Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #594738

Re: a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift

Show all headers | View raw

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> […] Archimedes Plutonium […] wrote:
>> Science in the Early Twentieth Century: An Encyclopedia - Google Books
>> Result https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1851096655
>> Jacob Darwin Hamblin - ?2005 - Reference
>> By the late 1930s, Hubble began to reject the Doppler interpretation
>> altogether, although cosmologists in turn rejected his interpretations of
>> his own data and ... Edwin Powell Hubble Facts, information, pictures |
>> Encyclopedia ... www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edwin_Powell_Hubble.aspx?
>> As a result of his investigations with Tolman, Hubble was inclined, from
>> about 1936, to reject the Doppler-effect interpretation of the red shifts
>> and to regard the  ...
>> […]
>>
>> You are now in my Blockfile.

LOL

> The late thirties saw the wider acceptance of SR and there is a
> different SR Doppler formula so he might have been misinterpreted as
> saying his older Doppler corrections were off and required SR
> corrections for the farther out galaxies receding at relativistic
> speeds. 

As discussed before, special relativity is insufficient to explain the 
redshift of farther away galaxies (z > 1.5) as their recessional velocity 
exceeds the speed of light; one needs general relativity:

Davis, T. M. & Lineweaver, C. H. (2004). Expanding Confusion: Common 
Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of 
the Universe. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, pp 
97-109. doi:10.1071/AS03040. Ҥ3.1 Misconception #1: Recession Velocities 
Cannot Exceed the Speed of Light”.
<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8838887&fileId=S132335800000607X>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space>

And how did you get the idea that it took the late 1930s for “a wider 
acceptance of SR”?  SR was widely accepted by 1919 already, when GR was 
first confirmed.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity#Acceptance_of_special_relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

TALK: Maxwell Equations from Pair Production&Annihilation; but now, from transverse vs. longitudinal waves?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 02:06 -0700
  electron=longitudinal wave carrying a transverse wave inside itself; Unifying Atomic physics with Maxwell Equations Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 10:27 -0700
    electron=longitudinal wave carrying a transverse wave inside itself; Unifying Atomic physics with Maxwell Equations Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 12:11 -0700
      photon function is to carry magnetism of electromagnetism and neutrino carries the electro part Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:30 -0700
        photon function is to carry magnetism of electromagnetism and neutrino carries the electro part Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:42 -0700
          Neutrino as messenger carriers is responsible for Superconductivity Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 23:31 -0700
          how Maxwell New Equations explains the Physics Particle Zoo Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 14:16 -0700
            how Maxwell New Equations explains the Physics Particle Zoo Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 16:29 -0700
            explaining why electric current moves on the surface of conductor Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 20:12 -0700
              Law of Magnetism is div*B = r_B not div*B = 0 Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 21:48 -0700
                magnetism is photon or neutrino; electricity is photon inside a neutrino Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 23:08 -0700
                magnetism is photon or neutrino; electricity is photon inside a neutrino Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 23:58 -0700
                straightline motion in physics-- does it exist? Re: magnetism is photon or neutrino; electricity is photon inside a neutrino Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:11 -0700
                Rule of 200 for rest-mass in physics Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 15:05 -0700
                Rule of 200 for rest-mass in physics Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 18:15 -0700
                new Experiment-- shoot a stream of gamma photons into stream of neutrinos  Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 21:59 -0700
                Negative Ion Anomaly of hydrogen in photosphere Re: new Experiment-- shoot a stream of gamma photons into neutrino beam Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 00:57 -0700
                when neutrino tubes are open and when closed torus tube Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 15:44 -0700
                settling what happens in Pair Production Re: when neutrino tubes are open and when closed torus tube Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 20:16 -0700
                Astronomy evidence that a electron is a photon inside a neutrino torus tube-- Hydrogen ions on Sun; excess positrons Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 00:26 -0700
                neutrinos and photons is the same as talking about electricity and magnetism Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:30 -0700
                excess of electrons & positrons in supernova, due to neutrino tubes with photon inside Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 01:53 -0700
                why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 11:03 -0700
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 13:34 -0500
                many in sci.physics that do not belong Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 12:48 -0700
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-23 18:05 -0400
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 07:26 -0500
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-24 16:31 -0400
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 15:59 -0500
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 03:44 -0400
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 01:49 -0700
                Re: Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-24 08:06 -0400
                a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift Re: TALK Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:29 -0700
                Re: a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift Re: TALK Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 02:10 -0400
                Re: a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-26 06:16 +0200
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-24 15:39 -0500
                Re: Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-25 01:22 -0400
                Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-25 06:26 +0200

csiph-web