[guest39538]

White light compresses to form red light, an object moving away from a light source will remain white light.


??

[guest39538]

I have thought some more, it is impossible for light to red shift when an object is moving away as the below diagram shows the physics involved, the white line representing the white light,it can not wave or compress if the object is moving away. We could only create curve in the line if we contracted the distance between the bodies.

added - there is ''tight'' or ''slack'', both red and blue are ''slack'' compared to the ''tight'' white.

[guest39538]

http://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html

When an object moves away from us, the light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, as its wavelengths get longer.

The light could only red shift and lengthen if the light was ''blue'' to begin with.

Red shift is not a longer wavelength, it is a shorter wavelength like blue when comparing to white.

[alancalverd]

Connoisseurs of prime bollocks and bullshit are advised to visit the Royal Highland Agricultural Show. 

[PhysBang]

The choice for anyone reading this is to go with the community of physicists or with someone who just invents their own physics, doesn't care for empirical evidence, and can barely use MS Paint.

[guest39538]

Rather strange replies by yourself and Alan.

I was tempted to say "meaningless drivel" but I don't like repeating myself. 

[PhysBang]

The choice for anyone reading this is to go with the community of physicists or with someone who just invents their own physics, doesn't care for empirical evidence, and can barely use MS Paint.

Rather strange replies by yourself and Alan.  Invent?  I did not invent physical process or the way physical process works.

No, you clearly invent the physical processes that you talk about.

Once I even asked you about why you didn't address a very common part of the physics you claimed to be discussing and you said that you were just using your idea of physics, not established physics.

This thread is a perfect example of your commitment to ignore actual physics and make up your own. Look at the title: "How does red-shift show expansion when a ''red'' wavelength shows compression?" In actual physics, redshift is an example of increased wavelength, not compression. So from the very first you are just indulging in your fantasy physics.

There are many explanations in physics for the phenomena you discuss. But you asking other people to give you an explanation that comes from your own fantasies will never work, because we aren't privy to the fantasy content of your mind.

[guest39538]

The choice for anyone reading this is to go with the community of physicists or with someone who just invents their own physics, doesn't care for empirical evidence, and can barely use MS Paint.

Rather strange replies by yourself and Alan.  Invent?  I did not invent physical process or the way physical process works.

No, you clearly invent the physical processes that you talk about.

Once I even asked you about why you didn't address a very common part of the physics you claimed to be discussing and you said that you were just using your idea of physics, not established physics.

This thread is a perfect example of your commitment to ignore actual physics and make up your own. Look at the title: "How does red-shift show expansion when a ''red'' wavelength shows compression?" In actual physics, redshift is an example of increased wavelength, not compression. So from the very first you are just indulging in your fantasy physics.

There are many explanations in physics for the phenomena you discuss. But you asking other people to give you an explanation that comes from your own fantasies will never work, because we aren't privy to the fantasy content of your mind.

You are looking at the light from the perspective of the light, red-shift about 700nm is a longer wave length than 400nm, at about 750nm visible light becomes  invisible light such as radio waves. you are not looking from the observers perspective that is ''red-shifting' or considering that 400nm is more compressed than 700nm , i'e more hf per length of space .

Red shift is and does explain approx from 100nm ''stretching'' to about 700nm, however red is still compressed compared to 750nm , ok?

Added- and regardless a shorter wavelength is ''blue'' , it is suggestive that we see ''blue'' of free space and not the ''white'' light (gin clear). 

The ''white'' light being a longer wavelength than 700nm, the light would have to be contracting to observe 700nm,

Basic physics.

[PhysBang]

No, fantasy physics.

[agyejy]

Added- and regardless a shorter wavelength is ''blue'' , it is suggestive that we see ''blue'' of free space and not the ''white'' light (gin clear). 

The ''white'' light being a longer wavelength than 700nm, the light would have to be contracting to observe 700nm,

Basic physics.

Seriously? Like one of the very first things anyone teacher ever teaches about light is that white light is a mixture of all the different wavelengths of visible light from about 700 nm to about 390 nm. White light does not have a wavelength and cannot have a wavelength because it is a logical abstraction humans use to simplify things so they don't have to say "a mixture of the entire visible spectrum" or some such nonsense all the time. This is elementary school stuff. I refuse to believe you do not understand this because if you truly don't then I'm at a loss in regards to how you've managed to operate a computer and find your way here.

[guest39538]

No, fantasy physics.

Really ? so you do not think that blue is a shorter wave length than red?

end of argument.

[guest39538]

Added- and regardless a shorter wavelength is ''blue'' , it is suggestive that we see ''blue'' of free space and not the ''white'' light (gin clear). 

The ''white'' light being a longer wavelength than 700nm, the light would have to be contracting to observe 700nm,

Basic physics.

Seriously? Like one of the very first things anyone teacher ever teaches about light is that white light is a mixture of all the different wavelengths of visible light from about 700 nm to about 390 nm. White light does not have a wavelength and cannot have a wavelength because it is a logical abstraction humans use to simplify things so they don't have to say "a mixture of the entire visible spectrum" or some such nonsense all the time. This is elementary school stuff. I refuse to believe you do not understand this because if you truly don't then I'm at a loss in regards to how you've managed to operate a computer and find your way here.

Seriously ! red is longer than blue, no more is needed.

[Colin2B]

This question contains a false premise, but it is hard to know whether it is new theory or that can't be true.
We'll give it benefit of doubt.

[guest39538]

This question contains a false premise, but it is hard to know whether it is new theory or that can't be true.
We'll give it benefit of doubt.

A false premise?

There is no false premise it is your evidence not mine.


Red-shift is a wave-length becoming longer, therefore it has to be short to begin with, short = blue you know that Colin, short does not equal the invisible light in free space.
Science is quite clearly wrong somewhere, the physics , your physics says so.

It is not a theory , it is not cant be true, it is your version cant be true because your evidence says it cant be true. I am pointing this out to you, you either want to know most of your ''tools' are broken or you don't, It does not bother me either way if science wants to continue researching fairy tales.

[guest39538]

This is all the formations and the correct interpretation.