[guest39538]

I drew it you before i go off , the red -shift is our  end not the object end,


red.jpg (69.7 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 7798 times)

That scribble offers no explanation of why the shift happens- it just repeats your unevinced claim.

Do you even science?

Jeepers you are slow sometimes, the light that reaches you is so weak, the lens of the telescopes permeability makes the light red-shift. You are observing the red shift of the light passing through the lens.

It is not stretching , it is compressing.

[guest39538]

Relative to the receding object, it is the telescope that is receding.

[guest39538]

so easy peasy.jpg (60.89 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 3875 times)

[Bored chemist]

the lens of the telescopes permeability makes the light red-shift. You are observing the red shift of the light passing through the lens.

Practically all the equipment we use for observing the wavelength of light  involves passing it through lenses.
You must be really slow to not recognise that, if the lenses were responsible, we would see the effect on everything, not just very distant objects.
You may also be too ill-informed to know that distant stars are not the only very weak light sources we look at, and the effect isn't found in other cases- only distant stars and such.

Your diagrams still mean nothing.

[guest39538]

the lens of the telescopes permeability makes the light red-shift. You are observing the red shift of the light passing through the lens.

Practically all the equipment we use for observing the wavelength of light  involves passing it through lenses.
You must be really slow to not recognise that, if the lenses were responsible, we would see the effect on everything, not just very distant objects.
You may also be too ill-informed to know that distant stars are not the only very weak light sources we look at, and the effect isn't found in other cases- only distant stars and such.

Your diagrams still mean nothing.

Quite clearly you never understood Einstein, it is impossible to tell which observer is moving. 


Consider the Doppler affect, when an object is moving away from a light source the light red-shifts.   So what happens if a telescope is moving away from the light source while viewing the light source?

[guest39538]

redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased decreased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increasedecrease in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

[guest39538]

shorter.jpg (51.51 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 3777 times)

[The Spoon]

I can correct this and they ignore this.  Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...

ok?

No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
You were unable to say what "field density " is.

Had you forgotten?

I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.

What? For a colouring in book?

[guest39538]

I can correct this and they ignore this.  Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...

ok?

No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
You were unable to say what "field density " is.

Had you forgotten?

I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.

What? For a colouring in book?

Lame challenge, come back when you get funny hair , a big plastic red nose and some big shoes.

[PmbPhy]

quote author=Thebox]
You as per most ignore direct questions, I asked you a question about magnetic force,  but replied with a subjective answer ''attacking'' the messenger.  If your logic is so good, you will have no trouble answering my question.
[/quote]
All quite wrong. I didn't attack you and everyone here, except you who feels persecuted, knows that. I read the first post and called you on it. I don't care what else you said nor do I read 99% of what you post. You're in my ignore list. I was merely curios about your challenge to a rumble. Then you turned to insults like in this post so I'm ignoring you again. Perhaps for another month or year.

[guest39538]

quote author=Thebox]
You as per most ignore direct questions, I asked you a question about magnetic force,  but replied with a subjective answer ''attacking'' the messenger.  If your logic is so good, you will have no trouble answering my question.

All quite wrong. I didn't attack you and everyone here, except you who feels persecuted, knows that. I read the first post and called you on it. I don't care what else you said nor do I read 99% of what you post. You're in my ignore list. I was merely curios about your challenge to a rumble. Then you turned to insults like in this post so I'm ignoring you again. Perhaps for another month or year.
[/quote]
lame, I have not insulted you, you stick to defended  your scientism of lies and ignoring the real science.

[Bored chemist]

Quite clearly you never understood Einstein, it is impossible to tell which observer is moving. 

It doesn't matter if  I understand it or not.
I never said anything that relies in any way on determining which observer is moving.

So, it's clear that you are posting nonsense.

 So what happens if a telescope is moving away from the light source while viewing the light source?

It gets further from the light source.

Did you think you had made some sort of point?

If someone was looking through the telescope they would see a reed shifted source.
And if the source was bi or bright enough they would see exactly the same red shift without the telescope.
The telescope does not significantly change the colour of the light passing through it. They go to a lot of trouble to avoid that.

redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased decreased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum.

Which one do you mean
(I know the  editor has lost the strike-through, but that's not the point)

[Kryptid]

I have a hypothesis of my own. I think it's quite possible that debating the merits of his ideas was only a secondary reason for Thebox creating this thread. He already has multiple threads about those in the "New Theories" section, so he could have just gone back and posted in one of those. He also seems just as tired of debating it as the rest of us are (based on his quote of "The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it.") It may be that his main purpose for creating this thread was an attempt to get himself banned.

I know that might sound crazy, but hear me out. He has specifically asked to be banned in the past when his threads were locked. He framed it in such a way that the lock was due to a persecution of his ideas and not a result of his behavior. Take note how he said in this very thread, "Is this the point I now get banned because I will not conform to your subjective brainwashing?" If he was banned, then he would become the victim. He would be a "martyr" for his ideas. It would be "proof" that his brilliant insight is being suppressed. That would only confirm just how right he was all along. Kind of a "You couldn't prove me wrong, so you had to silence me" sort of thing.

He seems to think that scientists are not out to make new discoveries, but are instead preoccupied with protecting the status quo from dangerous and disruptive "truths" (a mindset that isn't exactly rare on this board. Yaniv and tkadm30 come to mind as well). Maybe he is even hoping to use this hypothetical ban as a point of discussion in the book he wants to write.

Now, I may be way off the mark, but that's just how it seems to me based on his past (and current) behavior.

[Bored chemist]

You could be right.
Perhaps we should help him with his book in that way.

[Colin2B]

@Kryptid I have been convinced of this for some while, I think he sees banning as a badge or vindication, certainly another notch on the gun.
The other thing he craves is attention. Anything, no matter how outlandish to pull in the suckers.

If he gets banned it won’t be for his theories.

[guest39538]

I have a hypothesis of my own. I think it's quite possible that debating the merits of his ideas was only a secondary reason for Thebox creating this thread. He already has multiple threads about those in the "New Theories" section, so he could have just gone back and posted in one of those. He also seems just as tired of debating it as the rest of us are (based on his quote of "The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it.") It may be that his main purpose for creating this thread was an attempt to get himself banned.

I know that might sound crazy, but hear me out. He has specifically asked to be banned in the past when his threads were locked. He framed it in such a way that the lock was due to a persecution of his ideas and not a result of his behavior. Take note how he said in this very thread, "Is this the point I now get banned because I will not conform to your subjective brainwashing?" If he was banned, then he would become the victim. He would be a "martyr" for his ideas. It would be "proof" that his brilliant insight is being suppressed. That would only confirm just how right he was all along. Kind of a "You couldn't prove me wrong, so you had to silence me" sort of thing.

He seems to think that scientists are not out to make new discoveries, but are instead preoccupied with protecting the status quo from dangerous and disruptive "truths" (a mindset that isn't exactly rare on this board. Yaniv and tkadm30 come to mind as well). Maybe he is even hoping to use this hypothetical ban as a point of discussion in the book he wants to write.

Now, I may be way off the mark, but that's just how it seems to me based on his past (and current) behavior.

I  have got to admit you people are interesting from a psychological viewpoint.   Why is it , every time you have no answer to something, you gang up like a bunch of school children and start crying and blaming the poster for your lack of interest in discussing the topic?

Your  cognitive dissonance is astounding and your defence of your scientism is rather boring the world now, hardly anybody believes such rubbish anymore .

Do  you think your stories will continue to work for you when people can and are seeing right through the subjectivity you teach that is not even rational?

[guest39538]

That been said, I am still willing to help you to correct the semantics and make it more conforming to reality.

[atbsphotography]

Prove static could not build up in a single point of a void?
You can't because the void is already occupied. 
My idea works better than no idea, such as before the big bang there was nothing.

Does it though a void is empty of anything, hence it is called a void.

noun
noun: void; plural noun: voids

    1.
    a completely empty space.
    "the black void of space"

If a void is occupied then it isn't a void because something is occupying that space. Therefore static can't build up in a void, static has to have something that creates it using friction, in a void, there is nothing that can create the static.

The general consensus is your idea doesn't work better than anything cause there is nothing for it to work on.

[guest39538]

If a void is occupied then it isn't a void because something is occupying that space. Therefore static can't build up in a void, static has to have something that creates it using friction, in a void, there is nothing that can create the static.

The general consensus is your idea doesn't work better than anything cause there is nothing for it to work on.

A void is a void until something happens to make it not a void, i.e a spark in the ''dark''.

Well I guess I will just have to proclaim that science is wrong and religion is right because science cannot give me an answer then .

[Colin2B]

@Thebox @atbsphotography
These long quotes in the last few posts use up a lot of bandwidth and make the threads hard to follow. Please edit your quotes to the specific point you are answering.
Thank you