Redshift in the FE model

  • 151 Replies
  • 26586 Views
Redshift in the FE model
« on: July 29, 2017, 07:39:35 AM »
The doppler effect is well known, where sound waves are compressed or expanded from the perspective of the listener as the object emitting the noise closes or increases distance.  Listen to a train pass by, or an ambulance.

It also affects electromagnetic radiation; an object moving away at a high rate will appear to be more red than an otherwise motionless object.  It has been well documented that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should.  The accepted theory is that this is because the stars and galaxies are all moving away from Earth in accordance with the concept of an expanding universe.  The faster the object is moving, the more red its light appears, and the farther it is from Earth.

How does the redshift observed in stars and galaxies fit in with the FE model?

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2017, 07:50:59 AM »
This is also the origin of the Big Bang theory...

If the universe has been shown to be expanding, it's obvious that expansion had to begin somewhere.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2017, 07:56:21 AM »
Yes I know that.  In the FE theory, the stars and galaxies are affixed to the firmament.  What is causing the redshift?

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2017, 08:10:25 AM »
Yes I know that.  In the FE theory, the stars and galaxies are affixed to the firmament.  What is causing the redshift?

I did not mean to imply that you didn't know that, I apologize...

I eagerly await a FE answer to your query.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2017, 08:36:21 AM »
Yes I know that.  In the FE theory, the stars and galaxies are affixed to the firmament.  What is causing the redshift?

I did not mean to imply that you didn't know that, I apologize...

I eagerly await a FE answer to your query.

No worries.  Sometimes hard to figure out who believes what.  Just seems like a topic that has not been brought up before.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 08:41:24 AM by savagepilot »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2017, 03:19:16 PM »
It has been well documented that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should. 

Given that stars would have to work an entirely different way under most FE models* how have you determined how red they 'should' be?

*if they're like the Sun they'd be much closer, smaller and cooler. If they're not there's a departure already. Typically they need to be much closer to the Earth, likely much much smaller than they would be under RET, and all that entails...
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2017, 03:28:30 PM »
It has been well documented that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should. 

Given that stars would have to work an entirely different way under most FE models* how have you determined how red they 'should' be?

*if they're like the Sun they'd be much closer, smaller and cooler. If they're not there's a departure already. Typically they need to be much closer to the Earth, likely much much smaller than they would be under RET, and all that entails...

As I'm not defending any of the FE models, I don't need to determine.  I know the answer.  The wavelengths of the radiation emitted by stars are elongated because of their extreme velocity from the Earth, hence they appear to be more red.  But that only works for a heliocentric Earth and universe.  In the FE theory, where the stars are affixed to the firmament, and presumably the same distance from Earth, and if everything in the FE universe is accelerating upwards at the same velocity then there is no apparent motion from our frame of reference, and hence no redshift would be observed.

My question is:  according to the FE model of the universe, how is it that the stars are redshifted?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2017, 03:32:41 PM »
As I'm not defending any of the FE models, I don't need to determine.  I know the answer.
You know the RE answer, but this only works if you're attempting a proof by contradiction against FET. To do that you have to work from what FET says, not from what RET says. If you do not know how red the stars should be, you have no reason to suppose any are redshifted.
So, I have to ask again, how do you 'know' the answer for how red the stars under the FE model should be? You can try walking through the RE explanation if you want, though I expect you'll run into a problem pretty quickly.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2017, 03:51:38 PM »
I think I see where you're coming from, (and I just found your compilation of theories/models on another thread, very thorough) but I disagree that I need to come up with my own theory or refute the known facts before putting forward the question.

As I understand it, most of FE theory is based on models that explain what people can see with their eyes.  Now, while redshift in stars is not visible to the naked eye, it's far too subtle, it has been measured consistently by many independent astronomers, and thus is a real, observable phenomenon.

Yes, I know how red the stars should be in the RE universe.  But when you say "If you do not know how red the stars should be, you have no reason to suppose any are redshifted" that either requires me to already have an answer that works in the FE universe, or to refute the data.

The stars ARE redshifted, I am supposing nothing.  It is a verifiable fact, conspiracy theory notwithstanding.  I don't need to know the answer under FE model before I ask the question, that's why I ask the question:  If we live on a flat earth, what causes the redshift of stars?

*

JackBlack

  • 21826
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2017, 03:52:41 PM »
So, I have to ask again, how do you 'know' the answer for how red the stars under the FE model should be? You can try walking through the RE explanation if you want, though I expect you'll run into a problem pretty quickly.
That is part of the question.
We can observe stellar spectra for these stars. We notice some are red shifted compared to others. Why?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2017, 03:58:58 PM »
I disagree that I need to come up with my own theory or refute the known facts before putting forward the question.
I'm not asking you to do either of those things, I am asking you to explain why the stars under FET would be the colours you're expecting. This is part of your argument: you claim you know the colours they should be, why is this the case? If you are basing an argument on this, then it has to come from somewhere. If you cannot do this, you have no grounds on which to ask this question.

I am not asking you to come up with a theory, I am not asking you to refute anything. I am asking what the justification is for the claim "the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should," is the instant you stop following the RE model for the universe.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2017, 05:58:55 PM »
I disagree that I need to come up with my own theory or refute the known facts before putting forward the question.
I'm not asking you to do either of those things, I am asking you to explain why the stars under FET would be the colours you're expecting. This is part of your argument: you claim you know the colours they should be, why is this the case? If you are basing an argument on this, then it has to come from somewhere. If you cannot do this, you have no grounds on which to ask this question.

I am not asking you to come up with a theory, I am not asking you to refute anything. I am asking what the justification is for the claim "the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should," is the instant you stop following the RE model for the universe.
Since no Flat Earther seems willing to answer this sort of thing why don't you give a possible explanation for the blue shift of many nearer stars, such as Alpha Centauri?
This was in answer to Totallackey in an earlier similar thread.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The closest visible star is Alpha Centauri and our total velocity to it is about 24.8 km/s, mostly approaching it.
From How fast are we moving relative to Alpha Centauri?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Give me good experimental evidence of the distance to Alpha Centaur on your flat earth.

So, it looks like Alpha Centauri might crash into the  Flat Earth in about 2 1/2 minutes!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2017, 10:16:08 PM »
I disagree that I need to come up with my own theory or refute the known facts before putting forward the question.
I'm not asking you to do either of those things, I am asking you to explain why the stars under FET would be the colours you're expecting. This is part of your argument: you claim you know the colours they should be, why is this the case? If you are basing an argument on this, then it has to come from somewhere. If you cannot do this, you have no grounds on which to ask this question.

I am not asking you to come up with a theory, I am not asking you to refute anything. I am asking what the justification is for the claim "the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should," is the instant you stop following the RE model for the universe.

Jane, I can't decide whether you think I am using red shift to justify the FE model.  I'm not.  I don't believe in a flat Earth.  I am asking those who do to explain why the stars show red shift if the universe is not expanding, and instead we are looking up at some very close objects fixed to the firmament.

It's not my job to come up with a theory for the FE model.  If I did, then I wouldn't be asking the question.  The justification for my claim is that the stars are moving away from Earth causing the EM radiation to elongate and shift towards the red.  The further the shift, the more distant the object in accordance with Hubble's Constant.  It's not my claim, it's accepted science.

But according to FE theory, the universe is not expanding (unless I am very much mistaken about FE theory).  So what is causing the red shift?

(My first contribution to this forum was on a post asking how an airplane could takeoff from Norway and land in Israel when the two, according to RE math, would have very different rotational velocities.  The OP, InFlatEarth, made no attempt to come up with a logical explanation of his own using the RE world, he simply used it to refute a round Earth.  Likewise, I'm doing no such thing to come up with a logical FE explanation for red shift.  Not my job.)

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2017, 10:21:21 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911878#msg1911878 (ether redshift theory)

This is what you pointed me to:

And as far as expansion is concerned, Hubble concluded with the following statement:

" … the results do not establish the expansion as the only possible interpretation of redshifts. Other data are available which, at the moment, seem to point in another direction."

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

E. Hubble

That unknown principle of nature is the ETHER.

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes, as has been seen.

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.

These mistakes did not happen by chance.

The first was almost certainly due to the influence of Tolman, the relativistic theorist whose aid was sought by Hubble to "interpret" redshifts. Despite the results of the work he did in 1936, Hubble was never able to completely shake off Tolman's influence.

His second mistake was caused in the same way by the influence of Einsteinian relativity. A logarithmic law may be deduced from a normal "classical" effect of exponential decay of energy in photons; this, however, really does postulate the existence of the "intergalactic and interstellar mean" that is "in principle" denied by Relativity.


That's all you have to offer?  Ether?  So, how does ether cause redshift?  According to Hubble, whose words you are using, it is either caused by the expansion of the universe or some other unknown phenomenon.  Giving that phenomenon a name without explaining it or backing it up by science isn't an explanation at all.

According to most FE proponents on this forum, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.  That would quite simply rule out Ether, since it's neither understood or explained.  Expansion of the universe is, and a very easy explanation, too.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2017, 02:49:56 AM »
Jane, I can't decide whether you think I am using red shift to justify the FE model.
...Something else I never said.

Once again.
You made the claim that you know how red 'stars' should be. I am asking you to justify this. Should I quote your original post again?
If you cannot, then you do not know how red stars should be, and you can make no predictions as to red shift.

I am not asking you to justify FET, I am not asking you to come up with a theory, I am not asking you to explain how red shift works, I am asking for what evidence you use to support the claim that you know how red stars 'should' be. if you feel as though the only way you can do this is to come up with your own FE theory, then that should be a pretty clear indication that this argument simply does not hold.

I'm at a loss as to whether or not you're just intentionally evading the question at this stage.
You said "the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should." yes, it's 'accepted science,' but accepted science also says the Earth is round, you need to be prepared to actually justify statements here. A lot of science follows on from how observations work on a round Earth. With closer stars, with stars composed differently, none of that holds. I'm not asking you to come up with an FE theory, I am asking you to support a claim that you specifically made. If you are basing your argument on something you refuse to justify, you have a bad argument. How you know stars under RET are redshifted is not relevant int he slightes.

If you want a companion question: if you do not know how red stars should be in the FE model, how can you identify whether any have had their light redshifted?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17687
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2017, 09:24:20 AM »
The doppler effect is well known, where sound waves are compressed or expanded from the perspective of the listener as the object emitting the noise closes or increases distance.  Listen to a train pass by, or an ambulance.

It also affects electromagnetic radiation; an object moving away at a high rate will appear to be more red than an otherwise motionless object.  It has been well documented that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should.  The accepted theory is that this is because the stars and galaxies are all moving away from Earth in accordance with the concept of an expanding universe.  The faster the object is moving, the more red its light appears, and the farther it is from Earth.

How does the redshift observed in stars and galaxies fit in with the FE model?

It makes more sense in the flat earth. Rather than the entire universe expanding away from itself at increasing speeds against all known laws of physics using energy that approaches infinity very quickly, we have everything simply moving away from one body. This could be caused by a mechanic similar to Dispersive extinction theory, showing us that everything is not indeed moving away from us.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2017, 03:47:52 PM »
The doppler effect is well known, where sound waves are compressed or expanded from the perspective of the listener as the object emitting the noise closes or increases distance.  Listen to a train pass by, or an ambulance.

It also affects electromagnetic radiation; an object moving away at a high rate will appear to be more red than an otherwise motionless object.  It has been well documented that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should.  The accepted theory is that this is because the stars and galaxies are all moving away from Earth in accordance with the concept of an expanding universe.  The faster the object is moving, the more red its light appears, and the farther it is from Earth.

How does the redshift observed in stars and galaxies fit in with the FE model?

It makes more sense in the flat earth. Rather than the entire universe expanding away from itself at increasing speeds against all known laws of physics using energy that approaches infinity very quickly, we have everything simply moving away from one body. This could be caused by a mechanic similar to Dispersive extinction theory, showing us that everything is not indeed moving away from us.
And exactly how does that fit in with FET in any shape or form? You have, of course, read Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift, Ling Jun Wang?

But from what I can see, FET has no answer to the red/blue shifts of "nearby" stars, such as Alpha Centauri with Radial velocity (Rv) = -18.6±1.64 km/s, that is towards earth!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17687
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2017, 08:17:27 AM »
He was actually a professor in my undergrad and I have fielded a few questions to him directly concerning it.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2017, 06:44:27 PM »
He was actually a professor in my undergrad and I have fielded a few questions to him directly concerning it.
But that does not answer my queries:
It makes more sense in the flat earth. Rather than the entire universe expanding away from itself at increasing speeds against all known laws of physics using energy that approaches infinity very quickly, we have everything simply moving away from one body. This could be caused by a mechanic similar to Dispersive extinction theory, showing us that everything is not indeed moving away from us.
And exactly how does that fit in with FET in any shape or form? You have, of course, read Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift, Ling Jun Wang?

But from what I can see, FET has no answer
to the red/blue shifts of "nearby" stars, such as Alpha Centauri with Radial velocity (Rv) = -18.6±1.64 km/s, that is towards earth!

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2017, 10:32:10 PM »
This thread is yet another example of how flat earth belief abhors any kind of scientific fact. The sad fact is whatever branch of science one cares to examine there will be  inconvenient 'facts' that flat earth believers have to ignore and pretend do not exist, just like the ISS for example, while clearly visible from the ground is conveniently just ignored! How can they do this when the evidence is incontrovertible?   Redshifted light the Microwave background radiation are only 2 of the almost countless examples that point to a universe that is at odds with flat earth belief and yet more facts for the flat earth believers to ignore. While science can offer irrefutable evidence all flat earth belief has is ignorance. What evidence can I present? If you have some time to waste, go read DET.

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2017, 10:35:34 PM »
He was actually a professor in my undergrad and I have fielded a few questions to him directly concerning it.

Is your former prof a flat earth believer?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2017, 04:35:38 AM »
Redshifted light the Microwave background radiation are only 2 of the almost countless examples that point to a universe that is at odds with flat earth belief and yet more facts for the flat earth believers to ignore.

"The first piece of evidence came from the work of a young Dutch astronomer
named Jan Oort . . . Oort had already made a significant contribution to Galactic
astronomy.

Oort measured the positions and motions of a number of stars lying outside
the visible disk of the galaxy. Then he used that information to calculate how much
mass must lie inside their orbits to produce their observed motions. This amount is
called the Oort Limit, and it is equal to about 0.03 of a solar mass per cubic lightyear.
Next, Oort added up the masses of the visible stars in the Galactic disk. The
result was surprising: The actual mass present in the Galaxy seemed to be 50
percent less than what was needed to cause the actual movements of the stars that
lay outside the visible Galactic disk."

Joel Davis, Journey to the Center of Our Galaxy


Another problem arose in the 1930s: certain celestial motions were not in accordance
with Newtonian theory.


“The first glimmer that something was amiss in astronomy’s understanding of
the universe came in the 1930s. Caltech astronomer, Fritz Zwicky, an eclectic
wizard of his craft, was measuring the velocities of galaxies within the famous
Coma cluster and noticed that they were moving at a fairly rapid pace. He added
up all the light being emitted by these galaxies and realized that there was not
enough visible, or luminous, matter around to gravitationally bind the speeding
galaxies to one another. Under the standard laws of celestial mechanics, the Coma
cluster should [have been] flying apart, but it [wasn’t]. The situation seems
paradoxical . . . "

"By the 1970s, however, the problem of the missing mass was brought closer
to home. By then, both radio and optical telescopes were beginning to reveal
curious rotations in both the Milky Way and nearby galaxies which suggested that
galaxies contained more mass than previously assumed. Astronomers always took
it as a matter of course that stars in a spiral galaxy would evolve around the galaxy’s
core like planets in the solar system whose motions adhere to Newton’s laws of
gravitation. Newton recognized that the gravitational attraction between a planet
and the Sun follows a simple rule of thumb: the attraction between two celestial
objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That
means that if the distance between the Earth and the Sun were doubled, their mutual
gravitational grip would lessen by a factor of four. Triple the distance, and the
attraction would fall off to a ninth of its original strength, and so on."

“The distance between a planet and the Sun also determines the planet’s orbital
velocity. “In the solar system, the planets all orbit the Sun with velocities that get
smaller and smaller as they get farther from the Sun, the system’s center of mass,”
explained Vera Rubin of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. “So the inner
planets go fast and the outer planets go slow. That’s just a direct response to
Newton’s law.”

“But to everyone’s surprise, observers discovered that galaxies weren’t acting
like [a] gigantic solar system at all.

“In spiral galaxy after spiral galaxy, the Carnegie group saw that stellar material
on the outer edges of a disk travels around at speeds much faster than theory had
estimated. It was the Coma cluster problem all over again.”

Marcia Bartusiak, Thursday’s Universe

Therefore, the stars in spiral galaxies do not follow Kepler’s law of distance cubed
equal period squared.
In order to do so, the stars farther from the central mass of spiral galaxies must revolve slower than stars closer to the central mass, and they simply do not do this; they travel at the same velocity. James Trefil states, “In fact, no galactic rotation curve has ever been observed to turn over and become Keplarian. All of them remain flat out to distances of 200,000 or 300,000 light years.”

This evidence is a basic contradiction of fundamental gravitational theory and implies
that something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of these matters.


?

Realdeal

  • 82
  • Undecided
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2017, 06:35:51 AM »
The doppler effect is well known, where sound waves are compressed or expanded from the perspective of the listener as the object emitting the noise closes or increases distance.  Listen to a train pass by, or an ambulance.

It also affects electromagnetic radiation; an object moving away at a high rate will appear to be more red than an otherwise motionless object.  It has been well documented that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should.  The accepted theory is that this is because the stars and galaxies are all moving away from Earth in accordance with the concept of an expanding universe.  The faster the object is moving, the more red its light appears, and the farther it is from Earth.

How does the redshift observed in stars and galaxies fit in with the FE model?

It makes more sense in the flat earth. Rather than the entire universe expanding away from itself at increasing speeds against all known laws of physics using energy that approaches infinity very quickly, we have everything simply moving away from one body. This could be caused by a mechanic similar to Dispersive extinction theory, showing us that everything is not indeed moving away from us.
But I just read that paper you posted.  The problem is the distance.  The paper postulates that the redshift is due to the EM radiation dying out over a distance rather than the source moving away.  That leads to a problem with the distance of the stars from Earth.  They have to be much much further away than pretty much all FE models show us.  I do not think that should be listed as an alternative to the doppler shift.  It only muddies the waters, and gives ammunistion to the smug assholes stating that we do not know how to think things through.  I put it in the same category of bad idea as the zig zag thing.
Perhaps, use a greater level of introspective approach to examining your previous posts while keeping forum guidelines in mind.  I feel this would be helpful

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2017, 11:04:44 AM »
I disagree that I need to come up with my own theory or refute the known facts before putting forward the question.
I'm not asking you to do either of those things, I am asking you to explain why the stars under FET would be the colours you're expecting. This is part of your argument: you claim you know the colours they should be, why is this the case? If you are basing an argument on this, then it has to come from somewhere. If you cannot do this, you have no grounds on which to ask this question.

I am not asking you to come up with a theory, I am not asking you to refute anything. I am asking what the justification is for the claim "the electromagnetic radiation emitted by stars and galaxies appears more red than it should," is the instant you stop following the RE model for the universe.

If I understand what you are saying correctly since we don't know the wavelength at the start of it we shouldnt know if it shifted at all. I don't think the other guy knew what you were saying and it seemed like he was dodging the question. That would make me pretty annoyed too. When an atom of hydrogen or helium absorbs energy and reemitts it as light it does so always making the same wavelengths of light which are constant due to the way an electron in each orbital and suborbital absorb energy. If the stars were a constant distance and not moving apart the bright line spectra should be the same as measured on earth. They are however different when compared to each other. According to the Doppler Effect this would provide evidence that the stars are moving away. In some cases though it shifts in the blue direction which implies that some stars are moving closer though these are much more rare.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2017, 11:25:30 AM »
When an atom of hydrogen or helium absorbs energy and reemitts it as light it does so always making the same wavelengths of light which are constant due to the way an electron in each orbital and suborbital absorb energy. If the stars were a constant distance and not moving apart the bright line spectra should be the same as measured on earth. They are however different when compared to each other. According to the Doppler Effect this would provide evidence that the stars are moving away. In some cases though it shifts in the blue direction which implies that some stars are moving closer though these are much more rare.
The issue there, though, is that stars under FET are not composed the same as stars under RET, typically. Most models have basically everything in space drastically closer than they would be under RET; take the Sun, 3000 of either miles or km (can never remember which) away from the Earth (that measurement comes from Eratosphenes' experiment). If that was a ball of hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion at that distance, it would either be much larger than it seems and we'd all be dead, or there'd be no way to explain how something so small holds itself together.

Yes, there are replies to this; carrying out Eratosphenes' experiments at a different time of day and getting a new distance, spectroscopy... but all of those alone are independent arguments, rendering this one at best obselete, or (if you allow for the possibility of responses to those other arguments) incomplete because it doesn't take into account the variations in FET and bases itself solely on responding to a bizarre fusion of FET and RET that no one holds to.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2017, 11:53:26 AM »
You know... I never thought FET and RE would be debated through argument logic. I understand as Jane says... for you to ask how Red Shift works, you have to presume there is Red Shift at all in a FE world...

Now, I would say, these shill scientists claim to know the distance to the sun and they can see how stars appear to wobble in the sky from summer to winter using triangulation and measuring the parallax and blah blah blah and that this works well for "relatively" local stars... and that alone should prove that the heavenly bodies are not fixed.

As far as not so local stars, I'd refer you to the standard candles that shill scientists use, which are stars that either blow up a certain way, or shine a certain way and are recognizable in distant galaxies...  and then measuring how red shifted they are. If there is an incandescent 100w lightbulb and it always Flashes a known brightness before it goes out, and I can see that same flash in other galaxies, then I can presume that it is doing the same thing much further away and calculate either the brightness or red shift. Then with gravitational lensing you can predict when you can see that flash again... Of course, there is a problem with false positives... but that is just working out the kinks...

I think observing stars wobble due to the Earths orbit around the sun should be enough at the moment. While I currently don't have any specific examples, I think it shouldn't be too hard to observe in a backyard. Give me a year and i'll make my own.   

What I haven't seen argued (yet) is the difference between stellar day and sidereal day which is totally backyard science... I did find some Parallax arguments back in 2009 that went unanswered... that must have been before this place got busy again
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 12:32:52 PM by RocketSauce »
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2017, 12:47:57 PM »
Tired Light Theory has yet to be debunked and is a perfectly acceptable explaination for the purported "Red Shift."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2017, 01:19:20 PM »
Tired Light Theory has yet to be debunked and is a perfectly acceptable explaination for the purported "Red Shift."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

You obviously haven't read the article you link to, which pretty much explains how Tired Light has been debunked and has been considered a dead theory since the turn of the century.

As for Lin Jung Wang, it's notable how he furtively mentions that his explanation would result in different shifts for different element lines coming from the same source, but then doesn't comment on how in real life, we don't observe that. He also dodges the dilemma of his "space medium" requiring a certain amount of density to cause the dispersal, but also requiring less density than that in order for it to maintain transparency. He simply handwaves it with "we don't know the value of that constant" rather than confronting it. He also ignores that we don't see the level of blurring his theory requires.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Redshift in the FE model
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2017, 01:19:46 PM »
Tired Light Theory has yet to be debunked and is a perfectly acceptable explaination for the purported "Red Shift."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

"Eh-Hem"

Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests[4] and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics


In 1986 a paper claiming tired light theories explained redshift better than cosmic expansion was published in the Astrophysical Journal,[23] but ten months later, in the same journal, such tired light models were shown to be inconsistent with extant observations.[24] As cosmological measurements became more precise and the statistics in cosmological data sets improved, tired light proposals ended up being falsified,[1][2][3] to the extent that the theory was described in 2001 by science writer Charles Seife as being "firmly on the fringe of physics 30 years ago".[5] Nonetheless, tired light theories still appear occasionally in speculative journals.[25] [26]
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac