of the ground based weather RADARs all over the country that use Doppler your local TV weatherman can look smart. You are gonna have to do better than claiming doppler only affects audio frequency waveforms. That is just wrong.

      • Robert, you say the radars you designed looked for opposing doppler SHIFTS. How certain are you that the radars did not look for doppler EFFECTS?
        Scroll down to the Brain Cox-Darwin interview you posted five months back. One month later (just above it), I posted Edwin Hubble’s use of both terms. You will see they are not synonomous.

      • Further, Robert, the Zwicky I cited in my below reply to Pope Beanie said tired light accounts for what Bangers refer to as doppler shifts.

        In short, doppler shifts do not exist in electromagnetism, but legions of Bangers insist that they do exist.

        Similar misuse of language was standard practice among people working in the Apollo program. They wrongly referred to the region between earth and moon as “translunar” when correct usage was “cislunar”.

        Doppler shifts do not exist in electromagnetism. A correct term would be “tired radiation”.

    • Then what causes red shift? (I dare you to evade yet another reasonable question!)

      • First, PB, a reply that requires some knowledge of physics.
        “Zwicky suggested that photons might slowly lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism. Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light’s wavelength, this effect would produce a redshift in spectral lines that increase proportionally with the distance of the source. The term “tired light” was coined by Richard Tolman in the early 1930s as a way to refer to this idea.” (From Wikipedia under “tired light” Bangers of course don’t agree.)

        Second, a reply that requires some knowledge of art, especially of color.
        On the color wheel, the term ‘red’ applies to a range of colors between o/range and violet. Thus, artists use the term to refer to a range of wave lenghts. As the Wiki article says, longer wave lengths survive the billions of miles
        Second

      • Continuing the above where interupted by a fingertip’s accidental touch.
        …As the Wiki article says, longer wave lengths survive their journey better than short wave lengths. The surviving wave lengths APPEAR to have been shifted. Bangers, having studied neither art nor electricity, gets things all wrong.

        BTW, I ignored your previous questions because I saw them as invitations to the Why Don’t You, Yes But game.
        I sidestepped the invite by replying to the first of your questions by asking if you were certain you wanted to start your personal journey.

    • OK, I see now that (at least some) physicists differentiate between the terms “doppler effect” and “doppler shift”. So, you’re not actually saying that recession of a star or galaxy does not cause redshift, but you’re saying that there is more than one possible cause of redshift. Right? (The physicist that I just read: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/610-what-is-the-difference-between-the-doppler-redshift-and-the-gravitational-or-cosmological-redshift-advanced ).

      • Beanie, the physicist you cite assumes the truth of expansion, aka recession.

        He assumes he sees all the wavelengths and concludes they are stretched,

        Instead, the shorter wavelengths do not survive their journey so he sees only the longer wavelengths.

        Then, like religious folk, he tells a story.

      • Read carefully what Edwin Hubble said:
        If … a Doppler shift, a curiously small, dense, suspiciouly young universe.
        If … not Doppler effects, a universe extended indefinitely in space and time.

        Bye bye Big Bang.

        • Tom, why don’t you just explain the difference between an electromagnetic doppler shift and a doppler effect, since I know a RADAR return is frequency shifted in either direction, proportionate to the velocity and direction of the target and that velocity is calculated by the doppler equation. Yes, the calculation for mechanical soundwaves are slightly more complicated because they require a medium whereas electromagnetic waves do not, however it’s basically the same shift calculation. You seem to think there is some big difference.

          • Robert, this discussion is about light on a one-way trip, not a radar signal on a two-way trip.
            It’s also about the loss of some of the light being interpreted as a frequency shift. I don’t know if some of the radar signal is being lost.

            As to a distinction between doppler shift and doppler effect, check Edwin Hubble’s use of the terms in my post near your Darwin post.