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

Groups > sci.physics > #593651 > unrolled thread

TALK: Maxwell Equations from Pair Production&Annihilation; but now, from transverse vs. longitudinal waves??

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#594245 — neutrinos and photons is the same as talking about electricity and magnetism Re: TALK

Now I have to explain a free electron or proton or alpha particle in Space. Since a electron or proton is a photon inside a neutrino torus tube. How can we picture such a structure moving in free space?

We know the electron, since it has rest mass, cannot move at the speed of light, but it moves very fast and almost at the speed of light. So how do we see that? Is it a torus tube inside another neutrino open ended tube? Like a pea-shooter tube, where the pea is an electron and the tube a neutrino open ended tube? So we have two neutrino tubes involved, the electron as a closed torus tube with photon inside and this electron moving in free space as inside a second neutrino that is open ended?

If true, all of a sudden, we are going to need a lot, a huge amount of neutrinos and photons to exist in the world.

So, ask yourself, does the World have a huge supply of neutrinos and photons, or is the world rather stingy and parsimonious with photons and neutrinos. Because in Old Physics, you have neutrinos super abundant and not doing any job, purpose or function. In New Physics you have super abundant neutrinos, because, well, they are everywhere where there is electrons, protons, atoms etc. You need them everywhere in order to create subatomic particles and lend passage to these particles. In other words, the neutrino and photon not only occupy Space, but are Space. And all the Matter that exists, can be stripped down to a combination of neutrino and photon. This stripping down is the same as all Matter is a combination of Electricity and Magnetism.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594296 — excess of electrons & positrons in supernova, due to neutrino tubes with photon inside Re: TALK

A few weeks ago when I hypothesized that a electron and positron were trapped photons inside a neutrino tube, closed torus tube, which predicts excess of electrons and positrons where there is a abundance of neutrinos and gamma rays.

So I suggested a experiment here on Earth where we fire a beam of neutrinos head on into a gamma ray beam and see if there are electrons and positrons produced. Apparently no physicist has ever done that, so I encourage some to go ahead and commit to doing that-- see if positrons and electrons are produced.

However, and I had no idea that there is already observation evidence that electrons and positrons are produced in excess in the Sun and in supernova.

I used the search terms supernova excess electrons positrons and found these hits:

out 50,700 results
Could pulsars explain the positron excess? - physicsworld.com
physicsworld.com/cws/.../could-pulsars-explain-the-positron-excess‎
Apr 15, 2014 ... Invoking dark matter as a means to explain the excess of positrons ... of positrons – the antimatter counterpart of electrons – coming from ... "I believe the positron excess is most naturally explained by a nearby supernova ...
[PDF] Could pulsars explain the positron excess? - AMS-02
ams.nasa.gov/.../Could%20pulsars%20explain%20the%20positron%20excess. pdf‎
Apr 15, 2014 ... Invoking dark matter as a means to explain the excess of positrons observed last year ... electrons – coming from beyond the solar system. ... such as supernova remnants, and those created by cosmic rays interacting with.
Physics - Viewpoint: Positrons Galore
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/40‎
Apr 3, 2013 ... There is a tantalizing—and much touted—possibility that this excess could be a ... one produced by a supernova remnant—collides with the nucleus of a ... Energetic electrons and positrons arriving at Earth will therefore ...
Very High Energy Electrons - CALET: CALorimetric Electron ...
calet.phys.lsu.edu/Science/VHEE.php‎
current data and to models for origin of the excess electrons ... from a number of nearby supernova remnants/pulsars, both for total electrons and for positrons.
'Excess' of primary cosmic ray electrons - ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269315006024‎
With the accurate cosmic ray (CR) electron and positron spectra (denoted as ... in homogeneously-distributed supernova remnants and the primary electrons ...
Positron fraction - I. Physikalisches Institut B RWTH Aachen
www1b.physik.rwth-aachen.de/~pebs/?PEBS_physics:Positron...‎
Because of their low mass, electrons and positrons are strongly affected by ... For shock-acceleration in supernova remnants, values of α slightly larger than 2.0 are ... Nevertheless, the HEAT results indicated a small excess of positrons above ...
[PDF] Interpretation of AMS-02 electrons and positrons data - arXiv.org
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0321‎
The secondary electron and positron fluxes originate from interactions ... Specifically, we study the possible contribution that supernova remnants (SNRs).
Positrons from pulsar winds
arxiv.org/abs/1007.4745‎
Jul 27, 2010 ... Electrons are initially extracted from the surface of the star by the intense ... As long as the pulsar wind is embedded in the supernova remnant these ... contribute to the positron excess that has recently been detected by the ...
[PDF] Can we explain AMS-02 antiproton and positron excesses ...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.01236‎
supernova age of ∼ 105 years, while the antiproton excess may extend to ... the antiproton fraction, positron fraction, and total electron and positron flux in light ...
[PDF] The positron fraction - T30d
www.t30d.ph.tum.de/.../Anna_Lamperstorfer_PositronFraction.pdf‎
Jan 10, 2014 ... Production of electrons and positrons. – Propagation. – Solar modulation. ○ Possible explanations of the excess ... supernova remnants.

--- end hits ---

One of the most intrigue finds above is that there seems to be an excess of antiprotons, in addition to electron and positron excess.

So, please, do the experiment of firing a beam of neutrinos into a beam of gamma rays, where they need no atomic nucleus for pair production, and see if these two beams yield electrons and positrons, perhaps, even antiprotons.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594338 — why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most part believe in Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a blueshift.

But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever have a blueshift, since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift, none blue.

So when one tries to find out the amount of blueshift versus redshift, there is complete silence and absence of data.

It must be one of the most silly and embarrassing spots in astronomy and physics today. 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594343 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On 8/23/2016 1:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most part believe in
> Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a blueshift.
>
> But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever have a blueshift,
> since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift, none blue.

But the balloon is only an oversimplified analogy, not to be taken as 
what the model is.

>
> So when one tries to find out the amount of blueshift versus redshift, there is
> complete silence and absence of data.

Simply not true. There is plenty of data on which galaxies are 
blueshifted and how many of them there are compared with those that are 
redshifted. But, as you've encountered many times, you don't seem to be 
able to find it.

>
> It must be one of the most silly and embarrassing spots in astronomy and physics today.

Not at all.

>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594359 — many in sci.physics that do not belong Re: TALK

Some none-physicist who does not belong in sci.physics wrote:

> 
> But the balloon is only an oversimplified analogy, not to be taken as 
> what the model is.
> 

Should you be reading your Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein rather than posting your stupid thoughts in sci.physics?

The failed physicist talking like a philosopher with loose marbles. So, when you want Cosmic Expansion and Redshift you have a balloon understanding. But when people complain-- that is illogical--, then we hear "that is just an oversimplified model". When students are captured by having to get grades, they are fed balloon model even though they smell something rotten. But when logical people say-- there should not be any blueshift-- they are fed the nonsense that it is not a model. So, make up your schizophrenic mind on balloon model.

What we need is a listing of blueshifts versus redshifts. Hard core data listings. We do not need failed physicists mouthing off and hiding behind a fake name.

The worst scandals in physics and astronomer are Big Bang, black-holes, dark-matter and dark-energy.

The minor scandals are the ionized hydrogen in the sun photosphere and the excess electrons and positrons in the Cosmos.

The Ionized Hydrogen in the Sun has been around since the 1950s and still, no physicist with an explanation. I have the explanation-- photons inside neutrinos cause excess electrons, positrons.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594377 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On 8/23/2016 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 1:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most
>> part believe in
>> Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a
>> blueshift.
>>
>> But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever
>> have a blueshift,
>> since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift,
>> none blue.
>
> But the balloon is only an oversimplified analogy, not to be taken as
> what the model is.

So if the analogy is stupid then why use it and pretend it makes sense? 
Truth is all you establishment propagandists (what shall I call you?) 
all use the "balloon" model as "proof" that the Big Bang isn't bullshit, 
and then when it's pointed out that balloon model REQUIRES additional 
dimensions to work, you turn around and flatly deny the model is true. I 
do believe this is termed insanity.

>> So when one tries to find out the amount of blueshift versus redshift,
>> there is
>> complete silence and absence of data.
>
> Simply not true. There is plenty of data on which galaxies are
> blueshifted and how many of them there are compared with those that are
> redshifted. But, as you've encountered many times, you don't seem to be
> able to find it.

Ah, so this is like Wormley's warmball theories where "established 
science" is always determined by a democratic vote.

>> It must be one of the most silly and embarrassing spots in astronomy
>> and physics today.
>
> Not at all.

Bwahahahaha! Look at the Chutzpah, archie-poo! Boinker will look you in 
the eye with any huge embarrassing lie and they without missing a beat 
look you in the eye and swear nobody is embarrassed by it.

Boinker is really a piece of work.

Sorry boinker, I didn't notice you were responding to Acrchie-poo until 
it was too late. It's OK. You've got a tough hide.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594474 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On 8/23/2016 5:05 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 1:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most
>>> part believe in
>>> Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a
>>> blueshift.
>>>
>>> But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever
>>> have a blueshift,
>>> since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift,
>>> none blue.
>>
>> But the balloon is only an oversimplified analogy, not to be taken as
>> what the model is.
>
> So if the analogy is stupid then why use it and pretend it makes sense?
> Truth is all you establishment propagandists (what shall I call you?)
> all use the "balloon" model as "proof" that the Big Bang isn't bullshit,
> and then when it's pointed out that balloon model REQUIRES additional
> dimensions to work, you turn around and flatly deny the model is true. I
> do believe this is termed insanity.

Ben, Ben, Ben. You obviously don't have any idea what analogies are for. 
People like you think analogies are for saying "It's exactly like this." 
They're not. People like you think that analogies are for making a 
convincing argument in the truth of the proposition. They're not.  They 
are simply there to try to HELP explain by association with something 
related. Not the same, but related.

>
>>> So when one tries to find out the amount of blueshift versus redshift,
>>> there is
>>> complete silence and absence of data.
>>
>> Simply not true. There is plenty of data on which galaxies are
>> blueshifted and how many of them there are compared with those that are
>> redshifted. But, as you've encountered many times, you don't seem to be
>> able to find it.
>
> Ah, so this is like Wormley's warmball theories where "established
> science" is always determined by a democratic vote.

No, it's about Archimedes claiming that since he can't find any data, 
then the data must be hidden or nonexistent, when the fact is that the 
data are readily found and he just can't do it.

>
>>> It must be one of the most silly and embarrassing spots in astronomy
>>> and physics today.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Bwahahahaha! Look at the Chutzpah, archie-poo! Boinker will look you in
> the eye with any huge embarrassing lie and they without missing a beat
> look you in the eye and swear nobody is embarrassed by it.

What lie?

>
> Boinker is really a piece of work.
>
> Sorry boinker, I didn't notice you were responding to Acrchie-poo until
> it was too late. It's OK. You've got a tough hide.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594556 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On 8/24/2016 8:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/23/2016 5:05 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 1:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>> Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most
>>>> part believe in
>>>> Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a
>>>> blueshift.
>>>>
>>>> But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever
>>>> have a blueshift,
>>>> since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift,
>>>> none blue.
>>>
>>> But the balloon is only an oversimplified analogy, not to be taken as
>>> what the model is.
>>
>> So if the analogy is stupid then why use it and pretend it makes sense?
>> Truth is all you establishment propagandists (what shall I call you?)
>> all use the "balloon" model as "proof" that the Big Bang isn't bullshit,
>> and then when it's pointed out that balloon model REQUIRES additional
>> dimensions to work, you turn around and flatly deny the model is true. I
>> do believe this is termed insanity.
>
> Ben, Ben, Ben. You obviously don't have any idea what analogies are for.
> People like you think analogies are for saying "It's exactly like this."
> They're not. People like you think that analogies are for making a
> convincing argument in the truth of the proposition. They're not.  They
> are simply there to try to HELP explain by association with something
> related. Not the same, but related.

Obviously you haven't noticed that mathematics (laws of nature) are 
analogies to reality. So is math more real than reality or not? I know 
what you believe.

>>>> So when one tries to find out the amount of blueshift versus redshift,
>>>> there is
>>>> complete silence and absence of data.
>>>
>>> Simply not true. There is plenty of data on which galaxies are
>>> blueshifted and how many of them there are compared with those that are
>>> redshifted. But, as you've encountered many times, you don't seem to be
>>> able to find it.
>>
>> Ah, so this is like Wormley's warmball theories where "established
>> science" is always determined by a democratic vote.
>
> No, it's about Archimedes claiming that since he can't find any data,
> then the data must be hidden or nonexistent, when the fact is that the
> data are readily found and he just can't do it.
>
>>
>>>> It must be one of the most silly and embarrassing spots in astronomy
>>>> and physics today.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>> Bwahahahaha! Look at the Chutzpah, archie-poo! Boinker will look you in
>> the eye with any huge embarrassing lie and they without missing a beat
>> look you in the eye and swear nobody is embarrassed by it.
>
> What lie?
>
>>
>> Boinker is really a piece of work.
>>
>> Sorry boinker, I didn't notice you were responding to Acrchie-poo until
>> it was too late. It's OK. You've got a tough hide.
>>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594568 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On 8/24/2016 3:31 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/24/2016 8:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/23/2016 5:05 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2016 2:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2016 1:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>>> Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most
>>>>> part believe in
>>>>> Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a
>>>>> blueshift.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever
>>>>> have a blueshift,
>>>>> since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift,
>>>>> none blue.
>>>>
>>>> But the balloon is only an oversimplified analogy, not to be taken as
>>>> what the model is.
>>>
>>> So if the analogy is stupid then why use it and pretend it makes sense?
>>> Truth is all you establishment propagandists (what shall I call you?)
>>> all use the "balloon" model as "proof" that the Big Bang isn't bullshit,
>>> and then when it's pointed out that balloon model REQUIRES additional
>>> dimensions to work, you turn around and flatly deny the model is true. I
>>> do believe this is termed insanity.
>>
>> Ben, Ben, Ben. You obviously don't have any idea what analogies are for.
>> People like you think analogies are for saying "It's exactly like this."
>> They're not. People like you think that analogies are for making a
>> convincing argument in the truth of the proposition. They're not.  They
>> are simply there to try to HELP explain by association with something
>> related. Not the same, but related.
>
> Obviously you haven't noticed that mathematics (laws of nature) are
> analogies to reality.

Really? Who says?

> So is math more real than reality or not? I know
> what you believe.
>

No you don't. But you're prepared to lie about it.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594454 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:

>Physics hidden embarrassement of blueshift. Astronomers for the most part believe in Doppler shift of light and they report some stars and galaxies with a blueshift.
>
>But they never make any sense on how a Cosmic expansion could ever have a blueshift, since every point on a balloon surface as example would be redshift, none blue.
>
>So when one tries to find out the amount of blueshift versus redshift, there is complete silence and absence of data.
>
>It must be one of the most silly and embarrassing spots in astronomy and physics today. 
>
>AP

There are many possibilities for blue shifts. Some galaxies are part
of clusters that are rotating and if the tangential part (relative to
cluster center) of their velocity exceeds the overall recession
velocity of the cluster, they will actually be approaching us and
provide a blue Doppler shift. The cluster itself could also be
expanding or contracting which gives another term to their radial
(relative to us) velocity component (earth approach velocity).

I would expect most distant galaxies near the edge (receding at v
close to c) to have recession velocities much greater than their
cluster rotation velocities so there should be fewer blue shifts as we
examine more distant galaxies. However, since these galaxies are 10-15
billion years in the past, they may be compact and dense and thus
rotating faster than nearer/newer ones so there still might be some
blue shifts near "the edge."

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594460 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:44:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:

> 
> There are many possibilities for blue shifts. Some galaxies are part
> of clusters that are rotating and if the tangential part (relative to
> cluster center) of their velocity exceeds the overall recession
> velocity of the cluster, they will actually be approaching us and
> provide a blue Doppler shift. The cluster itself could also be
> expanding or contracting which gives another term to their radial
> (relative to us) velocity component (earth approach velocity).
> 
> I would expect most distant galaxies near the edge (receding at v
> close to c) to have recession velocities much greater than their
> cluster rotation velocities so there should be fewer blue shifts as we
> examine more distant galaxies. However, since these galaxies are 10-15
> billion years in the past, they may be compact and dense and thus
> rotating faster than nearer/newer ones so there still might be some
> blue shifts near "the edge."
> 

Why did Hubble reject Doppler effect on Light, later in his life. You would think the discoverer of astronomy redshift would make him a fan of Doppler effect always.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594472 — Re: Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:49:24 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:44:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:
>
>> 
>> There are many possibilities for blue shifts. Some galaxies are part
>> of clusters that are rotating and if the tangential part (relative to
>> cluster center) of their velocity exceeds the overall recession
>> velocity of the cluster, they will actually be approaching us and
>> provide a blue Doppler shift. The cluster itself could also be
>> expanding or contracting which gives another term to their radial
>> (relative to us) velocity component (earth approach velocity).
>> 
>> I would expect most distant galaxies near the edge (receding at v
>> close to c) to have recession velocities much greater than their
>> cluster rotation velocities so there should be fewer blue shifts as we
>> examine more distant galaxies. However, since these galaxies are 10-15
>> billion years in the past, they may be compact and dense and thus
>> rotating faster than nearer/newer ones so there still might be some
>> blue shifts near "the edge."
>> 
>
>Why did Hubble reject Doppler effect on Light, later in his life. You would think the discoverer of astronomy redshift would make him a fan of Doppler effect always.

Do you have a cite for Hubble rejecting Doppler effect on light or are
you just asserting that he did?

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594552 — a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift Re: TALK

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:06:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:49:24 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:44:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> There are many possibilities for blue shifts. Some galaxies are part
> >> of clusters that are rotating and if the tangential part (relative to
> >> cluster center) of their velocity exceeds the overall recession
> >> velocity of the cluster, they will actually be approaching us and
> >> provide a blue Doppler shift. The cluster itself could also be
> >> expanding or contracting which gives another term to their radial
> >> (relative to us) velocity component (earth approach velocity).
> >> 
> >> I would expect most distant galaxies near the edge (receding at v
> >> close to c) to have recession velocities much greater than their
> >> cluster rotation velocities so there should be fewer blue shifts as we
> >> examine more distant galaxies. However, since these galaxies are 10-15
> >> billion years in the past, they may be compact and dense and thus
> >> rotating faster than nearer/newer ones so there still might be some
> >> blue shifts near "the edge."
> >> 
> >
> >Why did Hubble reject Doppler effect on Light, later in his life. You would think the discoverer of astronomy redshift would make him a fan of Doppler effect always.
> 
> Do you have a cite for Hubble rejecting Doppler effect on light or are
> you just asserting that he did?
> 

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  ...

Listen up stupid bozo, if you are so dumb as to not know this about Hubble. You have nothing to discuss or teach here in sci.physics, and a waste of other people's time. 

You are now in my Blockfile.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594633 — Re: a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift Re: TALK

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:06:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:49:24 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:44:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Strickland wrote:
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> There are many possibilities for blue shifts. Some galaxies are part
>> >> of clusters that are rotating and if the tangential part (relative to
>> >> cluster center) of their velocity exceeds the overall recession
>> >> velocity of the cluster, they will actually be approaching us and
>> >> provide a blue Doppler shift. The cluster itself could also be
>> >> expanding or contracting which gives another term to their radial
>> >> (relative to us) velocity component (earth approach velocity).
>> >> 
>> >> I would expect most distant galaxies near the edge (receding at v
>> >> close to c) to have recession velocities much greater than their
>> >> cluster rotation velocities so there should be fewer blue shifts as we
>> >> examine more distant galaxies. However, since these galaxies are 10-15
>> >> billion years in the past, they may be compact and dense and thus
>> >> rotating faster than nearer/newer ones so there still might be some
>> >> blue shifts near "the edge."
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Why did Hubble reject Doppler effect on Light, later in his life. You would think the discoverer of astronomy redshift would make him a fan of Doppler effect always.
>> 
>> Do you have a cite for Hubble rejecting Doppler effect on light or are
>> you just asserting that he did?
>> 
>
>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  ...
>
>Listen up stupid bozo, if you are so dumb as to not know this about Hubble. You have nothing to discuss or teach here in sci.physics, and a waste of other people's time. 
>
>You are now in my Blockfile.
>
>AP

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. Btw, I don't follow links from UseNet,. Do you have quote from
Hubble himself is that just an assertion by an author?

I'll reciprocate and put you in my killfile. Thanks.


---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594738 — Re: a poster in sci.physics that never knew Hubble rejected Doppler redshift

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594559 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On 8/24/2016 7:06 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:

> Do you have a cite for Hubble rejecting Doppler effect on light or are
> you just asserting that he did?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>


    *cite* ? *asserting* ?


where are you from ?  planet Mongo ?


       argumentative zipper-head.

is this you ?


http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Michael_Strickland_8264615/

go google for it google is your fiend.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594628 — Re: Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:39:25 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 8/24/2016 7:06 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>
>> Do you have a cite for Hubble rejecting Doppler effect on light or are
>> you just asserting that he did?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>    *cite* ? *asserting* ?
>
>
>where are you from ?  planet Mongo ?
>
>
>       argumentative zipper-head.
>
>is this you ?
>
>
>http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Michael_Strickland_8264615/
>
>go google for it google is your fiend.

No suck-head. I've never been arrested in Florida.

I've never spent much time in Florida, though. If I had some wimp like
you probably would have started a fight with me and I'd have gone for
winning it though.

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594620 — Re: why no astronomer and physicist talks about blueshift amount Re: TALK

Michael J.  Strickland wrote:

> There are many possibilities for blue shifts. Some galaxies are part
> of clusters that are rotating

Cite evidence.

> and if the tangential part (relative to cluster center) of their velocity
> exceeds the overall recession velocity of the cluster, they will actually
> be approaching us and provide a blue Doppler shift.

[That would be _(Doppler) blueshift_.]

If they would not fly apart then instead.  You can put the proper distance 
to a galaxy cluster (which tends to be very far away: 10⁹ light-years and 
more) into Hubble’s law to calculate its recessional velocity.  You will 
probably be surprised.

-- 
PointedEars

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web