How do things fall?

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

Maybe the CMB is not what you think it is or doesn't work how you think it works

To me it's just an abstract picture. Looks pretty enough but kinda lame at the same time.

Maybe the CMB is not what you think it is or doesn't work how you think it works

To me it's just an abstract picture. Looks pretty enough but kinda lame at the same time.

You need to do more than look at the pictures when you read a scientific paper.

Looking at CMB seems an oddly redundant reason to rule out universal acceleration.  Surely the far stronger evidence is that the likes of Shifter don’t fall up into the sky (Northern Hemisphere bias).

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

What if the camera's accelerating at the same speed as the car?

Quote from: Groit on April 09, 2021, 07:08:09 AM

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

What if the camera's accelerating at the same speed as the car?

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

As it is above us, it would be blue shifted. But then you would need a reference for it to compare to. What should this light look like?

Quote from: Groit on April 09, 2021, 09:25:06 AM

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

As it is above us, it would be blue shifted. But then you would need a reference for it to compare to. What should this light look like?

I think @PosteriorMotive was referring to the car and camera which had nothing to do with the CMB.

Yes the CMB would be blueshifted in the direction of acceleration. What do you mean by needing a reference? 

Quote from: JackBlack on April 09, 2021, 02:17:48 PM

Quote from: Groit on April 09, 2021, 09:25:06 AM

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

As it is above us, it would be blue shifted. But then you would need a reference for it to compare to. What should this light look like?

I think @PosteriorMotive was referring to the car and camera which had nothing to do with the CMB.

Yes the CMB would be blueshifted in the direction of acceleration. What do you mean by needing a reference?

My bad, yes that has the directionality flipped.
In the case of the camera it would be redshifted.

The reference is needed to see if it is shifted or not.
This is because if both are accelerating together, then, if I recall correctly, the shift is constant.
That means it wouldn't be observed to shift over time.
So without a reference you wouldn't know if it is shifted or not.

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

Actually, the CMB is redshifted like the galaxies. However, redshift occurs for reasons other than velocity. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Doppler_Shift

There are anomalies contradicting the idea that the redshift we see in space is a velocity redshift. Look into Halton Arp's work.

Actually, the CMB is redshifted like the galaxies. However, redshift occurs for reasons other than velocity. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Doppler_Shift

There are anomalies contradicting the idea that the redshift we see in space is a velocity redshift. Look into Halton Arp's work.

You mean there were apparent anomalies that were not fully understood and which were used by someone who very much disliked the idea of the expanding universe to try to claim it couldn't be because of that and was somehow intrinsic to the object instead, yet with no explanation as to just what causes it.

However, since then, our telescopes have improved quite considerably, and we now know these quasars are quite distant and there is no contradiction.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 05:08:20 PM

Actually, the CMB is redshifted like the galaxies. However, redshift occurs for reasons other than velocity. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Doppler_Shift

There are anomalies contradicting the idea that the redshift we see in space is a velocity redshift. Look into Halton Arp's work.

You mean there were apparent anomalies that were not fully understood and which were used by someone who very much disliked the idea of the expanding universe to try to claim it couldn't be because of that and was somehow intrinsic to the object instead, yet with no explanation as to just what causes it.

However, since then, our telescopes have improved quite considerably, and we now know these quasars are quite distant and there is no contradiction.

Considering that Halton Arp and others who are stating this are astrophysicists and you have no known credentials at all, we can safely dismiss your contradictory opinion.

Considering that Halton Arp and others who are stating this are astrophysicists and you have no known credentials at all, we can safely dismiss your contradictory opinion.

If you want to try an appeal to authority you have already lost. The "authorities" are quite confident that Earth is round, and so many other things that you outright reject. So does that mean we can safely dismiss your contradictory opinion?

Or are appeals to authority only allowed when you and others who side with you make them?

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Quote from: Groit on April 09, 2021, 02:45:29 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 09, 2021, 02:17:48 PM

Quote from: Groit on April 09, 2021, 09:25:06 AM

Then the camera would detect the light as slightly redshifted (lower frequency).

As it is above us, it would be blue shifted. But then you would need a reference for it to compare to. What should this light look like?

I think @PosteriorMotive was referring to the car and camera which had nothing to do with the CMB.

Yes the CMB would be blueshifted in the direction of acceleration. What do you mean by needing a reference?

My bad, yes that has the directionality flipped.
In the case of the camera it would be redshifted.

The reference is needed to see if it is shifted or not.
This is because if both are accelerating together, then, if I recall correctly, the shift is constant.
That means it wouldn't be observed to shift over time.
So without a reference you wouldn't know if it is shifted or not.

Yes, the red shift would be constant and as you say a reference would be needed such as knowing the rest wavelength of the light being emitted. Cosmologists use a similar method by knowing the rest wavelength of the CMB. If we were accelerating into the CMB the blue shift wouldn't be constant, it would drift with time. 

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Haha!  Classic Tom.

First why don’t you explain how these scientists’ research fit with your flat earth ideas?

They are looking at cosmological redshift in galaxies 10s of millions light years away minimum up to very much more.  Maybe they are right, maybe not.

Let’s start simple.  What do you think stars and galaxies are and what kind of distance might they be from us?

Quote from: Groit on April 09, 2021, 07:08:09 AM

The fact that the measured frequency of the CMB does NOT change over time, is experimental evidence that the Earth is NOT accelerating.

If you accelerate your car towards a speed camera, the camera will detect an increase in frequency from the radiation being emitted from your car.
If you accelerate through space, the frequency of the CMB will increase.

Its simple physics, and a simple way to debunk Universal Acceleration.

Actually, the CMB is redshifted like the galaxies. However, redshift occurs for reasons other than velocity. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Doppler_Shift

There are anomalies contradicting the idea that the redshift we see in space is a velocity redshift. Look into Halton Arp's work.

The CMB loses energy with the expansion of the universe, but we don't observe it as being red shifted in all directions like we do for all distant galaxies. In the direction of 10.5 Right Ascension, -24 declination the CMB is blue shifted, and in the opposite direction red shifted, which confirms the Galaxy is moving wrt the co-moving reference frame at approx 600 km/s.
 

If you want to try to collect expert quotes

Like I said, unless you want to collect expert quotes from geologists, cartographers, astronomers and so on saying Earth is flat, you making appeals to authority like that is a losing battle for you.
If you think appeals to authority are valid, then Earth is round, as that is what the authorities say, and anyone saying otherwise can be dismissed.

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Ok, lets use your tactics.  Here is a scientific paper claiming the Earth is a globe and rotates.

Oceanic torques on solid Earth and their effects on Earth rotation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JB000339

"The difference in the above behavior between the x and y components is presumably related to the actual geographical distribution of the ocean on the globe."

There you have it. A scientific paper stating the Earth is a globe. Now...

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the globe Earth research by those scientists in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about globe Earth, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Considering that Halton Arp and others who are stating this are astrophysicists and you have no known credentials at all, we can safely dismiss your contradictory opinion.

Considering that you believe the earth is flat, which is obviously not true, we can safely dismiss your opinion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 06:41:38 PM

Considering that Halton Arp and others who are stating this are astrophysicists and you have no known credentials at all, we can safely dismiss your contradictory opinion.

Considering that you believe the earth is flat, which is obviously not true, we can safely dismiss your opinion.

You must be so proud of that bit of wit.

Quote from: Platonius21 on April 11, 2021, 06:30:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 06:41:38 PM

Considering that Halton Arp and others who are stating this are astrophysicists and you have no known credentials at all, we can safely dismiss your contradictory opinion.

Considering that you believe the earth is flat, which is obviously not true, we can safely dismiss your opinion.

You must be so proud of that bit of wit.

Funny but true.

If someone on the street was ranting about space aliens stealing their underwear and brainwashing their socks to hate them, and then made an argument about astrophysics, you could make the likely conclusion that they don't know what they are talking about.

Now of course, maybe this is actually a brilliant astrophysicist with mental issues and they do know what they are saying when it comes to solar dynamics. It's possible, sure.

Bur you know that's pretty unlikely. If Tom proclaims the Earth Is Flat, that immediately draws his ability to think rationally into question. Add his support and belief in Q, that garlic cures cancer, and all the other global conspiracies he believes in, it all indicates we are dealing with someone who is highly unreliable. It's certainly very improbably he is in actuality, an expert in all things, except for those.

It's no substitute to looking at the actual substance and facts of his arguments, but it's a good benchmark for how seriously they should be taken at face value.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 10:38:35 PM

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Ok, lets use your tactics.  Here is a scientific paper claiming the Earth is a globe and rotates.

Oceanic torques on solid Earth and their effects on Earth rotation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JB000339

"The difference in the above behavior between the x and y components is presumably related to the actual geographical distribution of the ocean on the globe."

There you have it. A scientific paper stating the Earth is a globe. Now...

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the globe Earth research by those scientists in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about globe Earth, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Feel free to present that when we actually have a conversation about earth rotation. There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory.

Right now we are talking about Doppler Shift and you have no contradictory expert citations to present to show the arguments and points by the scientists to be wrong at all. What does that say for your position?

Add his support and belief in Q, that garlic cures cancer, and all the other global conspiracies he believes in, it all indicates we are dealing with someone who is highly unreliable.

And if you went back to those conversations you would find that I provided sources for the theory that more people were being prosecuted for human trafficking under Trump compared to previous years, which was correct. I also provided clinical evidence and sources that garlic fought cancer, which was also correct. I was correct on both those points, while your position was unable to be defended with sufficient contradictory data or evidence. All you have to offer us is  incredulity, making you a poor arbiter of truth.

Right or wrong, I always provide sources to support a position, and you typically do not provide anything at all, making you the loser of the debate.

We can see here that you are writing paragraphs and paragraphs arguing why you should not need to provide evidence for your position or contradictory sources. A pathetic tactic of someone on the losing side of this.

You have applied attempted name calling, argument of unrelated points; tactics of an unfettered loser.

So you either have data showing that the scientists are wrong about Doppler Shift, or you do not. Incredulity is not going to cut it.

I can predict that you will continue to argue for why you should not need to provide evidence rather than actually providing evidence.

Quote from: JJA on April 11, 2021, 06:14:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 10:38:35 PM

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Ok, lets use your tactics.  Here is a scientific paper claiming the Earth is a globe and rotates.

Oceanic torques on solid Earth and their effects on Earth rotation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JB000339

"The difference in the above behavior between the x and y components is presumably related to the actual geographical distribution of the ocean on the globe."

There you have it. A scientific paper stating the Earth is a globe. Now...

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the globe Earth research by those scientists in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about globe Earth, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Feel free to present that when we actually have a conversation about earth rotation. There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory.

Right now we are talking about Doppler Shift and you have no contradictory expert citations to present to show the arguments and points by the scientists to be wrong at all. What does that say for your position?

Right now we are talking about the Earth being round and you have no contradictory expert citations to present to show the arguments and points by the scientists to be wrong at all. What does that say for your position?

Tom, you are not an expert on round Earth theory, so your opinions on it are meaningless. Cite an expert opinion in a scientific paper that rebuts the sentence in my paper or admit that you are wrong and that the Earth is round. You have failed to provide any sources so you clearly must admit you are wrong. Thank for for proving that.

Quote

Add his support and belief in Q, that garlic cures cancer, and all the other global conspiracies he believes in, it all indicates we are dealing with someone who is highly unreliable.

And if you went back to those conversations you would find that I provided sources for the theory that more people were being prosecuted for human trafficking under Trump compared to previous years, which was correct.

I'm not even going to try and count the number of rabbit holes you just jumped into. Human trafficking has what to do with garlic curing cancer? How's Teh Storm coming along? Pointing out even more of your crazy conspiracies isn't helping your case, Tom.

It's also another common tactic of yours to bring up a subject like "Doppler Shifts" out of the blue, then demand the entire conversation derail to focus on that. "B-b-b-but we were talking about doppler shifts! Mom! Make them stop!"

So you butted into a conversation about Doppler Shift, yet you are unable to keep on that subject and want to talk about a whole variety of things, and adopt avoidance tactics and broad incredulity.

You may as well just leave and concede this discussion about Doppler Shift, because it is apparent that you cannot appropriately rebut the sources.

So you butted into a conversation about Doppler Shift, yet you are unable to keep on that subject and want to talk about a whole variety of things, and adopt avoidance tactics and broad incredulity.

You may as well just leave and concede this discussion about Doppler Shift, because it is apparent that you cannot appropriately rebut the sources.

So you butted into a conversation about how things fall, yet you are unable to keep on that subject and want to talk about a whole variety of things, and adopt avoidance tactics and broad incredulity.

You may as well just leave and concede this discussion about how things fall, because it is apparent that you cannot appropriately rebut the sources.

So you butted into a conversation about Doppler Shift, yet you are unable to keep on that subject and want to talk about a whole variety of things, and adopt avoidance tactics and broad incredulity.

You may as well just leave and concede this discussion about Doppler Shift, because it is apparent that you cannot appropriately rebut the sources.

The topic is how things fall.  CMB was suggested as not compatible with Universal Acceleration (like everything is incompatible with it).

Would you like to explain why these scientists’ work supports flat earth, universal acceleration, or any other silly alternative to gravity you might dream up!

Technically speaking, things do not fall. The earth rises up to meet them.

Have you considered reading the FAQ?

Please explain what exhaustive scientific experiments you have conducted that back up this particular claim. Publishing the results would be a good start.

Quote from: JJA on April 11, 2021, 06:14:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2021, 10:38:35 PM

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Ok, lets use your tactics.  Here is a scientific paper claiming the Earth is a globe and rotates.

Oceanic torques on solid Earth and their effects on Earth rotation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JB000339

"The difference in the above behavior between the x and y components is presumably related to the actual geographical distribution of the ocean on the globe."

There you have it. A scientific paper stating the Earth is a globe. Now...

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the globe Earth research by those scientists in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about globe Earth, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

Feel free to present that when we actually have a conversation about earth rotation. There are a number of points and citations against the rotation theory.

Right now we are talking about Doppler Shift and you have no contradictory expert citations to present to show the arguments and points by the scientists to be wrong at all. What does that say for your position?

Quote

Add his support and belief in Q, that garlic cures cancer, and all the other global conspiracies he believes in, it all indicates we are dealing with someone who is highly unreliable.

And if you went back to those conversations you would find that I provided sources for the theory that more people were being prosecuted for human trafficking under Trump compared to previous years, which was correct. I also provided clinical evidence and sources that garlic fought cancer, which was also correct. I was correct on both those points, while your position was unable to be defended with sufficient contradictory data or evidence. All you have to offer us is  incredulity, making you a poor arbiter of truth.

Right or wrong, I always provide sources to support a position, and you typically do not provide anything at all, making you the loser of the debate.

We can see here that you are writing paragraphs and paragraphs arguing why you should not need to provide evidence for your position or contradictory sources. A pathetic tactic of someone on the losing side of this.

You have applied attempted name calling, argument of unrelated points; tactics of an unfettered loser.

So you either have data showing that the scientists are wrong about Doppler Shift, or you do not. Incredulity is not going to cut it.

I can predict that you will continue to argue for why you should not need to provide evidence rather than actually providing evidence.

The fact the earth rotates is not a theory it's a continuing process.

If you want to try to collect expert quotes to directly contradict and criticize the doppler shift research by those scientists in the tfes wiki, which shows us directly that their statements are wrong about Doppler Shift, feel free to try it. Until then I will assume that you have no qualified opinion to offer on the subject.

To claim the Doppler shift is wrong requires more than a statement on a website it requires exhaustive and corroborated scientific experimentation along with published results that have been verified by a neutral scientific body. I doubt you have any of that. What your whole argument is therefore based on is: its true because I say it is.  Which lets be honest is as weak an argument as one can get.