« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Telescopes

  • 226 Replies
  • 58010 Views
?

Redingold

  • 164
  • +0/-0
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2009, 01:48:14 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 01:45:06 AM
Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 12:57:27 AM
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.

I see that you didn't notice how the spectral lines for a blue star (Sirius) and a yellow star (Our Sun) are the same.

Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 12:50:26 AM


THAT is blueshift (and redshift). The lines are in different places. In the blue star they are not, compared to the yellow one. Got that?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 01:50:22 AM by Redingold »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2009, 01:55:53 AM »
Quote
In the blue star they are not, compared to the yellow one. Got that?

That's because it's blue. The blue spectral lines of blue things are more prominent. Because they are blue.
Logged
?

Redingold

  • 164
  • +0/-0
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2009, 02:01:47 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 01:55:53 AM
Quote
In the blue star they are not, compared to the yellow one. Got that?

That's because it's blue. The blue spectral lines of blue things are more prominent. Because they are blue.

What? I don't get your point. Are you saying that the thickness of the lines has got something to do with it? C'mon, Tom, this basic atomic physics! The Bohr atom! Changes in the orbit cause light to be emitted or absorbed at certain frequencies. On a spectrum, their position is the important thing, not anything else. Since you've agreed that the spectral lines are in the same place, we can assume that naturally blue objects are not blue-shifted.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 02:03:51 AM by Redingold »
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2009, 02:03:07 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 01:45:06 AM
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Encore une fois:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 01:36:38 AM
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.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2009, 02:05:46 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 01:45:06 AM
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Actually, this is a good thing.

People will come to this site ...

Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...

Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.

If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
?

Rational U.S. Viking

  • 437
  • +0/-0
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2009, 02:17:08 AM »
Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:05:46 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 01:45:06 AM
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Actually, this is a good thing.

People will come to this site ...

Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...

Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.

If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!

I agree!  Few people have done more for RET than Tom Bishop!  Hooray for Tom! (do you ever wonder if perhaps that is his actual, secret purpose?)
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2009, 02:18:06 AM »
Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 24, 2009, 02:17:08 AM
Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:05:46 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 01:45:06 AM
Blue things also have a light spectrum which is shifted blue. Because they're blue.

Actually, this is a good thing.

People will come to this site ...

Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...

Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.

If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!

I agree!  Few people have done more for RET than Tom Bishop!  Hooray for Tom! (do you ever wonder if perhaps that is his actual, secret purpose?)

Are you suggesting that he's a Round Earth double agent?
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2009, 02:18:55 AM »
Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:05:46 AM
Actually, this is a good thing.
People will come to this site ...
Experience how stubborn and dumb Tom is ...
Then go away again concluding that Flat Earthers are all stubborn and dumb.
If I was a mod' here I'd ban him for life for repeatedly bringing FET into disrepute!

See also:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 17, 2009, 06:51:49 AM
Edit - please see Tom's stubborn and ignorant "contributions" to the following recent threads:

Ham Radio and Moonbounce
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0
08/06/2009+

Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30251.0
04/07/2009+
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
?

Rational U.S. Viking

  • 437
  • +0/-0
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2009, 02:24:09 AM »
Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:18:06 AM

Are you suggesting that he's a Round Earth double agent?

I don't know, but he surely could not do more damage to the credibility of FET even if he were!
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2009, 02:42:31 AM »
Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 02:01:47 AM
What? I don't get your point. Are you saying that the thickness of the lines has got something to do with it? C'mon, Tom, this basic atomic physics! The Bohr atom! Changes in the orbit cause light to be emitted or absorbed at certain frequencies. On a spectrum, their position is the important thing, not anything else. Since you've agreed that the spectral lines are in the same place, we can assume that naturally blue objects are not blue-shifted.

They aren't in the same place. Blue stars have a blue dominated spectrum, which is why they appear blue.
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #70 on: July 24, 2009, 02:48:27 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 02:42:31 AM
Quote from: Redingold on July 24, 2009, 02:01:47 AM
What? I don't get your point. Are you saying that the thickness of the lines has got something to do with it? C'mon, Tom, this basic atomic physics! The Bohr atom! Changes in the orbit cause light to be emitted or absorbed at certain frequencies. On a spectrum, their position is the important thing, not anything else. Since you've agreed that the spectral lines are in the same place, we can assume that naturally blue objects are not blue-shifted.

They aren't in the same place. Blue stars have a blue dominated spectrum, which is why they appear blue.

They aren't in "the same place" therefore the spectral lines have different frequencies ...

Therefore the star's constituent atoms are either fundamentally different to those of other stars (unlikely) ...

Or the star is moving.

Yet again I say:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:03:07 AM
Encore une fois:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 01:36:38 AM
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.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #71 on: July 24, 2009, 02:57:42 AM »
Quote
They aren't in "the same place" therefore the spectral lines have different frequencies ...

Well duh. It's a blue star.

Now tell us again what makes the color blue so special that we should assume its blue because it is accelerating and no other reason?
Logged
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #72 on: July 24, 2009, 02:59:03 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 02:57:42 AM
Quote
They aren't in "the same place" therefore the spectral lines have different frequencies ...

Well duh. It's a blue star.

Now tell us again what makes the color blue so special that we should assume its blue because it is accelerating and no other reason?

God. Here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506600


Would someone please try to explain the implications of this to Tom. Watching him give such simplistic answers as "Blue stars have a blue dominated spectrum, which is why they appear blue." and completely ignore Doppler shifting pains me.  :-[
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #73 on: July 24, 2009, 03:00:27 AM »
So how do we know that the star is blue because it is accelerating and for no other reason?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 03:04:07 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

raziel

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #74 on: July 24, 2009, 03:01:50 AM »
Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 02:59:03 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 02:57:42 AM
Quote
They aren't in "the same place" therefore the spectral lines have different frequencies ...

Well duh. It's a blue star.

Now tell us again what makes the color blue so special that we should assume its blue because it is accelerating and no other reason?

God. Here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506600


Would someone please try to explain the implications of this to Tom. Watching him give such simplistic answers as "Blue stars have a blue dominated spectrum, which is why they appear blue." and completely ignore Doppler shifting pains me.  :-[

Isnt that tom's job in this forum?
Logged
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #75 on: July 24, 2009, 03:10:12 AM »
Quote from: raziel on July 24, 2009, 03:01:50 AM
Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 02:59:03 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 02:57:42 AM
Quote
They aren't in "the same place" therefore the spectral lines have different frequencies ...

Well duh. It's a blue star.

Now tell us again what makes the color blue so special that we should assume its blue because it is accelerating and no other reason?

God. Here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506600


Would someone please try to explain the implications of this to Tom. Watching him give such simplistic answers as "Blue stars have a blue dominated spectrum, which is why they appear blue." and completely ignore Doppler shifting pains me.  :-[

Isnt that tom's job in this forum?

Thats what it seems like... Apparently he doesn't understand Doppler effect... wtf?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #76 on: July 24, 2009, 03:32:31 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 03:00:27 AM
So how do we know that the star is blue because it is accelerating and for no other reason?
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #77 on: July 24, 2009, 03:36:34 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 03:00:27 AM
So how do we know that the star is blue because it is accelerating and for no other reason?

For the final time, Tom:

It is not the colour of the star that is important ...

It is the colours/frequencies of its spectral lines that tell us it is (probably) moving relative to us.

For the sixth time I have to state:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:48:27 AM
Yet again I say:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:03:07 AM
Encore une fois:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 01:36:38 AM
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.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #78 on: July 24, 2009, 03:39:16 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 03:00:27 AM
So how do we know that the star is blue because it is accelerating and for no other reason?

You also appear to be confusing acceleration with velocity.

The Doppler Effect is to do with relative velocities, not acceleration.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #79 on: July 24, 2009, 03:54:33 AM »
The FE'ers on this forum are just depressing when it comes to debating science. I'd describe it as spearing fish in a barrel, but its worse then that.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #80 on: July 24, 2009, 04:00:52 AM »
Quote
It is not the colour of the star that is important ...

It is the colours/frequencies of its spectral lines that tell us it is (probably) moving relative to us.

A body's color spectrum is its color. Please go back to school.

When you come back try to tell us again how a body's color tells us whether it is accelerating or not.
Logged
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #81 on: July 24, 2009, 04:02:42 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 04:00:52 AM
Quote
It is not the colour of the star that is important ...

It is the colours/frequencies of its spectral lines that tell us it is (probably) moving relative to us.

A body's color spectrum is its color. Please go back to school.

Its rather ironic that you are telling someone to go back to school when you fail to demonstrate even the most basic knowledge of physics.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #82 on: July 24, 2009, 04:03:55 AM »
I'm sorry, what's that?

How does a body's color spectrum tells us whether it is accelerating or not?
Logged
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #83 on: July 24, 2009, 04:06:28 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 04:03:55 AM
I'm sorry, what's that?

How does a body's color spectrum tells us whether it is accelerating or not?


My dear lord, I really shouldn't have to do this, because you should have learned it in High School Physics.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #84 on: July 24, 2009, 04:09:36 AM »
I'm sorry, but how does a spectrum tell us a star's velocity again?

When did astronomers go out and experiment with the cosmos are great distances to know what happens when a star accelerates?

How do we know that observing a blue star means that the star is moving towards us?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 04:11:52 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #85 on: July 24, 2009, 04:13:51 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 04:09:36 AM
I'm sorry, but how does a spectrum tell us a star's velocity again?

When did astronomers go out and experiment with the cosmos are great distances to know what happens when a star accelerates?

omfg, READ THE PAGE I LINKED

"By measuring the amount of the shift to the red, we can determine that the bright galaxy is moving away at 3,000 km/sec, which is 1 percent of the speed of light, because its lines are shifted in wavelength by 1 percent to the red. The redshift z is defined such that:

      lambda(observed)
1+z = ----------------
      lambda(emitted)
"

There. A method for calculating velocity from red/blueshifting. Which you would have known if you weren't demanding that I spoon-feed you the information.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #86 on: July 24, 2009, 04:30:25 AM »
Quote
omfg, READ THE PAGE I LINKED

I'm not asking what the theory is. I'm asking how we know it to be true.
Logged
?

raziel

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #87 on: July 24, 2009, 04:36:22 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 04:30:25 AM
Quote
omfg, READ THE PAGE I LINKED

I'm not asking what the theory is. I'm asking how we know it to be true.

read the link tom,
well, u said in other thread

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2009, 06:20:37 PM
Quote
Logic and data collected by NASA, and you?

I lurked more, read more, and educated myself. Something you need to do.

you do read to get the knowledge right? or are you picky with the theory?

are you saying you dont believe in doppler theory? is it the conspiracy?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 04:38:38 AM by raziel »
Logged
*

Pete

  • 1239
  • +0/-0
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #88 on: July 24, 2009, 04:45:55 AM »
The only proof you need of Doppler is to stand by some train tracks and listen to a train go by.
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Telescopes
« Reply #89 on: July 24, 2009, 04:47:44 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2009, 04:00:52 AM
Quote
It is not the colour of the star that is important ...

It is the colours/frequencies of its spectral lines that tell us it is (probably) moving relative to us.

A body's color spectrum is its color. Please go back to school.

When you come back try to tell us again how a body's color tells us whether it is accelerating or not.

It's not the colour it's the frequencies which are missing which are important.

And your pathetic attempt at a "back to school" insult does nothing to enhance your standing or reputation.

Lucky seven?:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 03:36:34 AM
For the sixth time I have to state:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:48:27 AM
Yet again I say:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 02:03:07 AM
Encore une fois:

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 24, 2009, 01:36:38 AM
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.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »