-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
They call it scattering for a reason.
Galaxy NGC 4603 100 million ly away without blurring even though all of the light from this star is redshifted at all wavelengths meaning that all of the light had to change trajectory per plasma redshift. You can still pick out fine details and even cepheid variables. The details in this galaxy are no different than the details seen in closer galaxies.
Upvote
0
Ya, I'll bet it was a "bad example" alright.Too bad I missed it.
It was an artistic rendition.
Upvote
0
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Tracing the Evolution of the First Galaxies in the Universe (09/13/2006) - Release Images
Here's a few. Which one is as "clear" and non-blurred as your close galaxy?
Here's a few. Which one is as "clear" and non-blurred as your close galaxy?
Upvote
0
Deep field photo showing clear disk shaped galaxies:
File:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We should be able to get that type of clarity if PC is true.
Upvote
0
The most distant ones look a lot more blurry to me than your close up image of a nearby galaxy. Some of the wavelengths in the link I provided you with show nothing more that mere "smudges", sometimes *multiple* smudges!
Here was my favorite line of the link I handed you:
In other words *so much* inelastic scattering takes place between here and there, that some wavelengths simply don't make it at all, and *that* is how they determine that it's a "distant" galaxy.
Upvote
0
ESA Science & Technology: Young Galaxy in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field at Redshift 5.76
It looks like nothing more than a red smudge and that's not a even a 7 redshift.
It looks like nothing more than a red smudge and that's not a even a 7 redshift.
Upvote
0
Er...what? This is mathematics. Simple mathematics. Quantum mechanics does not work like classical macroscopic mechanics the way you clearly think it does...
If you think astronomy (and physics) students are "brainwashed" into getting equations right, then I'm truly astounded how little you know. Unless you can show how the Compton equation is wrong, or a way you can insert a zero value for theta and come out with any other result for λ' - λ??? This isn't esoteric math, this is simple high school math. By the way, Compton scattering most definitely could take place in the cosmos, it just cannot be part of the observed cosmological redshift. It's a mathematical impossibility.
So wait...you're now embracing the notion of blurring, and trying to say that distant redshift galaxies are in fact "blurred" (a fairly meaningless word, btw, used by either side) because of their redshift, as opposed to because they are billions of light years more distant relative to us than their closer cousins?
Upvote
0
That is just the resolution of the actual telescope. You can still pick out distinct arms, even in the smallest galaxies. That is not what you would see if PC was true.
In other words *so much* inelastic scattering takes place between here and there, that some wavelengths simply don't make it at all, and *that* is how they determine that it's a "distant" galaxy.
Notice how scattering is wavelength dependent whereas the observed redshift is not.
Upvote
0
In other words *so much* inelastic scattering takes place between here and there, that some wavelengths simply don't make it at all, and *that* is how they determine that it's a "distant" galaxy.
Oh man - you're so close to figuring this out now. You see and acknowledge wavelength dependence...just take the next step to realising something wavelength dependent can't be a 'bit of' something wavelength independent and you'll be there...
Upvote
0
Did you take a look at the pixelation? The feature you are pointing to is only a few pixels in diameter.
Upvote
0
I would say it is more like Michael did not do the basic research that someone with a scientific background would do.
Upvote
0
Wrong, because you did not read what was cited.
The red shift in the spectra of distant nebulae Shelton, H. S. 1953
This is the guy who proposed a Compton tired light theory.
There is a further exchange of letters that widens the scope to any scattering. That any scattering violates the conservation of momentum was shown in:
The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954
That paper apples the laws of physics to any scattering at all.
The physics is farily simple and clearly valid.
It starts with the photon losing energy and transfering it to the particle in question.
Equation 1 is the 'energy-relation', i.e. conservation of energy. There is a change in energy of the particle caused by a change in the forward component of the velocity (v1). There is no change in the transverse component of the velocity. This gives
mdv1=dE/v1 to first order
Equation 2 is the longitudinal conservation of momentum in the system. The left hand side is the momentum before the 'scattering'. The right hand side is the momentum after the 'scattering'.
mdv1=dE/c
So longitudinal conservation is conserved if mdv1=dE/c but mdv1=dE/v1
!IOW longitudinal conservation is conserved only if the massive particle is travelling at the speed of light.
The way to resolve the non-conservation of momentum is to introduce transverse components, i.e. non-zero scattering angles.
Upvote
0
Actually what he showed was that it does not work for *for any scattering* including Brillouin scattering and Raman scattering.
Read: The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies Atkinson, Robert d'Escourt 1954
Robert d'Escourt explicitly states that he is no longer considering just Compton scattering. He is responding to Shelton's "not prepared to guess in detail" about the interaction by showing that any interaction with just changes in the forward velocity of the particle violates the conservation of momentum.
Upvote
0
In other words *so much* absorption takes place between here and there, that some wavelengths simply don't make it at all, and *that* is one way they determine that it's a "distant" galaxy.Here was my favorite line of the link I handed you:
In other words *so much* inelastic scattering takes place between here and there, that some wavelengths simply don't make it at all, and *that* is how they determine that it's a "distant" galaxy.
The science is that it is hard to measure the red shifts of distant galaxies. You need to take a wide enough spectrum of the galaxy so that you get enough details of the emission lines to clearly identify them. The above technique is useful to identify high z galaxies so that the efforts in measuring the redshift accurately is minimized.
P.S. According to the tired light theories you like so much, Michael, this technique cannot work because galaxies have always been around and so there is no " large amounts of neutral hydrogen in the universe at early times". Tired light theories with eternal universes predict that there is no neutral hydrogen at all because galaxies have been around forever and have ionized all of the H.
Upvote
0
None of them because they are pixelatted.
What you need, Michael, are images that are not at the extreme limits of what can be detected and so extend over more than a few pixels.
Find some close by galaxies, e.g. ~100 million light years.
Fine some distant galaxies, e.g. ~1000 million light years.
Compare them.
Or ask an astronomer who has looked at thousands of these images, e.g. Ned Wright: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
Or read what an astronomer who had looked at thousands of these images, said: Tired light
Of course you have been ignoring the conclusions of these professional astronomers and so will continue to do so.
Upvote
0
Actually Robert Atkinson was his name, but the point is correct. He also trained as a physicist, not specifically as an astronomer, and his PhD was in theoretical physics.
Upvote
0
You're the one making the claim that "no blurring" takes place, not me. Your claim is entirely unsupportable in terms of actual imagery. As that page I cited points out, some wavelengths are *blocked entirely*, whereas other wavelengths are not. It depends on *many* factors, but the claim that "no blurring" is observed in highly redshifted objects is simply not supported by the evidence.
Upvote
0
No, he does not! All he demonstrated is that *one author's use of Compton scattering" was not tenable. Period. The math is quite simple but it only relates to *one author's* argument, and *one* kind of scattering!
Upvote
0
Why should it be 'wavelength dependent' in the first place if not due to *scattering*!
I'm afraid I'm not following your logic. The process, whatever it might be, *is* actually wavelength dependent, as I would expect. Some light on some wavelengths get's through, other wavelengths cannot penetrate that far through the plasma. It's an observation that is entirely consistent with a scattering process IMO.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
