Telescopes

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?

I'm asking you guys HOW we know Doppler Shift theory to be true, not links describing what the theory is.

The only proof you need of Doppler is to stand by some train tracks and listen to a train go by.

Will the train shift to a blue tint as it approaches me?

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

How does the color frequency of a given body in the sky tell us that it's accelerating?

Quote from: Pete 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.

Will the train shift to a blue tint as it approaches me?

Quote

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

How does the color frequency of a given body in the sky tell us that it's accelerating?

my god, kid, your stupid.


It's the sound of the train approaching, then receeding which dopplar shifts.

It's the sound of the train approaching, then receeding which dopplar shifts.

What does that have to do with the color of the stars?

Quote

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?

I'm asking you guys HOW we know Doppler Shift theory to be true, not links describing what the theory is.

Quote from: Pete 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.

Will the train shift to a blue tint as it approaches me?

Quote

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

How does the color frequency of a given body in the sky tell us that it's accelerating?

bold it for you...

are you suggesting doppler theory was wrong? But u do trust some journal made by random people?

bold it for you...

are you suggesting doppler theory was wrong? But u do trust some journal made by random people?

I'm referring to stellar Doppler Shift. Not anything to do with sound waves. A completely different creature.

Quote

bold it for you...

are you suggesting doppler theory was wrong? But u do trust some journal made by random people?

I'm referring to stellar Doppler Shift. Not anything to do with sound waves. A completely different creature.

sound waves can also be dopplar shifted you imbicile

Guys, Tom's playing around here.  Just ignore the troll and accept that FE has not answer for spectrum shifts.

Tom, please read about Fraunhofer lines and educate yourself about shifts in absorption lines rather that just colour changes.

You never debate with me like that Tom.   

Why not?

Wow it's kind of unreal to debate with you guys , that can be said about anything , HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT'S TRUE OMFG !?! I guess we're all gonna have to become physics professors and come to the conclusions ourselves since we can't trust anyone and everything is a conspiracy.

How does the color frequency of a given body in the sky tell us that it's accelerating?

The missing frequencies (lines) are from the same chemical elements.

Assuming (reasonably) that elements stay the same throughout the universe ...

Their spectral frequencies should also be the same throughout the universe.

If those frequencies shift then the object must be moving relative to us.

Eight:

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.

Guys, a lot of you are posting in a manner which is unacceptable in D&D. This section is strictly moderated, so read the site and forum-specific rules. Any further infractions will result in suspensions.

Guys, a lot of you are posting in a manner which is unacceptable in D&D. This section is strictly moderated, so read the site and forum-specific rules. Any further infractions will result in suspensions.

"Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated", right?

The problem is, as I see it, that ...

The former, as diplayed by Tom Bishop (stars are blue because they are blue) ...

Tends to provoke the latter, as displayed by everyone else (Tom Bishop is a stupid troll).

As the song goes: "You can't have one without the other".

Guys, Tom's playing around here.  Just ignore the troll and accept that FE has not answer for spectrum shifts.

Tom, please read about Fraunhofer lines and educate yourself about shifts in absorption lines rather that just colour changes.

I'm sorry, but how does that tell me that stellar Doppler Shift is true? How do we know that a blue star in the sky means that the star is moving towards me and that it does not display a blue color spectrum for any other reason?

"Trolling and low-content posting will not be tolerated", right?

The problem is, as I see it, that ...

The former, as diplayed by Tom Bishop (stars are blue because they are blue) ...

Tends to provoke the latter, as displayed by everyone else (Tom Bishop is a stupid troll).

As the song goes: "You can't have one without the other".

If you knew the answer to "how we know" you wouldn't need to rattle around in your pram and link to irrelevant material and rely on ad hominin in an utterly obvious attempt to divert the issue.

The Ignorant Defensive Trolls Society.

The Ignorant Defensive Trolls Society.

Oh, so we're ignorant because you don't know why stellar Doppler Shift is true, just that it is?

Quote from: DaProphet on July 24, 2009, 09:43:35 AM

The Ignorant Defensive Trolls Society.

Oh, so we're ignorant because you don't know why your stellar Doppler Shift is true?

Because Doppler shift, again, can be proved by listening to a passing train.

And because we are TOLD it is true by people who are a lot smarter and better qualified then you and me

Personally, I don't think every astronomer, astrophysicist and physics professor/teacher in the world is part of some vast cover up. Your trying to challenge us to prove a long accepted physical effect. Its like your trying to demand we prove the existence of photons or that light is a wave function

On the same point, an F1 car creates a higher pitched noise as the car comes towards you and it lowers as it moves away from you. You can hear this on the tv.

Because Doppler shift, again, can be proved by listening to a passing train.

Ok Pete, here's the deal. Listening to a passing train does not tell Tom Bishop or me how that can tell us if a star or galaxy is moving away from us. A star is not a passing train and as far as I'm aware does not make any noise that we would be able to hear.

Now you presumably know what you are talking about but just because you undersatnd what you are saying doesn't mean everyone will understand what you are saying. You are obviously not a teacher. That's fine, but you may want to try and explain in simple terms how the light bit of doppler shift works as opposed to banging on about trains. Just banging on about doppler shift ain't telling anyone anything.

Now you posted this earlier:

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?

No I didn't get that. So the lines are in different places. And?


Why not explain in simple words what we are looking at? Now I can see the lines are in different places but what causes the lines to be in different places and how do we decipher what is meant by the lines being in different places? What are the lines? How do we get the pretty picture?

Is it all something to do with the speed of red light being different to the speed of blue light?

Also why not try and explain that the visual colour of a star does not mean the same as it's spectral colour (is that right?) A star can be a different colour like Sirius and our sun are different visual colours but have similar spectrums, right?

Please do not assume knowledge. You can perhaps assume interest but not knowledge. When I was at school Plate Tectonics had not even been thought of and calculators hadn't been invented. Now I may have done some physics later in life but I haven't got the books any more and things like wiki are written by people like you - you know what you mean so everyone must know what you mean. It ain't so mate, so just start considering the reader.

Thanks

Quote from: Pete on July 24, 2009, 10:43:43 AM

Because Doppler shift, again, can be proved by listening to a passing train.

Ok Pete, here's the deal. Listening to a passing train does not tell Tom Bishop or me how that can tell us if a star or galaxy is moving away from us. A star is not a passing train and as far as I'm aware does not make any noise that we would be able to hear.

Now you presumably know what you are talking about but just because you undersatnd what you are saying doesn't mean everyone will understand what you are saying. You are obviously not a teacher. That's fine, but you may want to try and explain in simple terms how the light bit of doppler shift works as opposed to banging on about trains. Just banging on about doppler shift ain't telling anyone anything.

Now you posted this earlier:

Quote

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?

No I didn't get that. So the lines are in different places. And?


Why not explain in simple words what we are looking at? Now I can see the lines are in different places but what causes the lines to be in different places and how do we decipher what is meant by the lines being in different places? What are the lines? How do we get the pretty picture?

Is it all something to do with the speed of red light being different to the speed of blue light?

Also why not try and explain that the visual colour of a star does not mean the same as it's spectral colour (is that right?) A star can be a different colour like Sirius and our sun are different visual colours but have similar spectrums, right?

Please do not assume knowledge. You can perhaps assume interest but not knowledge. When I was at school Plate Tectonics had not even been thought of and calculators hadn't been invented. Now I may have done some physics later in life but I haven't got the books any more and things like wiki are written by people like you - you know what you mean so everyone must know what you mean. It ain't so mate, so just start considering the reader.

Thanks

Perhaps you're right, but actually it was Redingold who posted that picture, from reading his post, I think he's somewhat more knowledgeable on this then I am. So I'll simply post this, which is a quite reasonable explanation of spectral lines and Doppler shifting in terms of celestial bodies. Your right, I'm not a teacher, and I'm not qualified to try and teach this myself, so I'll just provide a link to a page written by a Physics professor at Bakersfield College.     


http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s10.htm

My apologies to you and Redingold for the posting detail error and for my rant. I'm cool now.   

Thanks for that link. It's been a long time since I did any of that and I didn't do that much of it when I was doing it     Sadly I left a lot of books and notes behind when I moved countries and as I don't use this stuff on a daily basis I have forgotten a lot of it.

Its ok, its just when Tom started being so deliberately obtuse, to the point of refusing to read the first link I posted, my brain kind of imploded in frustration 

Tom has a way of doing that, if you let him.  I think it gives him some sort of jollies.  Much like an immature child throwing a tantrum, it's best ignored, so the behavior does not get the desired response, and simply stops rewarding to the child.

I find it best to go ahead and type out the rant, DO NOT HIT THE POST BUTTON, take a deep breath or thirty, then erase the rant and type out a more level headed response.

Tom has a way of doing that, if you let him.  I think it gives him some sort of jollies.  Much like an immature child throwing a tantrum, it's best ignored, so the behavior does not get the desired response, and simply stops rewarding to the child.

If he's really just trolling, why does he have some few thousand posts and not been banned?


On the other hand, I really doubt he's as old as his avatar shows.


Anyways, I don't even know what the original topic is. Are we all agreed on the fact that Doppler effect exists then? I think we should move on now

Hey, i've got another question regarding telescopes, that, one reason or another, did not come up. Im not sure if this has been tried or not, and i honestly do not know much about it, but what you see on a flat earth if you set a giant telescope parallel with the earths surface cannot be the same as what you see on a round earth.

I suppose if the earth is round, you would eventually see sky. If the earth is flat, you will see the ice wall. Ideal weather conditions, of course.

Hey, i've got another question regarding telescopes, that, one reason or another, did not come up. Im not sure if this has been tried or not, and i honestly do not know much about it, but what you see on a flat earth if you set a giant telescope parallel with the earths surface cannot be the same as what you see on a round earth.

I suppose if the earth is round, you would eventually see sky. If the earth is flat, you will see the ice wall. Ideal weather conditions, of course.

Also presupposes that you don't have any trees/cities/rises of terrain/mountains in the way. But yes, theoretically that would be correct.

Tom Bishop is the man!

Tom Bishop is the man!

As you seem to have decided to forget our little conversation in this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=757944;topic=30806.120;num_replies=143;sesc=c039f1af6cd32e9bff8546027786c44b

 I'll ask you the same question in this one: (don't worry mods, it's on topic)

Quote from: AntiNovusOrdo on July 24, 2009, 03:59:58 AM

That is mere assertion on your part. Rowbotham went out of his way to take exact measurements and took every precaution to ensure the accuracy of his observations.

What power telescope did he use in his Bedford Level 'experiment'?

What power telescope did he use in his Bedford Level 'experiment'?  Bearing in mind his 'exact measurements' and 'every precaution to ensure the accuracy of his observations'.

Quote from: AntiNovusOrdo on July 25, 2009, 10:36:45 AM

Tom Bishop is the man!

As you seem to have decided to forget our little conversation in this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=757944;topic=30806.120;num_replies=143;sesc=c039f1af6cd32e9bff8546027786c44b

 I'll ask you the same question in this one: (don't worry mods, it's on topic)

Quote from: Squat on July 24, 2009, 04:57:52 AM

Quote from: AntiNovusOrdo on July 24, 2009, 03:59:58 AM

That is mere assertion on your part. Rowbotham went out of his way to take exact measurements and took every precaution to ensure the accuracy of his observations.

What power telescope did he use in his Bedford Level 'experiment'?

What power telescope did he use in his Bedford Level 'experiment'?  Bearing in mind his 'exact measurements' and 'every precaution to ensure the accuracy of his observations'.

I don't know.

I don't know.

So how can his experiment be re-created accurately? Is it scientific to ignore data on the equipment used or is that just particular to Zeteticism?