Telescopes

Quote

in RE it's called gravity, and it's caused by mass, not 'nothing'

If gravity is caused by mass, why is it that photons have gravitational fields?

Because e=mc².

Because e=mc².

Which part of that equation is referring to gravity?

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:03:20 PM

Because e=mc².

Which part of that equation is referring to gravity?

The part where energy is equivalent to mass.

The part where energy is equivalent to mass.

Gravity and energy are interchangeable?

An observation isn't an experiment. In Astronomy the astronomer can only observe and skies and create a hypothesis. That hypothesis cannot be put to the test like it can in other sciences.

Yes they can test what they see.
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Tell me more.
about reaction?
http://img219.imageshack.us/i/zuo.jpg/
fast translation:
Ullmann's reaction performed on the surface of copper
a) 2 C6H5I molecules adsorbed on Cu's surface, monoatomic level
b)C-I bonds torn apart
c)catching I molecule by blade (vertical manipulation - lack of I atom indicated by gray arrow)
d)moving phenyl radicals close to themselves (lateral manipulation)
e)recombination of phenyl radicals - C-C bond created
f)iodine atom moved from blade onto surface
source: S.W. Hla, K.H. Rieder: Superlattices and Microstructures, 31 (2002) 63.

Right. The star is tinted blue. How does that tell us anything about it or what it's doing?

it's telling us that we are moving toward or away from the object (doppler effect) they are other thing that can cause this, but they do not occur in your flat eart.

An observation isn't an experiment. In Astronomy the astronomer can only observe and skies and create a hypothesis. That hypothesis cannot be put to the test like it can in other sciences.

There are experiments, done by the stars, up in the sky - pulsars, magnetars, black holes, nebulas etc.. You just need to reach for the results also experiments mentioned by nocreyente (thanks )

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:18:30 PM

The part where energy is equivalent to mass.

Gravity and energy are interchangeable?

If mass causes gravity and energy is equivalent to mass then since photons have energy they cause gravity.

Ah, so you were really saying is that it's really mass and energy that cause gravity.

Quote from: Soze on July 23, 2009, 01:19:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:18:30 PM

The part where energy is equivalent to mass.

Gravity and energy are interchangeable?

If mass causes gravity and energy is equivalent to mass then since photons have energy they cause gravity.

Oh, so you RE'ers are wrong when you repeat that it's mass which causes gravity. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:26:31 PM

Quote from: Soze on July 23, 2009, 01:19:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:18:30 PM

The part where energy is equivalent to mass.

Gravity and energy are interchangeable?

If mass causes gravity and energy is equivalent to mass then since photons have energy they cause gravity.

Oh, so you RE'ers are wrong when you repeat that it's mass which causes gravity. Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually you're right, is not mass, is weight: is a force that results from the action of gravity on matter.

For practical purpose weight means the same as mass. But in this case, is more accurate use the word "weight".

Actually you're right, it's not mass, it's weight: a force that results from the action of gravity on matter.

For practical purposes, weight means the same as mass. But in this case, is more accurate use the word "weight".

omg. Weight causes gravity now?
Please tell me I misunderstood your post.

Quote from: nocreyente on July 23, 2009, 01:49:40 PM

Actually you're right, it's not mass, it's weight: a force that results from the action of gravity on matter.

For practical purposes, weight means the same as mass. But in this case, is more accurate use the word "weight".

omg. Weight causes gravity now?
Please tell me I misunderstood your post.

Yes.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weight
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weight

Sorry, but weight is a measurement of gravitation (the alleged cause).

Similarly, rulers do not cause length.

Quote

No, it's not, because we see emmision spectra blueshifted, and i hope that you're not saying that all chemists are in conspiracy

Right. The star is tinted blue. How does that tell us anything about it or what it's doing?

Again I say:

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

The star's "tint" is irrelevant ...

The fact that it's spectral lines - which are related to fundamental properties of its atoms - are shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum tells us the star's velocity relative to us.

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:26:31 PM

Quote from: Soze on July 23, 2009, 01:19:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 01:18:30 PM

The part where energy is equivalent to mass.

Gravity and energy are interchangeable?

If mass causes gravity and energy is equivalent to mass then since photons have energy they cause gravity.

Oh, so you RE'ers are wrong when you repeat that it's mass which causes gravity. Thanks for clearing that up.

Then why do you believe that photons have gravitational fields?

The star's "tint" is irrelevant ...

The fact that it's spectral lines - which are related to fundamental properties of its atoms - are shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum tells us the star's velocity relative to us.

Yeah. The star is blue. I know plenty of other things that are blue too. What does the color blue tell us about the nature of the universe?

Then why do you believe that photons have gravitational fields?

If photons do have gravitational fields, it's certainly not because of mass, as you guys mindlessly repeat.

Quote

Then why do you believe that photons have gravitational fields?

If photons do have gravitational fields, it's certainly not because of mass, as you guys mindlessly repeat.

That doesn't answer my question.  I asked what you believe does cause a photon's gravitational field.  I don't care what doesn't cause it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2009, 06:44:30 PM

Quote

Then why do you believe that photons have gravitational fields?

If photons do have gravitational fields, it's certainly not because of mass, as you guys mindlessly repeat.

That doesn't answer my question.  I asked what you believe does cause a photon's gravitational field.  I don't care what doesn't cause it.

I don't know and I don't care. I seek only by inquiry.

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2009, 07:23:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2009, 06:44:30 PM

Quote

Then why do you believe that photons have gravitational fields?

If photons do have gravitational fields, it's certainly not because of mass, as you guys mindlessly repeat.

That doesn't answer my question.  I asked what you believe does cause a photon's gravitational field.  I don't care what doesn't cause it.

I don't know and I don't care. I seek only by inquiry.

Then how do you know that a photon does have a gravitational field?  Have you measured it?

Then how do you know that a photon does have a gravitational field?

I was going by your model's hypothesis.

Quote

The star's "tint" is irrelevant ...

The fact that it's spectral lines - which are related to fundamental properties of its atoms - are shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum tells us the star's velocity relative to us.

Yeah. The star is blue. I know plenty of other things that are blue too. What does the color blue tell us about the nature of the universe?

IF THE STAR'S SPECTRA IS SHIFTED TOWARDS THE BLUE END OF THE SPECTRUM, IT'S MOVING TOWARDS US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

IF THE STAR'S SPECTRA IS SHIFTED TOWARDS THE BLUE END OF THE SPECTRUM, IT'S MOVING TOWARDS US

Right. That's the hypothesis. But how do we know that is the case?

Quote

IF THE STAR'S SPECTRA IS SHIFTED TOWARDS THE BLUE END OF THE SPECTRUM, IT'S MOVING TOWARDS US

Right. That's the hypothesis. But how do we know that is the case?

Listen to a car. As it approaches you, the waves become higher pitched (i.e. smaller wavelengths). As it travels away from you, the sound is lower pitched (lower wavelength). The same applies to all waves.

Listen to a car. As it approaches you, the waves become higher pitched (i.e. smaller wavelengths). As it travels away from you, the sound is lower pitched (lower wavelength). The same applies to all waves.

The same goes for sound. If you hear a single high pitched tone, how do you know whether it's because something is coming towards you or that the sound is simply high pitched?

Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 12:34:42 AM

Listen to a car. As it approaches you, the waves become higher pitched (i.e. smaller wavelengths). As it travels away from you, the sound is lower pitched (lower wavelength). The same applies to all waves.

The same goes for sound. If you hear a single high pitched tone, how do you know whether it's because something is coming towards you or that the sound is simply high pitched?

I don't know about sound, but for light it's easy. The line spectra of the elements will be shifted towards the blue end. The only other way a star can appear blue would be if it was a hot one, but the spectral lines would still be in the same place relative to one another.

I don't know about sound, but for light it's easy. The line spectra of the elements will be shifted towards the blue end.

So would blue stars.

Quote

I don't know about sound, but for light it's easy. The line spectra of the elements will be shifted towards the blue end.

So would blue stars.

No.



Sirius is a fairly obvious blue star. The Sun is not blue. However, the spectra are still in the same place. There are extra ones for our Sun, but they are for extra elements and have no bearing on anything we're discussing here.

Quote

I don't know about sound, but for light it's easy. The line spectra of the elements will be shifted towards the blue end.

So would blue stars.

Yet again I repeat:

Again I say:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 23, 2009, 09:53:03 AM

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

Tom is either an exceptionally rude/stupid/stubborn fool who cannot understand basic science ...

Or an exceptionally rude/annoying/stupid "troll" who likes to wind people up.

Either way, debating with him is a pointless and highly distasteful exercise.

He is either the kind of gullible moron that Rowbotham used to prey on in the 1800s ...

Or he is the kind of mallicious charlatan that Rowbotham was ...

Either way, debating with him is a pointless and highly distasteful exercise.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 12:52:30 AM

Quote

I don't know about sound, but for light it's easy. The line spectra of the elements will be shifted towards the blue end.

So would blue stars.

Yet again I repeat:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 23, 2009, 03:55:52 PM

Again I say:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 23, 2009, 09:53:03 AM

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

Tom is either an exceptionally rude/stupid/stubborn fool who cannot understand basic science ...

Or an exceptionally rude/annoying/stupid "troll" who likes to wind people up.

Either way, debating with him is a pointless and highly distasteful exercise.

He is either the kind of gullible moron that Rowbotham used to prey on in the 1800s ...

Or he is the kind of mallicious charlatan that Rowbotham was ...

Either way, debating with him is a pointless and highly distasteful exercise.

I dunno, he's not posted a comeback; I seem to have won.

No.



Sirius is a fairly obvious blue star. The Sun is not blue. However, the spectra are still in the same place. There are extra ones for our Sun, but they are for extra elements and have no bearing on anything we're discussing here.

Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.