Redshift

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

Wavelength and frequency are equivalent when the wave is moving at a constant velocity.

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

this is not related to redshift. when throwing an stone into water you're not creating just one wave with a given wavelength and velocity but quite a few different waves. the velocity and damping of these waves depends on the depth of the water and the wavelength. e.g. a wave with short wavelength could be prominent for short distances to the center but if it experiences strong damping only waves with long wavelengths will be visible at huge distances to the center. this creates the impression that the wavelength changes when moving away from the center.

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

There are RE theories that take something like this into account.

Quote from: Anunnaki on July 15, 2010, 11:36:10 AM

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

There are RE theories that take something like this into account.

this is not the re society.

Quote from: Anunnaki on July 15, 2010, 11:36:10 AM

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

There are RE theories that take something like this into account.

Explain.

Quote from: Anunnaki on July 15, 2010, 11:36:10 AM

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

There are RE theories that take something like this into account.

huh?
In science, frequency of light is solely based on energy and permability of space. The energy of the light decreases iff the source is moving relative to the observer. It also happens that space is expanding, so that light seems to redshift.

Quote from: Anunnaki on July 15, 2010, 11:36:10 AM

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?So wont it be true that the light from a distant star will move into the red spectrum the further the star is away from the observer without the star having to move anywhere?Or am i just stupid?

There are RE theories that take something like this into account.

John Davis' vague, all-inclusive claim shows a big part of what is wrong in "FE thinking".

• "There are theories"... what theories?
• "something like this"... what is "this"?
• "take this into account"... what is taking into account mean?
• "RE theories"... there are no "RE theories" and "FE theories". There are theories that are strongly supported by models, experiments and observations and hypothesis that are not.

FE theorists have to dilute and obfuscate the issues at hand and avoid actual use of actual theories, with their models and predictions, to keep their hypothesis from melting away.

You are not stupid, you are not well informed. Distance does not affect neither frequency nor wavelength of waves in water or in space. If you find the actual formulas for wavelength and frequency you will see they do not include a distance variable.

Dispersive Extinction theory, VSL theory, a few others that can be found with ease.

Basically any of the many theories that do not support the expansion of the universe as an explanation for redshift as well as some modern aether theories.

As always, your post was trite and useless trig.  Why do you even bother coming here?  Do you really need an outlet to spew your anger at?  Most people get rid of most of that anger during their adolescence.  I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that was well thought out and not full of complete rage.  Calm down.  Have a glass of wine.  Take a chill pill.  Do something.

Dispersive Extinction theory, VSL theory, a few others that can be found with ease.

Basically any of the many theories that do not support the expansion of the universe as an explanation for redshift as well as some modern aether theories.

As always, your post was trite and useless trig.  Why do you even bother coming here?  Do you really need an outlet to spew your anger at?  Most people get rid of most of that anger during their adolescence.  I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that was well thought out and not full of complete rage.  Calm down.  Have a glass of wine.  Take a chill pill.  Do something.

Please, please, please tell me that you believe Dispersive Extinction Theory is right!!!

The absolute minimum you have to have to make Dispersive Extintion Theory plausible is stars at millions to billions of light years away. If you can agree with us that stars and galaxies are nowhere near 3000 miles away, but more like light years to billions of light years away, we can start a real discussion about FE.

And Variable Speed of Light is not an explanation to anything. Which theories that have VSL as a working hypothesis are you talking about? And which of those work for stars that are a few thousands of miles away?

P.S. I noted that you said "RE theories". Dispersive Extinction Theory is really an hypothesis because no experiment or observation has yet shown that it has better prediction capabilities than the competing hypothesis. For small distances (a few parsecs) the plain old theory by Hubble has been verified, so it does deserve the name "theory". You are still welcome to show us a theory in real science where wavelength varies in open space,

Quote from: John Davis on July 22, 2010, 01:02:51 AM

Dispersive Extinction theory, VSL theory, a few others that can be found with ease.

Basically any of the many theories that do not support the expansion of the universe as an explanation for redshift as well as some modern aether theories.

As always, your post was trite and useless trig.  Why do you even bother coming here?  Do you really need an outlet to spew your anger at?  Most people get rid of most of that anger during their adolescence.  I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that was well thought out and not full of complete rage.  Calm down.  Have a glass of wine.  Take a chill pill.  Do something.

Please, please, please tell me that you believe Dispersive Extinction Theory is right!!!

The absolute minimum you have to have to make Dispersive Extintion Theory plausible is stars at millions to billions of light years away. If you can agree with us that stars and galaxies are nowhere near 3000 miles away, but more like light years to billions of light years away, we can start a real discussion about FE.

And Variable Speed of Light is not an explanation to anything. Which theories that have VSL as a working hypothesis are you talking about? And which of those work for stars that are a few thousands of miles away?

I don't hold Dispersive extinction and I don't hold stars and galaxies are 3000 miles away.   Despite your post count, you still have no idea what anyone on this site believes.

I suggest you read the FAQ, wiki, and use the Search function.

I also don't feel much like wasting more time on you.  Like I've said many times in the past, you aren't worth it.

Does anyone on this site know what they believe? There are more FETs than members.

Quote from: trig on July 22, 2010, 08:24:41 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 22, 2010, 01:02:51 AM

Dispersive Extinction theory, VSL theory, a few others that can be found with ease.

Basically any of the many theories that do not support the expansion of the universe as an explanation for redshift as well as some modern aether theories.

As always, your post was trite and useless trig.  Why do you even bother coming here?  Do you really need an outlet to spew your anger at?  Most people get rid of most of that anger during their adolescence.  I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that was well thought out and not full of complete rage.  Calm down.  Have a glass of wine.  Take a chill pill.  Do something.

Please, please, please tell me that you believe Dispersive Extinction Theory is right!!!

The absolute minimum you have to have to make Dispersive Extintion Theory plausible is stars at millions to billions of light years away. If you can agree with us that stars and galaxies are nowhere near 3000 miles away, but more like light years to billions of light years away, we can start a real discussion about FE.

And Variable Speed of Light is not an explanation to anything. Which theories that have VSL as a working hypothesis are you talking about? And which of those work for stars that are a few thousands of miles away?

I don't hold Dispersive extinction and I don't hold stars and galaxies are 3000 miles away.   Despite your post count, you still have no idea what anyone on this site believes.

I suggest you read the FAQ, wiki, and use the Search function.

I also don't feel much like wasting more time on you.  Like I've said many times in the past, you aren't worth it.

I really am getting into your nerves, aren't I? If you really believe I am not worth it, show all others how I am wrong. Showing people how I was wrong when I said VSL is not a theory would be a good place to start.

Asking me to read the FAQ that everyone considers crap is the very last desperate attempt to score points in a lost debate.

I also have nothing to debate with you, I just want the rest to see how empty theories become when you renounce science. The question about you accepting Dispersive Extinction was rhetorical, and now comes another rhetorical question: Since you do not believe that stars are about 3000 miles above us, how high are they? Less than 3000 miles? Or light years away? Maybe some even billions of light years away? You are replacing real science, which has sound answers for this question with lots and lots and lots of words.

Nobody cares whether you think stars are higher or lower than 3000 miles, just as nobody would have shed a tear if Copernicus, not Galileo, had exposed all of us to a heliocentric solar system, or if Einstein's wife was the real mind behind Relativity.

if I throw a pebble in a body of water the wavelength become longer and the frequency stays the same the further it moves away from the source, right?

Wrong. Frequency = light speed / wavelength

Redshift occurs because the space between the source and the observer is expanding.

Or am i just stupid?

Yes.