Testing Einstein's equivalence principle near a supermassive black hole

Testing Einstein's equivalence principle near a supermassive black hole
Image of the Galactic Centre. Credit: European Southern Observatory (ESO).

The GRAVITY Collaboration, a team of researchers at several renowned institutes including the Max Planck Institute, LESIA Paris Observatory and the European Southern Observatory, has recently tested part of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, namely the local positon invariance (LPI), near the galactic center supermassive black hole. Their study, published on Physics Review Letters (PRL), investigated the dependency of different atomic transitions on the gravitational potential in order to give an upper limit on LPI violations.

"General relativity and in general all metric theories of gravity are based on the of inertial mass and gravitational mass, formalized in the Einstein ," Maryam Habibi, one of the researchers who carried out the study, told Phys.org. "General relativity is the best theory of gravity that we have, however, there are still many unanswered puzzles that are closely tied to our incomplete understanding of gravity."

The equivalence principle, a crucial part of Einstein's general relativity theory, states that the experienced in any small region of space-time is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in an accelerated frame of reference. Testing this principle is of key importance, as it could lead to interesting observations and broaden our current understanding of gravity.

"Einstein's equivalence principle consists of three main principles," Habibi explained. "One of them, called the local position invariance (LPI), states that non-gravitational measurements should be independent of the location in space time (characterized by gravitational potential) where they are carried out. The main part of our study focuses on testing the LPI principle."

Past observations suggest that most, if not all, massive galaxies contain a supermassive black hole, which is typically located at the center of a galaxy. The mass of the Milky Way's supermassive black hole is 4 million times greater than that of the sun. It thus generates the strongest gravitational field in the galaxy, which makes it the ideal place to hunt for unexplored phenomena and test general relativity principles.

Star S2, one of the brightest stars in the Milky Way's innermost region, has its closest encounter with the galactic center supermassive black hole at a distance of 16.3 light hours. In other words, the star takes 16 years to make a complete orbit around the black hole, which in astronomical time scales is extremely short. S2 moves in and out of the black hole's gravitational field, hence the GRAVITY collaboration team decided to use it to test part of Einstein's equivalence principle.

"As it was predicted, and we showed in a previous study published in June 2018, during the closest approach of the star S2 to the black hole we observe the 'gravitational redshift' in the light of the star," Habibi explained. "Gravitational redshift occurs because intense gravity on the star's surface slows the vibration of light waves, stretching them and making the star appear redder than normal from Earth."

To test Einstein's LPI principle, the researchers used two different types of atoms in S2's stellar atmosphere: hydrogen and helium atoms. The LPI principle states that the gravitational redshift seen in a star that is flying in and out of a strong gravitational field only depends on the and does not rely on other parameters, such as the internal structure of the atom.

Testing Einstein's equivalence principle near a supermassive black hole
Image shows one of the Unit Telescopes of ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) array, pointing a laser beam towards the Milky Way to create an artificial star. Credit: European Southern Observatory (ESO).

"We measured the frequency change of light from these atoms moving through a varying potential," Habibi said. "The vibration of light waves was measured by fitting the line-of-sight velocity of the S2's spectrum using the Hydrogen and Helium spectral lines separately. By measuring the difference in frequency change for both atoms we were able to give an upper limit on the LPI violation during the pericenter passage. If there was an obvious violation of LPI, we should have measured very different vibration of light waves, from the helium and hydrogen lines."

The equivalence principle and general relativity at large are merely theories, thus they need to be tested in order to ascertain their validity. So far, most researchers have carried out tests on Earth and in the solar system.

However, these theories should also be tested in extreme scenarios, as this can determine whether they still hold and lead to more conclusive evidence. Such tests could rule out some of the principles that shape our current understanding of gravity or identify violations from the theory of general relativity.

"Testing the equivalence principle in all different regimes is important as several alternative theories of gravitation predict a violation from it under extreme conditions," Felix Widmann, another researcher involved in the study, told Phys.org. "For me the most meaningful finding of our study is that we were able to test the equivalence principle in this most extreme case: close to a supermassive black hole that is over 20 thousand light years away. The limits we put on a violation are not very restrictive yet, but they are in a gravitational regime that was completely untested before."

Habibi, Widmann and their colleagues were among the first to test part of the equivalence principle near the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole. Their work provides valuable insight about the validity of general relativity, particularly the LPI principle.

"The past year was exceptionally successful for the GRAVITY collaboration," Widmann said. "For the first time, we observed relativistic effects in the orbit of a star around a supermassive black hole and used this star to test the Equivalence Principle. We also observed material orbiting very close to the black hole, another observation which would have been impossible without GRAVITY. However, this is more of a start than an end for us."

With the optimal season for galactic center observation just around the corner, the researchers at GRAVITY collaboration will continue to point their telescopes to S2 and the galactic center . According to Widmann, the team might soon be able to detect subtler relativistic effects in the orbit of S2, which will allow them to test the theory of once again. In their future observations, the researchers also hope that they will see more flare activity around the black hole, as this would enable further studies aimed at broadening their understanding of the Milky Way's galactic center black hole and black holes in general.

"With future telescopes like the Extremely Large Telescope, which has a mirror of 39m in diameter, we will be able to perform similar experiments and look for 1 million times smaller effects of possible violations of LPI, compared to what it is possible today," Widmann added. "This will allow us to test the other part of Einstein's equivalence principle, called weak equivalence principle, which states that an object in gravitational free fall is physically equivalent to an object that is accelerating with the same amount of force in the absence of . The galactic center is a unique observatory and with GRAVITY and future telescopes we want to learn as much about it as possible."


Explore further

First successful test of Einstein's general relativity near supermassive black hole (Update)

More information: A. Amorim et al. Test of the Einstein Equivalence Principle near the Galactic Center Supermassive Black Hole, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.101102

Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2018). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Testing Einstein's equivalence principle near a supermassive black hole (2019, March 29) retrieved 27 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-einstein-equivalence-principle-supermassive-black.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1213 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 29, 2019
Ah, another validation of a part of GR, and they used the non-existent SMBH.
Fascinating !

How will the anti-intellectuals ever get over this one ???

Mar 29, 2019
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency.

S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology.

Mar 29, 2019
Some quasar black holes are estimated at 10,000 times more massive than the Milky Way's. So, if the gravity of a black hole at the centre of the Milky Way can cause a discernible redshift in a star, doesn't that suggest that quasar redshifts may be gravitational, and that they are therefore not at the extreme distances inferred from a Doppler shift interpretation?

Mar 29, 2019
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency.

S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology.


Complete and utter crap. Get an education.

Mar 29, 2019
Some quasar black holes are estimated at 10,000 times more massive than the Milky Way's. So, if the gravity of a black hole at the centre of the Milky Way can cause a discernible redshift in a star, doesn't that suggest that quasar redshifts may be gravitational, and that they are therefore not at the extreme distances inferred from a Doppler shift interpretation?


Nope.

Mar 29, 2019
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency.

S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology.


Complete and utter crap. Get an education.
......coming from an anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve like I need to be able to do everyday.

Hey, your Stars are gone, soon most of you other monikers as well, let's just see how fast they start dropping out of the Commentary here, this has to be a really bad day for you here knowing picking around out in the weeds & tall grass won't suffice for real science anymore.

Mar 29, 2019
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency.

S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology.


Complete and utter crap. Get an education.
......coming from an anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve like I need to be able to do everyday.


Useless poser. You have been shown not to understand even basic maths. You didn't even recognise a DE when you were shown one, you liar. And I am not an anthropologist you lying weirdo. Reported.


Mar 29, 2019
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency.

S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology.


Complete and utter crap. Get an education.
.
.....coming from an anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve like I need to be able to do everyday.


Useless poser. You have been shown not to understand even basic maths. You didn't even recognise a DE when you were shown one, you liar. And I am not an anthropologist you lying weirdo.
.......how castrOAted you must feel not being able to up or down vote anymore.

Mar 29, 2019
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency.

S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology.


Complete and utter crap. Get an education.
.
.....coming from an anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve like I need to be able to do everyday.


Useless poser. You have been shown not to understand even basic maths. You didn't even recognise a DE when you were shown one, you liar. And I am not an anthropologist you lying weirdo.
.......how castrOAted you must feel not being able to up or down vote anymore.


Reported.

Mar 29, 2019
Useless poser. You have been shown not to understand even basic maths. You didn't even recognise a DE when you were shown one, you liar. And I am not an anthropologist you lying weirdo


Reported, email submission to site Administrators as well.

Mar 29, 2019
"...the non-existent SMBH." --kl3.14159

And if it DID exist, it would be flat, right?

Mar 29, 2019
Useless poser. You have been shown not to understand even basic maths. You didn't even recognise a DE when you were shown one, you liar. And I am not an anthropologist you lying weirdo


Reported, email submission to site Administrators as well.


Awww diddums! Don't like people calling you out on your lies? Then stop lying.

Mar 29, 2019
"how castrOAted you must feel not being able to up or down vote anymore." --Benni

The end of comment-voting is something every website should share. People should be forced to offer their verbal approbation or rebuttal, and not lazyasz downvote or upvote stuff without having to actually mobilize a few brain-cells to show what PART of a statement they object to.

Mar 29, 2019
"...the non-existent SMBH." --kl3.14159

And if it DID exist, it would be flat, right?


@danR
It was a jab at the likes of Benni and its genius buddies who don't believe in existence of BH's, hehehe.

Mar 29, 2019

...coming from an anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve like I need to be able to do everyday.


Aaw, so cute ! Says the differential equasionists that doesn't understand the meaning of 'average', can't solve a simple equation and thinks free neutron decay is exactly 14.7 minutes.
Oh and cannot give us the name or the authors of textbooks he learned from...

The self delusion is grand ! Majestic even !


Mar 29, 2019
2019 paper is on Arxiv, here;

https://arxiv.org...4193.pdf

2018 paper is free access on A & A;

https://www.aanda...8-18.pdf

Mar 29, 2019
"I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology."

What kind of arrogance does it take to declare that a team of scientists from several different agencies and nationalities wouldn't understand the basics of a stars motion, forget to account for these basics, and declare their observations are the result of a SMBH.

"It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency."

This could be a direct quote form any basic science documentary on netflix or the rotted out bloated corps that is the history channel these days.

Why do you care so much Benni? What drives you? What's your end game? At least that Fred guy just wants us all to go to church, or that bigot who just wants us to drop the ISS into the atmosphere. But what do you want?

Mar 29, 2019
The equivalence principle (EP) was among the first to disappear to cosmic garbage bag as a corollary among some 5-10 other mistakes of traditional GR/QM theories. They were caused by the biggest epicycle mistake of assuming an eternally constant speed of light C in the spacetime system - disconnected from the variable contraction/expansion speed C4 of the Riemann 4-radius R4. The resulting unified cosmic and physics theory of Dynamic Universe (DU) since 1990's has explained the EP mistakes using past GR 'proofs' of Mercury perihelion advance, Earth-to-Moon distance measurements, early 'GW proof' of binary star merge and Sagittarius BH capturing surrounding material to stable orbits to maintain its mass. See Suntola DU literature for other proofs of EP and GR/QM mistakes.

Mar 29, 2019
The equivalence principle (EP) was among the first to disappear to cosmic garbage bag as a corollary among some 5-10 other mistakes of traditional GR/QM theories. They were caused by the biggest epicycle mistake of assuming an eternally constant speed of light C in the spacetime system - disconnected from the variable contraction/expansion speed C4 of the Riemann 4-radius R4. The resulting unified cosmic and physics theory of Dynamic Universe (DU) since 1990's has explained the EP mistakes using past GR 'proofs' of Mercury perihelion advance, Earth-to-Moon distance measurements, early 'GW proof' of binary star merge and Sagittarius BH capturing surrounding material to stable orbits to maintain its mass. See Suntola DU literature for other proofs of EP and GR/QM mistakes.


Pure pseudoscience.

Mar 29, 2019
Why do you care so much Benni?
Why do you care so much that you need to pay so much attention to what I write?

What drives you?
.....driving the Immutable Fantasies of the Pop-Cosmology Culture into the garbage can where it belongs

What's your end game?
......science, and yours is Pop-Cosmology Fantasy.

Mar 29, 2019
Why do you care so much Benni?
Why do you care so much that you need to pay so much attention to what I write?

What drives you?
.....driving the Immutable Fantasies of the Pop-Cosmology Culture into the garbage can where it belongs

What's your end game?
......science, and yours is Pop-Cosmology Fantasy.


You don't know any science.

Mar 29, 2019
Some quasar black holes are estimated at 10,000 times more massive than the Milky Way's. So, if the gravity of a black hole at the centre of the Milky Way can cause a discernible redshift in a star, doesn't that suggest that quasar redshifts may be gravitational, and that they are therefore not at the extreme distances inferred from a Doppler shift interpretation?

Indeed. I recall a story with a minor quasar with high red-shift found inside a nearby galaxy. It should not be there. Can't find the story in the short term. Will have to investigate.

Mar 29, 2019
Well Benni I come to these comments to learn about what scientists are doing/learning. I'm not exposed to these events in day to day life and I believe they are important so here I am.

I started coming to these comments to supplement the articles, to see what people have to say in regards to these topic, and occasionally chime in a thought or two, sometimes to show my appreciation or ask questions. Mostly I enjoy the conversations between individuals disusing competing theories such as MOND or WIMP ( yes yes i know you think it's all nonsense) simply to get exposure to it all.

Then there's you and the other flavors of people who clog every other article with the rejection of "mainstream" science, which I'm initially all for but left disappointed when you have no supporting evidence or even an attempt at real supporting science. We get links discussing why BH are a thing from you, or youtube videos from others, which leaves me asking why, why bother?

So really it's curiosity.

Mar 29, 2019
Well Benni I come to these comments to learn about what scientists are doing/learning.....Then there's you and the other flavors of people who clog every other article with the rejection of "mainstream" science, which I'm initially all for but left disappointed when you have no supporting evidence or even an attempt at Then there's you and the other flavors of people who clog every other article with the rejection of "mainstream" science, which I'm initially all for but left disappointed when you have no supporting evidence or even an attempt at real supporting science. .
.......you're getting it backwards about the "real supporting science".

You do not believe in IMMUTABLE LAWS of PHYSICS whereby GRAVITY is MASS DEPENDENT, instead you believe infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass called a BH & you call that "real science", no, it's science fiction & you don't like Benni coming here challenging you to prove it's a wrong assertion on my part..

Mar 29, 2019
@kl31415.
Ah, another validation of a part of GR, and they used the non-existent SMBH.
Fascinating!
Agreed. This is the kind of good, solid astrophysical science that just gets on with the job without too many assumptions/biases built into their analysis/models. Well done those guys! :)

As for @Benni's 'Doppler shift' angle, I am assuming the observers took measurements BOTH 'coming and going' so as to cancel out any strictly approaching/receding Doppler effects so as to isolate the gravitational effects only as the star swung round its orbit around the Extreme Gravitationally active 'Black Feature'. I hope so, anyway. If so, then @Benni's Doppler-only 'explanation' won't wash.

I have one slight peeve, though, re the above article; ie:
Gravitational redshift occurs because intense gravity on the star's surface slows the vibration of light waves, stretching them...
Actually, it's the internal Cycle Rate (or 'clock rate') of Emitting Particles that's slowed. :)

Mar 29, 2019
You do not believe in IMMUTABLE LAWS of PHYSICS whereby GRAVITY is MASS DEPENDENT, instead you believe infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass called a BH & you call that "real science", no, it's science fiction & you don't like Benni coming here challenging you to prove it's a wrong assertion on my part..


You haven't got a clue about physics. As proven.

Mar 29, 2019
.....you believe infinite gravity can exist at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass called a BH


Who said anything about infinite gravity? I think you made that up. You really should get an education before commenting on things that are currently well beyond your ability to understand.

Mar 29, 2019
What's this "infinite gravity" thing about? It doesn't take "infinite gravity" to bend the path of light; the Sun can do it. Eddington, 1919. We already been down this road, and it ends at the goal: relativity.

@Benni already admitted this, and it was so infuriated it started lying again.

Mar 29, 2019
@Benni.
@Castrogiovanni.

@Benni, please also read my post to @kl31415. Can you please stop making those baseless strawman baiting posts against your interlocutors. It's no longer 'cute' or 'funny' or 'entertaining'. Please post/comment based on tenable science/claims, else just read in silence like a reasonable, self-controlled adult until you have something new and/or substantive in tenable science/logics to offer the forum. Thanks.

@Castrogiovanni, please stop posting insults in lieu of proper scientific/logical rebuttals. Just as for @Benni's strawmen and baits, it's no longer 'cute' or 'funny' or 'entertaining'. Thanks.

Mar 29, 2019
What's this "infinite gravity" thing about? It doesn't take "infinite gravity" to bend the path of light; the Sun can do it. Eddington, 1919. We already been down this road, and it ends at the goal: relativity.

@Benni already admitted this, and it was so infuriated it started lying again.
.......well then schneibo, until you're ready to explain, stop harping on it, in other words, "Put up or shut up".


Mar 29, 2019
As for @Benni's 'Doppler shift' angle, I am assuming the observers took measurements BOTH 'coming and going' so as to cancel out any strictly approaching/receding Doppler effects so as to isolate the gravitational effects only as the star swung round its orbit around
....this is why it's a lousy report.

And to top off they don't even mention how S2 was imaged so that it's orbit could be tracked.
Due to the fact that SgrA* is so completely occluded in dust, only infrared imaging can cut through the clutter, like the Gemini at Keck. Just this dust barrier alone is a huge amount of redshift that needs to be nulled & must undoubtedly be filled with lots of error because there no way it can be precise.

@Benni's Doppler-only 'explanation' won't wash.
.....hard of reading, I didn't have a "Doppler only explanation........learn to read, and then go study BARYCENTER.

Mar 29, 2019
Do you really think that I will ever bother to read anything you post again, @Benni, now that you can't make votes, for anything but personal amusement?

I will only respond seriously to those who are serious. You are not serious; you are a troll, and if I don't want to I never have to see anything more of your sickness.

I am in favor of the elimination or at least leveling and simplification of rating posts. At a minimum you should not be allowed to downvote someone who has ignored you's post.

I'm thinking a nice big popup that says, "You are not permitted to vote on this post because the poster has ignored you."

Mar 29, 2019
As for @Benni's 'Doppler shift' angle, I am assuming the observers took measurements BOTH 'coming and going' so as to cancel out any strictly approaching/receding Doppler effects so as to isolate the gravitational effects only as the star swung round its orbit around
....this is why it's a lousy report.

And to top off they don't even mention how S2 was imaged so that it's orbit could be tracked.
Due to the fact that SgrA* is so completely occluded in dust, only infrared imaging can cut through the clutter, like the Gemini at Keck. Just this dust barrier alone is a huge amount of redshift that needs to be nulled & must undoubtedly be filled with lots of error because there no way it can be precise.

@Benni's Doppler-only 'explanation' won't wash.
.....hard of reading, I didn't have a "Doppler only explanation........learn to read, and then go study BARYCENTER.


More evidence of Benni's complete lack of knowledge of the subject. Barycentre! Lol.

Mar 29, 2019
I can't speak for everyone who ever posted here about BH's and gravity, but I don't recall any claim about 'infinite' gravity at/around the vicinity of BHs, and I don't even know what that would mean. In fact, I don't recall seeing the concept being raised before in any outlet--paper or digital--orthodox, heterodox, heretical, or paranoid.

Mar 29, 2019
Do you really think that I will ever bother to read anything you post again, @Benni, now that you can't make votes
.......and constantly badgering you about your clinging to 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath calculations for BHs that was concocted by the same bunch who brought us Aether Theory, & Particle Light Theory.


Mar 29, 2019
In fact, I am even in favor of a system for article votes that simply doesn't change anything if you attempt to vote on an article by someone who has ignored you. No warning. It just doesn't change. They'll figure it out quick enough.

Mar 29, 2019
Do you really think that I will ever bother to read anything you post again, @Benni, now that you can't make votes
.......and constantly badgering you about your clinging to 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath calculations for BHs that was concocted by the same bunch who brought us Aether Theory, & Particle Light Theory.



Go away. You really haven't got a clue.

Mar 29, 2019
Just for any lurkerz.

TUG is the 17th century theory of gravity by Newton; it stands for Theory of Universal Gravitation.

Its most important equation is

F = GMm/r²

You can recover this equation from General Relativity Theory (GRT) under precise conditions of spacetime curvature. NASA uses it. Despite its being 17th century math. Which, BTW, has correctly predicted every apparition of Halley's Comet since.

Mar 29, 2019
I can't speak for everyone who ever posted here about BH's and gravity, but I don't recall any claim about 'infinite' gravity at/around the vicinity of BHs, I don't recall seeing the concept being raised before in any outlet--paper or digital--orthodox, heterodox, heretical, or paranoid.


Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity: https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."


Mar 29, 2019
And to top off they don't even mention how S2 was imaged so that it's orbit could be tracked.


Inability to read English added to the list of things Benni is crap at!

Over the past 26 years, we have monitored the radial velocity and motion on the sky of S2, mainly with the SINFONI and NACO adaptive optics instruments on the ESO Very Large Telescope, and since 2016 and leading up to the pericentre approach in May 2018, with the four telescope interferometric beam-combiner instrument GRAVITY.


Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole
GRAVITY Collaboration
https://www.aanda...8-18.pdf

Mar 29, 2019
UG is the 17th century theory of gravity by Newton; it stands for Theory of Universal Gravitation.

Its most important equation is

F = GMm/r²
........and this equation will never create a black hole. You've been challenged time & again how to use this equation to prove how YOUR TUGMath, and you have always failed the challenge. Maybe you should go have another talk with the Aether & Particle Light theory guys from your favorite century of Cosmology in the 1800's.

Mar 29, 2019
I can't speak for everyone who ever posted here about BH's and gravity, but I don't recall any claim about 'infinite' gravity at/around the vicinity of BHs, I don't recall seeing the concept being raised before in any outlet--paper or digital--orthodox, heterodox, heretical, or paranoid.


Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity: https://en.wikipe...ack_hole



Which ain't happening. That is where GR breaks down. As you've been told many times.


Mar 29, 2019
"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. "

My eyes must be deceiving me. I see no '(gravity)' in my copy of "...where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite."

Mar 29, 2019

Which ain't happening. That is where GR breaks down. As you've been told many times.

Also, I think it's a number of steps between Sean Carrol's book's wording, to Wikipedia, to the quote from Wikipedia, to the insertion of 'gravity' into the quote.

Mar 29, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way


And how many times have you posted that same rubbish?

Do not 'crosspost': Do not keep posting the same message, or very similar messages.

https://sciencex....omments/

Reported.

Mar 29, 2019
@Benni.
@Benni's Doppler-only 'explanation' won't wash.
.....hard of reading, I didn't have a "Doppler only explanation........learn to read, and then go study BARYCENTER.
This is the condensed gist of what you said, Benni:
It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency. ......S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter.
See? You ONLY alluded to Doppler effect. Then you threw in "barycenter" gambit which I already/often explained to you why it cannot be such. So please, mate, if you really want to make a contribution to real objective science/logics/discourse here (and not just perpetuate old personal trolling/insulting feuds), then recall what has already been explained to you and leave off repeating the same old strawmen/baiting gambits. Please. :)

Mar 29, 2019
"The equivalence principle and general relativity at large are *merely theories*, thus they need to be tested in order to ascertain their validity. "
I cannot believe I read such a sentence here. In a "feature article" as well... Please look up what the words "theory", "hypothesis" and "conjecture" mean. Not colloquially, in science and math.

Mar 29, 2019
Some quasar black holes are estimated at 10,000 times more massive than the Milky Way's. So, if the gravity of a black hole at the centre of the Milky Way can cause a discernible redshift in a star, doesn't that suggest that quasar redshifts may be gravitational, and that they are therefore not at the extreme distances inferred from a Doppler shift interpretation?


Nope.
says Castrovagina

I think that you owe KenFine a good explanation for your "Nope". By saying "Nope" and leaving it at that, you only reveal yourself to be an uneducated blowhard who doesn't seem to comprehend what has been said in KenFine's comment/query.
Do try to behave yourself in this new day of a change in physorg's format.

Mar 29, 2019
"It's called receding doppler effect when light waves of a moving source experience the Doppler effect that results in either a red shift or blue shift in the light's frequency. "

"S2 makes a sudden turn back to the direction it came from & it gives up kinetic energy to make the turn around the barycenter. When it loses that kinetic energy upon making a sudden turn, infrared is the most common loss of EM Energy. I guess they forgot about this at the Max Inst of Pop-Cosmology."

Hey, Unreal, hard of reading, the context is within that of KINETIC Energy loss via Doppler effect used only as ONE aspect for which no highlight of mention was made in the Report. You want to get into Compton Photon Scattering effects for Elastic & Inelastic scattering causing redshift effect, and then gravity redshifting/blueshifting effects, that's three different means of wavelength shift.

Care to tell us more about your 19th Century Dark Star that you & schneibo have cooked up between the two of you?


Mar 29, 2019
I think that you owe KenFine a good explanation for your "Nope". By saying "Nope" and leaving it at that, you only reveal yourself to be an uneducated blowhard who doesn't seem to comprehend what has been said in KenFine's comment/query.
Do try to behave yourself in this new day of a change in physorg's format.


I think you need to take a hike. Even an idiot could figure out why he was talking nonsense. Do I need to spell it out for any idiots out there?

Hint - are they measuring light from a single star? Or is it the combined light from a long way from the BH?

https://astrobite...ed-agns/

Mar 29, 2019
Ha, the Blocking Bastards function cut this thread to pieces. I won't name the usual suspects, they are forgettable so already forgotten now. We have wind in the sails, yet. Yaarrrh!

Some quasar black holes are estimated at 10,000 times more massive than the Milky Way's. So, if the gravity of a black hole at the centre of the Milky Way can cause a discernible redshift in a star, doesn't that suggest that quasar redshifts may be gravitational, and that they are therefore not at the extreme distances inferred from a Doppler shift interpretation?


Good question! The quasar emissions are believed to happen from the jets from accretion disk inflow, all of which is remote from the SMBH.

Also, remember that they test the shifts caused by potential differences (space curvature) rather than the gravity potential (mass) itself. The larger the black hole, the smaller the potential gradient at the - in principle locally unnoticeable, modulo Hawking radiation - event horizon.

Mar 29, 2019
Hey, Unreal, hard of reading, the context is within that of KINETIC Energy loss via Doppler effect used only as ONE aspect for which no highlight of mention was made in the Report. You want to get into Compton Photon Scattering effects for Elastic & Inelastic scattering causing redshift effect, and then gravity redshifting/blueshifting effects, that's three different means of wavelength shift.

Care to tell us more about your 19th Century Dark Star that you & schneibo have cooked up between the two of you?



More evidence of Benni's scientific illiteracy.

Mar 29, 2019
"how castrOAted you must feel not being able to up or down vote anymore." --Benni

The end of comment-voting is something every website should share. People should be forced to offer their verbal approbation or rebuttal, and not lazyasz downvote or upvote stuff without having to actually mobilize a few brain-cells to show what PART of a statement they object to.
says danR

And it has arrived none-too-soon. This timely and welcome change that the great administrators and staff of phys.org have done for those of us who truly LOVE this science website and wish for it to go on indefinitely, are very pleased that now the actual science discourse can happen unabated, and hopefully, uninterrupted by silly and nasty folks who have an axe to grind against those of us and our science opinions/ideas/hypotheses that they disagree with - often without an explanation for their difference of opinion and their down voting with impunity.
It's a breath of fresh air, is what it is.

Mar 29, 2019
The end of comment-voting is something every website should share. People should be forced to offer their verbal approbation or rebuttal, and not lazyasz downvote or upvote stuff without having to actually mobilize a few brain-cells to show what PART of a statement they object to.


The open web is unfortunately moving to no comment (no response) mode, even if the trolls and their damage is minimal still; trolling, conspiracy theory and attacks has an exponential advantage in spread. We can differ in opinion, and the science is still young and if we need a solution there is no trivial one yet.

Voting was not lazy but effective; so is blocking. Remember what is claimed without evidence cam be dismissed without evidence. Feedback was community service, the majority is not trolls and they may want to know what is wrong with the troll comments. For that purpose down voting suited well as a "danger, nothing substantial so wrong" tag for those unsure of how science works.

Mar 29, 2019
...those of us and our science opinions/ideas/hypotheses that they disagree with - often without an explanation for their difference of opinion...


Because, without exception, they are a bunch of unscientific nonsense. And plenty of explanations, with links, have been given to explain why those people are talking out of their collective arses. In return, when they are asked to provide science to back themselves up, they have nothing.

Mar 29, 2019
So unfortunately we may have a snakeoil salesman effect now where people have to ask to learn why the community takes no notice of the charlatans. Oh, well.

I also blocks those who are knowledgeable in science but needs to grow up and learn manners/learn not to attack the person of the trolls. Trolls are nasty, no need to sink down to their levels (under the bridge). And since the uncivil but sane can be as feverish as the trolls as they attack, that too cuts a lot of chaff. These people too have to ask why we not respond to them, but they need to ask themselves because we can't read. It is, unfortunately, some strikes and out. There is such a person in this thread, for instance, too bad.

Mar 29, 2019
"how castrOAted you must feel not being able to up or down vote anymore." --Benni


The end of comment-voting is something every website should share. People should be forced to offer their verbal approbation or rebuttal, and not lazyasz downvote or upvote stuff without having to actually mobilize a few brain-cells to show what PART of a statement they object to.


This timely and welcome change that the great administrators and staff of phys.org have done for those of us who truly LOVE this science website and wish for it to go on indefinitely, are very pleased that now the actual science discourse can happen unabated, and hopefully, uninterrupted by silly and nasty folks who have an axe to grind against those of us and our science opinions/ideas/hypotheses that they disagree with - often without an explanation for their difference of opinion and their down voting with impunity.
.....right on Egg.

Mar 29, 2019
Inertial mass undergoes relativistic changes when approaching the speed of light, gravitational mass does not.

See the below essay for what a correction to GR to make it more consistent with observation (eg the Rotation of Galaxies) would look like and the implications of such a correction would have:

Anomalous Rotation of Galaxies and the Addition of Masses
https://www.faceb...2216884/

Mar 29, 2019
Trolls are nasty, no need to sink down to their levels (under the bridge). And since the uncivil but sane can be as feverish as the trolls as they attack, that too cuts a lot of chaff. These people too have to ask why we not respond to them,
.....and have you noticed in the past how little I have ever responded to your Comments & just given you 1's? Why spend any time with people like you who believe in Perpetual Motion.

Mar 29, 2019
Inertial mass undergoes relativistic changes when approaching the speed of light, gravitational mass does not.

See the below essay for what a correction to GR to make it more consistent with observation (eg the Rotation of Galaxies) would look like and the implications of such a correction would have:

Anomalous Rotation of Galaxies and the Addition of Masses
https://www.faceb...2216884/


Get back to us when it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Mar 29, 2019
Main article: Gravitational singularity: https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."
Infinite curvature? Infinite density? Would suggest a better idea, like entropic gravity. Gravity being a gradient of the energy density (or entropy). Energy density going from a finite value to zero at the singularity. No infinite mass, instead zero mass. Plausibility ought to account for something when it comes to science?

Mar 29, 2019
cont
Note the gravitational force of the BHs is retained by the BH hairs. Having zero energy density, their gravitational effect is due to the gradient of energy density between outside the BH hairs and inside (where it is zero). That's a lot of gradient.

Mar 29, 2019
the non-existent SMBH.


You may be right. Black Holes may not exist. Do you have any mathematical analysis that shows this to be correct?

Nope. You are just farting wind.

Mar 29, 2019
the non-existent SMBH.


You may be right. Black Holes may not exist. Do you have any mathematical analysis that shows this to be correct?

Nope. You are just farting wind.


He was being ironic about the claims of the cranks around here that claim it doesn't exist. You'll find he's on the same side as you.

Mar 30, 2019
Benni, gravitational redshift shifts all the frequencies; Compton scattering does not.

Mar 30, 2019
@Benni.

The point was that the gravitational effect on the emission processes is the only factor left when all the different types of Doppler effects are effectively cancelled, leaving only the gravitational effects imprinted on the emitted photons from there that we detect here.

Moreover, any scatter-related redshift will already have affected the star's light at all stages of its orbit, so that is already effectively a 'constant' that also can be ignored.

And your kinetic-energy-loss angle is also illogical, since the eccentric orbit causes the star to INCREASE speed at closest approach, NOT decrease speed (ie, kinetic energy is GAINED not LOST); which is lost again as the star swings around and starts its outwards trajectory again. Do you understand, mate?

Mar 30, 2019
OK, so now can we mention that this "LPI" thing is the Einstein equivalence principle? As opposed to the strong or weak equivalence principles?

And do we get to talk about the difference from observing the experiment (in this case atomic transitions of hydrogen and helium) locally and remotely, and how they'll look different from these two perspectives?

Mar 30, 2019
"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. "


My eyes must be deceiving me. I see no '(gravity)' in my copy of "...where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite."
.......because I foreknew hard of reading types like you would show up not knowing what Einstein meant by SPACETIME CURVATURE. I thought I'd do you & the rest of the Schneibos the service of clarification so you wouldn't need to spend several hours of time trying to figure it out........you're welcome, courtesy of Benni.

Mar 30, 2019
"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. "


My eyes must be deceiving me. I see no '(gravity)' in my copy of "...where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite."
.......because I foreknew hard of reading types like you would show up not knowing what Einstein meant by SPACETIME CURVATURE. I thought I'd do you & the rest of the Schneibos the service of clarification so you wouldn't need to spend several hours of time trying to figure it out........you're welcome, courtesy of Benni.


You know nothing about science. Go away.

Mar 30, 2019
Benni, gravitational redshift shifts all the frequencies; Compton scattering does not.


You had never even heard of it until Benni brought it up, then you went scurrying around to find a way to nitpick something you had never before heard of.

You, RC, etc, continually try single issue pigeon holing my Comments about what causes REDSHIFT, or anything else that causes EM WAVELENGTH elongation. You just don't like how Benni pre-empts every Comment you wanted to make so you could better compete at being at Benni's level of proficiency in nuclear physics & solving Differential Equations.

Mar 30, 2019
Benni, gravitational redshift shifts all the frequencies; Compton scattering does not.


You had never even heard of it until Benni brought it up, then you went scurrying around to find a way to nitpick something you had never before heard of.

You, RC, etc, continually try single issue pigeon holing my Comments about what causes REDSHIFT, or anything else that causes EM WAVELENGTH elongation. You just don't like how Benni pre-empts every Comment you wanted to better compete at being at Benni's level of proficiency in nuclear physics & solving Differential Equations.


Bore off, you stupid person. Anybody who has even looked at physics will know what Compton scattering is. And you have clearly demonstrated that you know the square root of zero about nuclear physics and DEs. You are a Dunning-Kruger affected poser. Go away.

Mar 30, 2019
^^^ Oh, and I forgot about illeism. That is, the habit of referring to oneself in the third person. This little passage sums such people up quite nicely;

When we hear it happen, habitual illeism — the barely pronounceable word that describes the act of using the third person when talking about oneself — tends to signal to the rest of us one of a number of personality quirks in the speaker, none of them good: A stunted intellect; the presence of psychotic personality disorders ; rampant egoism ; or a journalist using horribly awkward turns of phrase that belong in the print era (at least, that's in the opinion of your present author).


I think we've got three out of four there, given that Benni is unlikely to possess the intellect required to be a journalist.

https://melmagazi...d-person

Mar 30, 2019
I forgot about illeism. That is, the habit of referring to oneself in the third person. This little passage sums such people up quite nicely;

When we hear it happen, habitual illeism  the barely pronounceable word that describes the act of using the third person when talking about oneself  A stunted intellect; the presence of psychotic personality disorders ; rampant egoism ; or a journalist using horribly awkward turns of phrase that belong in the print era (at least, that's in the opinion of your present author).
......the lingering effects of elimination of the Star Club rating system. Keep it going CastrOAteds, name calling rants have now become a meaningless calling card here. Now you have to stick to Copy & Pasting WikiPedia.


Mar 30, 2019
I forgot about illeism. That is, the habit of referring to oneself in the third person. This little passage sums such people up quite nicely;

When we hear it happen, habitual illeism  the barely pronounceable word that describes the act of using the third person when talking about oneself  A stunted intellect; the presence of psychotic personality disorders ; rampant egoism ; or a journalist using horribly awkward turns of phrase that belong in the print era (at least, that's in the opinion of your present author).
......the lingering effects of elimination of the Star Club rating system. Keep it going CastrOAteds, name calling rants have now become a meaningless calling card here. Now you have to stick to Copy & Pasting WikiPedia.


Lol. Comprehension not your strong point is it? Where did I copy anything from Wikipedia? Can you not get anything right?

Mar 30, 2019
I forgot about illeism. That is, the habit of referring to oneself in the third person. This little passage sums such people up quite nicely;

......the lingering effects of elimination of the Star Club rating system. Keep it going CastrOAteds, name calling rants have now become a meaningless calling card here. Now you have to stick to Copy & Pasting WikiPedia.

Lol. Comprehension not your strong point is it? Where did I copy anything from Wikipedia? Can you not get anything right?
..........maybe a bit overstated on my part, after all you spend 99.9999999% of your time here engaging in your foul mouthed name calling rants, so where would you find the time to learn anything even if it's at that those pitiful Wiki sites.

Mar 30, 2019
I forgot about illeism. That is, the habit of referring to oneself in the third person. This little passage sums such people up quite nicely;

......the lingering effects of elimination of the Star Club rating system. Keep it going CastrOAteds, name calling rants have now become a meaningless calling card here. Now you have to stick to Copy & Pasting WikiPedia.


Lol. Comprehension not your strong point is it? Where did I copy anything from Wikipedia? Can you not get anything right?
..........maybe a bit overstated on my part, after all you spend 99.9999999% of your time here engaging in your foul mouthed name calling rants, so where would you find the time to learn anything even if it's at that those pitiful Wiki sites.

I copied nothing from Wikipedia, you lying clown.

Mar 30, 2019
@Benni,

Benni, gravitational redshift shifts all the frequencies; Compton scattering does not.


You had never even heard of it until Benni brought it up, then you went scurrying around to find a way to nitpick something you had never before heard of.


Just the opposite. You were searching for some other way to explain redshift, discovered Compton Scattering, read that it increased red wavelengths, and, without understanding why, you figured that was the same as redshift. It ain't.

Again, redshift shifts all wavelenths in the red direction; Compton Scattering does not. Compton Scattering is not redshift, it's scattering -- that's why it's called "scattering." It's easy to tell one from the other when examining a spectrum.

I've known about Compton Scattering since I was a little kid.

Mar 30, 2019
Why? Simpler to show is supposed theory is nonsense; since it has no logical premise or axiom. Now Coulomb has a Theory and it is proven. Only idiots require $hit like this!

Mar 30, 2019
This thing about Compton scattering vs. redshift comes up again and again. The EUdiots and YECs don't get how spectral lines work.

Mar 30, 2019
...those of us and our science opinions/ideas/hypotheses that they disagree with - often without an explanation for their difference of opinion...


Because, without exception, they are a bunch of unscientific nonsense. And plenty of explanations, with links, have been given to explain why those people are talking out of their collective arses. In return, when they are asked to provide science to back themselves up, they have nothing.
says Castrovagina

Einstein's claims were also held (by some) to be unscientific nonsense by some of his peers who were stuck on Old Science from the previous century.
For example, your complete rejection of my claim that "time" doesn't exist except in the Mind/Brain of the human(s) who concocted it as a tool for measurement of the Duration of Events/Actions. My claim will soon be validated, but YOUR claim will not.
But you (and some others) are known for hating on New Science - brainwashed as you are with GIGO.

Mar 30, 2019
@Benni.

FYI, I have long pointed out that deep space material is greater in quantity and diversity (of types/states) than earlier thought when 'scattering' causes of protonic energy-loss were first considered/estimated for cosmic distance redshifting re CMB wavelengths (and all the other wavelengths in the cosmic background radiation).

Those earlier conclusions are now seen as simplistic; since they were uninformed by the newer understanding that deep space/cosmic distances are REPLETE with all sorts of material and all sorts of processes and myriad scattering interactions, repeatedly involving myriad scattering angles etc; by which photons can gain/lose energy traveling over vast cosmic deep space distances through lots of material in many individual/collective motional/configurational/charge/plasmic/neutral/intermediate states and myriad photonic collisions with same over billions of lightyears.

It's not as simplistic as previously thought, by both you and you here. :)

Mar 30, 2019
For example, your complete rejection of my claim that "time" doesn't exist except in the Mind/Brain of the human(s) who concocted it as a tool for measurement of the Duration of Events/Actions. My claim will soon be validated.


No it won't. It doesn't exist, except in your own scientifically illiterate mind.


Mar 30, 2019
Let's see if I can clarify this a bit.

What these folks are saying is that the Einstein equivalence principle means that the frequency relationships between the hydrogen spectral lines and helium lines should not be different for hydrogen and helium in a lab on Earth, and on the surface of S2 when it is close to the Milky Way supermassive black hole; this is not to say the frequencies are the same, but that they have the same relations to one another. This indicates that the atomic processes that create these spectral lines are not affected, in their local frame, by gravity. They are looking to make sure this is true, because otherwise it would be a violation of the equivalence principle. And what they found is that, to the limit of their ability to measure it, there are no violations. This is more stringent than the spectrum of a single element; it goes to the spectra of two elements.
[contd]

Mar 30, 2019
[contd]
Spectral lines themselves are governed, not by individual electron orbitals' energy, but by the difference in energy between two orbitals. And in this case, by the difference in energy not only between orbitals in a single element, but the differences between orbitals in different elements. This is extremely persuasive evidence of the equivalence principle.

Mar 30, 2019
For example, your complete rejection of my claim that "time" doesn't exist except in the Mind/Brain of the human(s) who concocted it as a tool for measurement of the Duration of Events/Actions. My claim will soon be validated.


No it won't. It doesn't exist, except in your own scientifically illiterate mind.

says the Luddite Castrovagina

That is correct - IT DOESN'T EXIST. "Time" cannot exist as it is NOT created out of Matter/Energy and has no substance that could possibly AFFECT Matter/Energy as would Gravity and the other Forces. You have already been explained to that "time" is only a Concept, and that Einstein only included it as a part of Space due to Einstein's former prof who DEMANDED that time be a part of Space.
We KNOW that Space is a REAL "thing" that interacts with Matter/Energy and is capable of curvature. But "time" does NOT experience curvature because it is a contrived Phantom that is illogically placed alongside SPACE.

Mar 30, 2019
Still lying and denying about "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein, 1905.

Thing is, see, it works. Which none of your bullshit does, @Satan.

Mar 30, 2019
Still lying and denying about "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," Einstein, 1905.

Thing is, see, it works. Which none of your bullshit does, @Satan.
says Satan's acolyte Da Schniebo

Why do you call on your Master, DS? I don't see your Captain Dumpy in this phorum.
Yes. SPACE does work, along with Matter/Energy and the 4 Forces. Take a bow for revealing what everyone knew already

Mar 30, 2019
Einstein 1905 is the seminal paper for special relativity theory.

Which shows that space and time can be converted between each other for different observers.

So feel free to keep lying and denying, @Satan, but everyone can see through you.

The math is right there in the paper, and links are available. Already been posted on this thread, in fact. Space and time are the same thing. Otherwise they couldn't be interconverted between different observers.

Science deniers can't count.

Mar 30, 2019
And there's more than a hundred years' experiments supporting SRT. Maybe you forgot, @Satan.

Mar 30, 2019
That is correct - IT DOESN'T EXIST. "Time" cannot exist as it is NOT created out of Matter/Energy and has no substance that could possibly AFFECT Matter/Energy as would Gravity and the other Forces. You have already been explained to that "time" is only a Concept, and that Einstein only included it as a part of Space due to Einstein's former prof who DEMANDED that time be a part of Space.
We KNOW that Space is a REAL "thing" that interacts with Matter/Energy and is capable of curvature. But "time" does NOT experience curvature because it is a contrived Phantom that is illogically placed alongside SPACE.


Wrong. As Einstein would tell you. Link me to the genius making this assertion in the scientific literature. Otherwise, it doesn't exist.

Mar 30, 2019
Again, redshift shifts all wavelenths in the red direction;
....I was waiting for the first novice to come along & write this nonsense just so I could have some more fun.

Do you know where RED WAVELENGTH lies in the EM Energy spectrum? Do you know where RADIO WAVELENGTH lies? You must not know the answer to either question because you just pulled a faux pas in stating, "redshift shifts all wavelenths in the red direction". You don't know why this is wrong do you? OK dear student I'll explain it:

Look at an EM Spectrum for the first time in your life & notice RADIO is a longer wavelength than RED. To change RADIO towards the RED the radio must be blueshifted, not red.
shifted

Compton Scattering is not redshift, it's scattering
....it depends on if the scattering is ELASTIC or INELASTIC, I'd suggest dear student you learn the difference.


Mar 30, 2019
Compton scattering is inelastic scattering only.

Compton scattering is an example of inelastic scattering[1] of light by a free charged particle, where the wavelength of the scattered light is different from that of the incident radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

@Benni lies again.

Mar 30, 2019
...it depends on if the scattering is ELASTIC or INELASTIC, I'd suggest dear student you learn the difference.


Clueless oik.

Mar 30, 2019
Look at an EM Spectrum for the first time in your life & notice RADIO is a longer wavelength than RED. To change RADIO towards the RED the radio must be blueshifted, not red.
shifted
.....so do you understand in Cosmological terms what is meant by BLUESHIFT as opposed to REDSHIFT?

When an EM Wave above RED wavelengths is redshifted it means the wavelength has been made longer. When it is blueshifted above RED wavelengths it means the wavelength has been made shorter. To shorten/lengthen a RADIO wavelength the opposite effects must occur.

Mar 30, 2019
The Compton Effect as an Explanation for the Cosmological Redshift
Neves, M. C. D. & Assis, A. K. T.
http://adsabs.har...36..279N

And;

http://www.astro....ein.html

Trust me - it is not viable.


Mar 30, 2019
Look at an EM Spectrum for the first time in your life & notice RADIO is a longer wavelength than RED. To change RADIO towards the RED the radio must be blueshifted, not red.
shifted
.....so do you understand in Cosmological terms what is meant by BLUESHIFT as opposed to REDSHIFT?

When an EM Wave above RED wavelengths is redshifted it means the wavelength has been made longer. When it is blueshifted above RED wavelengths it means the wavelength has been made shorter. To shorten/lengthen a RADIO wavelength the opposite effects must occur.


Give up. You haven't got a clue.

Mar 30, 2019
@Benni.
Look at an EM Spectrum... & notice RADIO is a longer wavelength than RED. To change RADIO towards the RED the radio must be blueshifted, not red.
Mate! You've entirely misunderstood the meaning of the phrase RED SHIFTED!

It's NOT about wavelengths being shifted towards INFRA-RED wavelengths....it's about wavelengths being shifted to LONGER wavelengths than originally emitted. That 'lengthening' is called 'redshifting' because the shifted photons look 'REDDER' in our dtectors/retina than the original would have if no 'redshirting' happened. Ok? :)

Please try to review all your past 'understandings' and 'interpretations' the jargon/concepts being used in the context of astro/cosmo physics/observations. And if you aren't sure, then ask someone more au fait with such to clarify this for you. Cheers. :)

Mar 30, 2019
That is correct - IT DOESN'T EXIST. "Time" cannot exist as it is NOT created out of Matter/Energy and has no substance that could possibly AFFECT Matter/Energy as would Gravity and the other Forces. You have already been explained to that "time" is only a Concept, and that Einstein only included it as a part of Space due to Einstein's former prof who DEMANDED that time be a part of Space.
We KNOW that Space is a REAL "thing" that interacts with Matter/Energy and is capable of curvature. But "time" does NOT experience curvature because it is a contrived Phantom that is illogically placed alongside SPACE.


Wrong. As Einstein would tell you. Link me to the genius making this assertion in the scientific literature. Otherwise, it doesn't exist.
says Castrovagina

It is "time" that doesn't exist, Fidel. Einstein, had he lived far longer, would have had to agree with time not existing and not being part and parcel with Space. You will be left behind, jonesy.

Mar 30, 2019
It is "time" that doesn't exist, Fidel. Einstein, had he lived far longer, would have had to agree with time not existing and not being part and parcel with Space. You will be left behind, jonesy.


Stop talking crap. Link me to this rubbish, or admit that it is only the creation of your inadequate mind.

Mar 30, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.

Why are you two still arguing over what has already been settled? I previously posted in another thread relevant Einstein Leiden Address excerpt; he plainly stated he ABSTRACTED from the real energy-space (then called 'Ether") context in order to make an ABSTRACT MATHS/GEOMETRY CONTRUCT with which to convey his new insights and theory. At NO stage has Einstein ever claimed that 'time' per se is an existing dimension/thing in real physically effective energy-space (ie, then called ether) context; and that the ONLY REAL dimensions/things in that context are the spatial properties/effects which are inherent in the energy-space itself. Ok? The 'time' concept exists as abstraction TOOL in abstract construct maths/geom timing/graphing etc TOOLS. Please stop your incessant round-and-round waste of bandwidth posts over stuff that has been settled and everyone understands 'exists' as 'abstract' not as 'real' dimension/thing. Ok? Thanks. :)

Mar 30, 2019
It is "time" that doesn't exist, Fidel. Einstein, had he lived far longer, would have had to agree with time not existing and not being part and parcel with Space. You will be left behind, jonesy.


Stop talking crap. Link me to this rubbish, or admit that it is only the creation of your inadequate mind.
says Castrovagina

We know that Space is a Vacuum (referred to as "the vacuum of Space") in which Matter/Energy and Quantum Particles/Waves floats and where Events/Actions occur. Only an idiot would say that "time" is the same thing as Space, and yet can't describe "time" as a vacuum OR its properties/abilities/power to perform in the same way as the Vacuum of Space.
Describe and specify exactly what "time" is capable of doing as a specific substance, entity, and/or activity that renders it equal to that of Space and Matter/Energy.

Mar 30, 2019
It is "time" that doesn't exist, Fidel. Einstein, had he lived far longer, would have had to agree with time not existing and not being part and parcel with Space. You will be left behind, jonesy.


Stop talking crap. Link me to this rubbish, or admit that it is only the creation of your inadequate mind.
says Castrovagina

We know that Space is a Vacuum (referred to as "the vacuum of Space") in which Matter/Energy and Quantum Particles/Waves floats and where Events/Actions occur. Only an idiot would say that "time" is the same thing as Space, and yet can't describe "time" as a vacuum OR its properties/abilities/power to perform in the same way as the Vacuum of Space.
Describe and specify exactly what "time" is capable of doing as a specific substance, entity, and/or activity that renders it equal to that of Space and Matter/Energy.


Oh do shut up you fool. Where is it written up? Link. Who is saying Einstein was wrong? Not you, you fool.

Mar 30, 2019
...he plainly stated he ABSTRACTED from the real energy-space (then called 'Ether") context in order to make an ABSTRACT MATHS/GEOMETRY CONTRUCT with which to convey his new insights and theory. At NO stage has Einstein ever claimed that 'time' per se is an existing dimension/thing in real physically effective energy-space (ie, then called ether) context; and that the ONLY REAL dimensions/things in that context are the spatial properties/effects which are inherent in the energy-space itself. Ok? The 'time' concept exists as abstraction TOOL in abstract construct maths/geom timing/graphing etc TOOLS. Please stop your incessant round-and-round waste of bandwidth posts over stuff that has been settled and everyone understands 'exists' as 'abstract' not as 'real' dimension/thing. Ok? Thanks. :)

says RC

Castrato remains unconvinced and thick, in his absolute devotion to the Einsteinian goof wrt "time" being equal to Space. Am just educating the uneducable Castro.

Mar 30, 2019
It is "time" that doesn't exist, Fidel. Einstein, had he lived far longer, would have had to agree with time not existing and not being part and parcel with Space. You will be left behind, jonesy.


Stop talking crap. Link me to this rubbish, or admit that it is only the creation of your inadequate mind.
says Castrovagina

We know that Space is a Vacuum (referred to as "the vacuum of Space") in which Matter/Energy and Quantum Particles/Waves floats and where Events/Actions occur. Only an idiot would say that "time" is the same thing as Space, and yet can't describe "time" as a vacuum OR its properties/abilities/power to perform in the same way as the Vacuum of Space.
Describe and specify exactly what "time" is capable of doing as a specific substance, entity, and/or activity that renders it equal to that of Space and Matter/Energy.


Where is it written up? Link. Who is saying Einstein was wrong? Not you, you fool.


Yes. I am saying it.

Mar 30, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.

Mar 30, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


What is YEC?

Mar 30, 2019
I'm going with, Einstein was way smarter than you and knew way more about time.

Mar 30, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?

Mar 30, 2019
Over here, Einstein.

Over there, the YEC troll.

Any questions?

Mar 30, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?

Mar 30, 2019
No, not from you, YEC troll. I don't care what questions you ask.

Go tell it to your jebus with the laser eyeballs and machine guns.

This is fun; I can troll this YEC troll without ever reading anything it says.

Maybe it will have a stroke.

Mar 31, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?

Mar 31, 2019
See, if you're posting, then you're lying and trolling. And I don't need to read it to know that.

Go away YEC troll lying for jebus with the laser eyeballs and machine guns. Nobody cares about your psychotic fantasy that you're a mind-reading alien. Maybe that bullshit works on your usual YEC sites. It won't work here.

Maybe soon it will start addressing posts to "Forum." Snicker.

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni,

Again, redshift shifts all wavelenths in the red direction;

Do you know where RED WAVELENGTH lies in the EM Energy spectrum? Do you know where RADIO WAVELENGTH lies? You must not know the answer to either question because you just pulled a faux pas in stating, "redshift shifts all wavelenths in the red direction". You don't know why this is wrong do you? OK dear student I'll explain it:

Look at an EM Spectrum for the first time in your life & notice RADIO is a longer wavelength than RED. To change RADIO towards the RED the radio must be blueshifted, not redshifted.

Compton Scattering is not redshift, it's scattering
....it depends on if the scattering is ELASTIC or INELASTIC, I'd suggest dear student you learn the difference.


I used to teach the electromagnetic spectrum. The phrase, "shift wavelengths in the red direction," means to make the wavelengths longer. Hence, redshift.

Please stop showing your ignorance.

Mar 31, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question yet again. What is YEC?

Mar 31, 2019
Nobody cares about your denial of Einstein.

Nobody cares about your steaming jebus with laser eyeballs and machine guns.

Nobody cares about your claims to be a mind-reading alien.

Why are you here, YEC troll?

Mar 31, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?


Never fear, Da Schneib, you will feel the pain as I personally will take hold of your ankle and hang you upside down as I take you and your master, Satan down to where you both belong where you both will burn for all eternity. I promise.
Now answer the question: What is YEC?

Mar 31, 2019
So is this post about how time doesn't exist, denying Einstein?

Or is it about your jebus' laser eyeballs and machine guns?

Or is it about your alien mind-reading skillz?

I don't suppose it really matters.

If you don't want to be mocked any more, then you can always stop posting here and go back to your YEC sites.

Mar 31, 2019
Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?


Never fear, Da Schneib, you will feel the pain as I personally will take hold of your ankle and hang you upside down as I take you and your master, Satan down to where you both belong where you both will burn for all eternity. I promise.
Now answer the question: What is YEC?


My mission here is not yet done, fool. However long it takes, you will suffer greatly along with your master. I am not free to leave until I have accomplished what I have come here to do.
Your words condemn you and you shall pay for your blasphemy and mockery.
Again I ask: What is YEC?

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,

Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?


Never fear, Da Schneib, you will feel the pain as I personally will take hold of your ankle and hang you upside down as I take you and your master, Satan down to where you both belong where you both will burn for all eternity. I promise.
Now answer the question: What is YEC?


What's this? Eternal punishment for finite sins? What justice is that? Are you God, the judge?

Furthermore, what the hell do your threats of eternal damnation have to do with any scientific theory, pray tell?

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,

Crank YEC trolls always deny Einstein without evidence. It's like a law of nature or something.


Repeating the question. What is YEC?


Never fear, Da Schneib, you will feel the pain as I personally will take hold of your ankle and hang you upside down as I take you and your master, Satan down to where you both belong where you both will burn for all eternity. I promise.
Now answer the question: What is YEC?


What's this? Eternal punishment for finite sins? What justice is that? Are you God, the judge?

Furthermore, what the hell do your threats of eternal damnation have to do with any scientific theory, pray tell?


Do not interfere. You seem not to understand that the Creator God IS science. Everything was created. Nothing in this Universe came about by itself. You have no recognition of it because you are human and mortal. You are blind to the Truth. Remain that way if you wish.

Mar 31, 2019
@Satan got nicknamed for lying about science.

@Satan always lies.

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,

Do not interfere. You seem not to understand that the Creator God IS science. Everything was created. Nothing in this Universe came about by itself. You have no recognition of it because you are human and mortal. You are blind to the Truth. Remain that way if you wish.


So, you're telling me not to comment?

Yes, I'm mortal, and so are you, and you also sound like you're having a psychotic episode. I suggest you contact your local mental health center.

And this still has nothing to do with any scientific theories.

Mar 31, 2019
I used to teach the electromagnetic spectrum. The phrase, "shift wavelengths in the red direction," means to make the wavelengths longer. Hence, redshift. Please stop showing your ignorance.
.......the "ignorance is on YOU obsy, what a joke it is for you to brag that you "used to teach the EM Spectrum", you don't even know how to read it.

If RADIO wavelengths are shifted in the RED direction of the EM Spectrum, those wavelengths will be made SHORTER not longer, and you still don't comprehend why no matter how much dissertation I've gone through explaining it to you. Go back & apologize to all your former students for getting it so wrong that you've got it 100% backwards & you still don't comprehend why?

Hey, have you yet figured out what ELASTIC & INELASTIC PHOTON SCATTERING is? Undoubtedly you're still confused about which of the two causes REDSHIFT.


Mar 31, 2019
I used to teach the electromagnetic spectrum. The phrase, "shift wavelengths in the red direction," means to make the wavelengths longer. Hence, redshift. Please stop showing your ignorance.
.......the "ignorance is on YOU obsy, what a joke it is for you to brag that you "used to teach the EM Spectrum", you don't even know how to read it.

If RADIO wavelengths are shifted in the RED direction of the EM Spectrum, those wavelengths will be made SHORTER not longer, and you still don't comprehend why no matter how much dissertation I've gone through explaining it to you. Go back & apologize to all your former students for getting it so wrong that you've got it 100% backwards & you still don't comprehend why?

Hey, have you yet figured out what ELASTIC & INELASTIC PHOTON SCATTERING is? Undoubtedly you're still confused about which of the two causes REDSHIFT.



Give up Benni. You really are clueless.

Mar 31, 2019
I used to teach the electromagnetic spectrum. The phrase, "shift wavelengths in the red direction," means to make the wavelengths longer. Hence, redshift. Please stop showing your ignorance.
.......the "ignorance is on YOU obsy, what a joke it is for you to brag that you "used to teach the EM Spectrum", you don't even know how to read it.

If RADIO wavelengths are shifted in the RED direction of the EM Spectrum, those wavelengths will be made SHORTER not longer, and you still don't comprehend why no matter how much dissertation I've gone through explaining it to you. Go back & apologize to all your former students for getting it so wrong that you've got it 100% backwards & you still don't comprehend why?

Hey, have you yet figured out what ELASTIC & INELASTIC PHOTON SCATTERING is? Undoubtedly you're still confused about which of the two causes REDSHIFT.


Give up Benni. You really are clueless.
.......coming from an Anthropologist.

Mar 31, 2019
.......coming from an Anthropologist.

Reported. You are a pathological liar.

Mar 31, 2019
"If RADIO wavelengths are shifted in the RED direction..."

I understand what you are TRYING to say here, but the confusion hinges on the ambivalence of the word 'direction'.
Taken to denote a one-D vector "red direction" would indicate leftward, hence shortening the wavelength. I think you are trying to indicate "shifted toward the red region of the EM spectrum", that is, toward ~700 microns. That would lengthen the wavelength. But it seems a clumsy, layperson's, use of semi-technical language to use red-direction that way. "direction", to me, connotes the idea of 'vector'-ness, unless the context is commonplace language, about how to find the bank, demographic voting shifts, turns of opinion-events regarding Brexit, etc.

Mar 31, 2019
"If RADIO wavelengths are shifted in the RED direction..."


I understand what you are TRYING to say here, but the confusion hinges on the ambivalence of the word 'direction'.
Taken to denote a one-D vector "red direction" would indicate leftward, hence shortening the wavelength. I think you are trying to indicate "shifted toward the red region of the EM spectrum", that is, toward ~700 microns. That would lengthen the wavelength. But it seems a clumsy, layperson's, use of semi-technical language to use red-direction that way. "direction", to me, connotes the idea of 'vector'-ness, unless the context is commonplace language, about how to find the bank, demographic voting shifts, turns of opinion-events regarding Brexit, etc.


Pure psycho-babble on your part, forget the vector crap, that has nothing to do with where RADIO wavelengths lie on the EM Energy Spectrum in relation to where Red wavelengths lie. There are no vector relationships on the EM Energy Spectrum.

Mar 31, 2019
Pure psycho-babble on your part, forget the vector crap, that has nothing to do with where RADIO wavelengths lie on the EM Energy Spectrum in relation to where Red wavelengths lie. There are no vector relationships on the EM Energy Spectrum.


Wrong. You wouldn't understand the science, having demonstrated zero understanding of the subject.

Mar 31, 2019
There are no vector relationships on the EM Energy Spectrum.
That is correct, and it would be better not to use the term 'direction' then, I agree. When a physicist sees the descriptor 'direction', you will forgive him or her for stupidly associating that term with 'vector', in this case, and apply it to what you are trying to say in terms of the EM chart (you'll excuse me from thinking that someone who is teaching the EM spectrum will be illustrating the instruction with a chart), which from my recollection has left side and a right side.

And if we go toward the left side, we are going in a leftward direction; but if, contrariwise we flip the sign of the direction, we are now going in the right direction.

Mar 31, 2019
...excuse me from thinking...
*...excuse me for thinking...

Mar 31, 2019
There are no vector relationships on the EM Energy Spectrum.
That is correct, and it would be better not to use the term 'direction' then, I agree.
......then why did you even suggest it in the first place?

When a physicist sees the descriptor 'direction', you will forgive him or her for stupidly associating that term with 'vector', in this case, and apply it to what you are trying to say in terms of the EM chart
.......well, you're the one who suggested a term that amounts to stupidity, how else would you expect me to read it other than the way YOU wrote it?

And if we go toward the left side, we are going in a leftward direction; but if, contrariwise we flip the sign of the direction, we are now going in the right direction.
...........It's not a matter of how the chart of an EM Energy Spectrum is flipped. Flipping the chart does NOT change the relative POSITION within the chart of the EM Energy Spectrum. Turn it upside down, now what?

Mar 31, 2019
Flipping the chart does NOT change the relative POSITION within the chart of the EM Energy Spectrum. Turn it upside down, now what?
I'm happy to see we're agreed on the context of a chart as appropriate to your interlocutor's reference to his teaching the EM spectrum. I suggested 'vector' relationships because of the use of 'direction', and I'm sure we agree that there is bidirectionality in an EM chart, whether left <—> right, or in many charts, up <—> down.

Picture in your mind now, an instructor pointing to the chart with a pointer and illustrating frequency-shift by moving the pointer to the left, or to the right (or up-down, whatever) as the case may be: a leftward shift would be appropriate to highlight red-shifting, and mutatis mutandis for blue-shifting.

So you see how ambiguity can arise. One person has an absolute position in mind (on the chart), and another has directionality.

Mar 31, 2019
I'm sure we agree that there is bidirectionality in an EM chart, whether left <—> right, or in many charts, up <—> down.
........no, we don't agree to "bi-directionality" because I've already told you the varying wavelengths on the EM Spectrum is about POSITION, be it RED, RADIO, X-RAY, etc, all have different positions within the Spectrum.

....a leftward shift would be appropriate to highlight red-shifting, and mutatis mutandis for blue-shifting.

So you see how ambiguity can arise. One person has an absolute position in mind (on the chart), and another has directionality.
........such "ambiguity would ONLY arise because the teacher didn't know better than to tell the students that an EM Energy Spectrum chart has "directionality", a manner in which I have never heard it described, so get your thinking about it it changed & you'll better understand what you're looking at the next time you see one.

Mar 31, 2019
edit: [looks like we've cross-posted. I'll examine what you've written now]

[One person has an absolute position in mind (on the chart), and another has directionality.
Or to put this in more granular terms:
Alice: We see this radio-frequency changed so that in the chart it now corresponds to the red part of the EM spectrum. [blue-shift; Alice has done a frequency-transformation and moved the pointer to the red POSITION, ~0.7 microns]
Bob: We see this radio-frequency shifted red-direction. [red-shift; Bob has likewise done a transformation, but in his mind the conventions of red and blue on the EM chart establish a corresponding left-right bidirectionality, and he doesn't move his pointer TO a position, but rather moves it in a leftward DIRECTION.

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,

Do not interfere. You seem not to understand that the Creator God IS science. Everything was created. Nothing in this Universe came about by itself. You have no recognition of it because you are human and mortal. You are blind to the Truth. Remain that way if you wish.


So, you're telling me not to comment?

Yes, I'm mortal, and so are you, and you also sound like you're having a psychotic episode. I suggest you contact your local mental health center.

And this still has nothing to do with any scientific theories.


My human host is mortal. I am neither human nor mortal. Believe as you wish as it is of no concern to me nor to my colleagues. The Truth will set you free, but in your case, I doubt it.
If you continue to interfere and choose the side of the demonically inspired Da Schneib whom I will personally take hold of his immortal soul as it flees his body, I will then determine that there is a possibility that you are also demonically possessed.

Mar 31, 2019
...the teacher didn't know better than to tell the students that an EM Energy Spectrum chart has "directionality"...
He doesn't have to tell them. Directionality inheres in such a chart, and even the verbiage in a discussion, student-teacher give and take, would entail that directionality. Even in your own discussion, the phrase "red-direction" establishes it:

"If RADIO wavelengths are shifted in the RED direction of the EM Spectrum..."

Mar 31, 2019
whom I will personally take hold of his immortal soul as it flees his body
Never fear, Da Schneib, you will feel the pain as I personally will take hold of your ankle and hang you upside down as I take you and your master, Satan down to where you both belong where you both will burn for all eternity. I promise.
My mission here is not yet done, fool. However long it takes, you will suffer greatly along with your master. I am not free to leave until I have accomplished what I have come here to do.
Your words condemn you and you shall pay for your blasphemy and mockery
besides being fanatical delusional religious rhetoric, this is also called a criminal threat, in both US and British law
https://thelawdic.../threat/

I'm reporting your posts

perhaps the site should reconsider my historical suggestions for moderation in order to ensure they're not complicit in criminal proceedings since they're not deleting your threats or dealing with you

Mar 31, 2019
...the teacher didn't know better than to tell the students that an EM Energy Spectrum chart has "directionality"... He doesn't have to tell them. Directionality inheres in such a chart,
......OK, if you want to insist, but I would ask you to show me an EM Spectrum chart with the four points of the compass on it.

Bob: We see this radio-frequency shifted red-direction. [red-shift; Bob has likewise done a transformation, but in his mind the conventions of red and blue on the EM chart establish a corresponding left-right bidirectionality, and he doesn't move his pointer TO a position, but rather moves it in a leftward DIRECTION.
......depends on the author of the EM chart, some are printed to read high to low ENERGY from left to right, others the reverse.


Mar 31, 2019
whom I will personally take hold of his immortal soul as it flees his body
Never fear,
My mission here is not yet done, fool. However long it takes, you will suffer greatly along with your master. I am not free to leave until I have accomplished what I have come here to do.
Your words condemn you and you shall pay for your blasphemy and mockery
besides being fanatical delusional religious rhetoric, this is also called a criminal threat, in both US and British law
https://thelawdic.../threat/

I'm reporting your posts

perhaps the site should reconsider my historical suggestions for moderation in order to ensure they're not complicit in criminal proceedings since they're not deleting your threats or dealing with you
says Satan/Lucifer

Report yourself also. You have proved yourself to be the Evil One who has come into the internet for the purpose of gathering personal and private information from your potential victims. We have found you out

Mar 31, 2019
@egg
res ipsa loquitur
An unlawful attempt or offer. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him
[Black's Law]

per your requests: reported

Mar 31, 2019
I'm reporting your posts

perhaps the site should reconsider my historical suggestions for moderation in order to ensure they're not complicit in criminal proceedings since they're not deleting your threats or dealing with you
says Captain Stumpy

And I have reported YOUR posts, as well, Oh Satan. The administrators of phys.org are aware of WHY you want your group to do the moderating of the posts in these physorg phorums, which is to CONTROL what is said in these phorums for the purpose of removing those posts which are disagreeable to your preferences, as well as to increase YOUR POWER over humanity, starting with this science website. We have noticed that you also have a tendency to take parts of comments OUT OF CONTEXT in order to prove you right. That is not good, Satan. Father will spank you for that one also.

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni
@danR.

Wavelength 'charting' has been done using TWO CONVENTIONS re 'direction' of increasing/decreasing wavelength; ONE convention has increasing wavelengths from LEFT-TO-RIGHT; whereas the OTHER convention has it increasing from RIGHT-TO-LEFT!

Whereas the term "redshifting" ITSELF merely indicates increasing wavelength per se; it has NOTHING to do with 'changing position on a chart'; that latter 'analytical comparative position' attributed to whatever wavelength is under study is a SECONDARY ABSTRACT COMPARATIVE POSITION 'identification' TOOL for the NEW 'wavelength' in an ABSTRACT 'graphing/visualisation construct' for E-M spectrum GRAPHING (according to whichever 'graphing convention' you are using; ie, left-to-right OR right-to-left).

NOTE WELL: On a chart (using either convention), a 'redshifted' RADIO-WAVE 'gets longer' IN THE SAME "direction' as a 'redshifted' GAMMARAYWAVE 'gets longer'...ie, TOWARDS ONE END, and NOT 'towards the middle from each end'! :)

Mar 31, 2019
OK, if you want to insist, but I would ask you to show me an EM Spectrum chart with the four points of the compass on it.
Well, I could whip one up in Photoshop or something; but a world map with the four point of the compass would be much more practical.

Mar 31, 2019
@egg
res ipsa loquitur
An unlawful attempt or offer. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him
[Black's Law]

per your requests: reported
says Satan/Lucifer aka Captain Stumpy

As you have already been told by me, your physical body will not be affected, but only your immortal soul (and that of Da Schneib's) will be taken by us upon your physical death and your flesh begins to rot, to where your immortal souls will be kept for eternity to prevent you from destroying humanity any further than you have done already.

I am sending this post as a REPORT also.

Mar 31, 2019
Wavelength 'charting' has been done using TWO CONVENTIONS re 'direction' of increasing/decreasing wavelength...
Sure, and "EM spectrum" Images, seems to give a fairly even split between the two in Google, for those in the left-right direction sense. But it would certainly expand the discussion to give ALL the directions. The salient issue is not left-right direction, but red-blue direction.

Mar 31, 2019
@eggs
As you have already been told by me, your physical body will not be affected, but only your immortal soul (and that of Da Schneib's) will be taken by us
and again: res ipsa loquitur
a reminder of what an assault is
An unlawful attempt *or offer*. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt *or offer* to beat another, *without touching him*
[Black's Law] - emphasis mine

regardless of your BS, it's still simple assault, thus it's still criminal

however, because of your escalation as well as religious fanaticism, it can be considered terroristic and a hate crime

feel free to report it as it only reminds the site to deal with your irrational behaviour as well as its own complicity in facilitating the crime

Mar 31, 2019
The salient issue is not left-right direction, but red-blue direction.
.....well then, that's a different issue than talking about "direction" as a vector as you started out doing.

In Cosmology lingo, redshift IMPUTES lengthening of EM Waves that are higher energy than BLUE. On the other hand blueshift imputes the opposite, shortening of those same wavelengths.


Mar 31, 2019
Wavelength 'charting' has been done using TWO CONVENTIONS re 'direction' of increasing/decreasing wavelength...
Sure, and "EM spectrum" Images, seems to give a fairly even split between the two in Google, for those in the left-right direction sense. But it would certainly expand the discussion to give ALL the directions. The salient issue is not left-right direction, but red-blue direction.
says DanR

Excuse me for interrupting the discussion between you, RC and Benni.
I just want to add DISTANCE to the mix of Direction and Position, if you don't mind. I have thought that Redshift gets more intense (redder) the farther in distance from the observer and less so the closer to the observer. And the opposite is also true for the Blueshift. Please correct me if I have erred.

Mar 31, 2019
@eggs
As you have already been told by me, your physical body will not be affected, but only your immortal soul (and that of Da Schneib's) will be taken by us
and again: res ipsa loquitur
a reminder of what an assault is
An unlawful attempt *or offer*. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt *or offer* to beat another, *without touching him*
[Black's Law] - emphasis mine

regardless of your BS, it's still simple assault, thus it's still criminal

however, because of your escalation as well as religious fanaticism, it can be considered terroristic and a hate crime

feel free to report it as it only reminds the site to deal with your irrational behaviour as well as its own complicity in facilitating the crime
says Satan/Lucifer

For all your silly nonsense, you have said nothing of value, nor anything to absolve your own crimes against the humans who frequent this science website.

Mar 31, 2019
@eggs
As you have already been told by me, your physical body will not be affected, but only your immortal soul (and that of Da Schneib's) will be taken by us
and again: res ipsa loquitur
a reminder of what an assault is
An unlawful attempt *or offer*. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt *or offer* to beat another, *without touching him*
[Black's Law] - emphasis mine

regardless of your BS, it's still simple assault, thus it's still criminal

however, because of your escalation as well as religious fanaticism, it can be considered terroristic and a hate crime

feel free to report it as it only reminds the site to deal with your irrational behaviour as well as its own complicity in facilitating the crime
says Satan/Lucifer

"to inflict a bodily hurt upon another" is a 'specific action' that only involves the physical body. Perhaps you are unaware of that. I would suggest that you read it again

Mar 31, 2019
the discussion between you, RC and Benni.
I just want to add DISTANCE to the mix of Direction and Position
.......just gotta be careful here Egg, so you don't run up against Fritz Zwicky's Tired Light Theory that got him laughed out of the 1930's era of Cosmology.

if you don't mind. I have thought that Redshift gets more intense (redder) the farther in distance from the observer
.....not true so far as the EM Wave Photon does not encounter an encumbrance (Elastic or Inelastic PHOTON SCATTER EFFECT ) along it's path of travel or when exiting from strong gravitational fields, in which case an EM Wave above RED Wavelength will lengthen.

And the opposite is also true for the Blueshift.
Yes, when an EM Wave Photon above RED is approaching a high gravity field the wavelength will shorten a bit.

To be honest with you Egg, the terms REDSHIFT & BLUESHIFT are archaic terms & should be dumped, just use SHORTENING or ELONGATING of wavelength.

Mar 31, 2019
the discussion
I just want to add DISTANCE
.......just gotta be careful here Egg, so you don't run up against Fritz Zwicky's Tired Light Theory that got him laughed out of the 1930's era of Cosmology.

if you don't mind. I have thought that Redshift gets more intense (redder) the farther in distance from the observer
.....not true so far as the EM Wave Photon does not encounter an encumbrance (Elastic or Inelastic PHOTON SCATTER EFFECT ) along it's path of travel or when exiting from strong gravitational fields, in which case an EM Wave above RED Wavelength will lengthen.

also true for the Blueshift.
Yes, when an EM Wave Photon above RED is approaching a high gravity field the wavelength will shorten a bit.

To be honest with you Egg, the terms REDSHIFT & BLUESHIFT are archaic terms & should be dumped, just use SHORTENING or ELONGATING of wavelength.
says Benni

Thank you. And is this also similar to the Doppler Effect for Sound?

Mar 31, 2019
@eggs
you have said nothing of value
1- I am in context of the discourse

2- I have stated verifiable fact backed by case law which is demonstrably true

by definition, that is "of value" as it calls attention not only to your criminal act but also to a site problem, part of which is your escalating ideological hate crime directed at those who disagree with your delusional religious beliefs (which you admit is your "mission" above) directly contrary to site guidelines
that only involves the physical body
wrong
from Brit & US Case law: "... jurisdictions prohibit the use of threats and Unlawful Communications by any person. Some of the more common types of threats forbidden by law are those made with an intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage or to compel a person to act against his or her will"

religious threats fall under "against his or her will"
it's a criminal *and* civil violation as well as a hate crime (and terroristic threatening)

Mar 31, 2019
Thank you. And is this also similar to the Doppler Effect for Sound?
........only in the sense that DOPPLER EFFECT also creates SHORTENING & LENGTHENING but by a different mechanism than by gravity or that of photon scatter effect.

Mar 31, 2019
the terms REDSHIFT & BLUESHIFT are archaic terms & should be dumped
Benni

When they are applied to stars, which they generally are, NO, they should NOT be dumped. Why should they?

Mar 31, 2019
@eggs
you have said nothing of value
1- I

2- I have stated verifiable fact backed by case law which is demonstrably true

by that is "of value" as it calls attention not only to your criminal act but also to a site problem, part of which is your escalating ideological hate crime directed at those who disagree with your delusional religious beliefs (which you admit is your "mission" above) directly contrary to site guidelines
that only involves the physical body
wrong
from Brit & US Case law: "... jurisdictions prohibit the use of threats and Unlawful Communications by any person. Some of the more common types of threats forbidden by law are those made with an intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage or to compel a person to act against his or her will"

religious threats fall under "against his or her will"
it's a criminal *and* civil violation as well as a hate crime (and terroristic threatening)
says Satan

ROFLOL
Pure Bollocks lying again, Satan?

Mar 31, 2019
the terms REDSHIFT & BLUESHIFT are archaic terms & should be dumped


When they are applied to stars, which they generally are, NO, they should NOT be dumped. Why should they?
.......because it must be REVERSE described when applying such lingo to RADIO wavelengths which are positioned on the opposite of the RED side of an EM Spectrum chart, in which case the lengthening & shortening effect is reversed.

Mar 31, 2019
the terms REDSHIFT & BLUESHIFT are archaic terms & should be dumped


When they are applied to stars, which they generally are, NO, they should NOT be dumped. Why should they?
.......because it must be REVERSE described when applying such lingo to RADIO wavelengths which are positioned on the opposite of the RED side of an EM Spectrum chart, in which case the lengthening & shortening effect is reversed.
says Benni

I am not familiar with those charts. Could you submit one here so that I may see how it looks. Thanks.

Mar 31, 2019
@egg
Pure Bollocks lying again, Satan?
1- whereas deification is nice to some, it's inflammatory considering your hostile promotion of creationist religious ideology and hate speech

2- it's not a lie considering you've stated you have a divisive and destructive mission above, therefore it's a religious attack attempting legitimacy under the premise of free speech

however, as the law indicated because you use specific targets (individuals) in your attack and you've tried to coerce others with threats, regardless of your secondary statement of "soul" or an afterlife, it's considered "incitement" as well as "assault" under the law [Black's Law]

incitement for religious reasons is a hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) - "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias [Legal Dictionary - Free Dictionary]

it's also criminal coercion [Black's Law]

Mar 31, 2019
You can call it "red-blue," or "low to high frequency," or "long to short wavelength" or "low to high energy." They all mean the same thing. Bluer is shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies and energies; redder is longer wavelengths and lower frequencies and energies.

But that's not what's at issue here. The issue here is the difference between Compton scattering and redshift. Redshift is specifically what happens to light according to an observer when the source of the light is moving away; blueshift is when the source is moving toward the observer. Compton scattering, on the other hand, is caused by photons experiencing inelastic scattering from charged particles; it also reddens the light, but it does not cause a redshift.

[contd]

Mar 31, 2019
I am not familiar with those charts. Could you submit one here so that I may see how it looks.


https://imagine.g...um1.html

Comparison of wavelength, frequency and energy for the electromagnetic spectrum. (Credit: NASA's Imagine the Universe)

The NASA site shows the spectrum configured two different ways, the postion of the chart is simply tansversed, they're the same thing though. Notice how the waves are longer at one end of the graph than the other? In between the end points the graphs show the wavelength positions of the various types of EM Waves as being radio, visible, x-ray etc, and a lot of sub-category positions.

Mar 31, 2019
[contd]
The two can be told apart by examining the spectral lines; redshift moves the all the spectral lines the same amount to different frequencies than they originally had, but still with the same frequency relationships to one another, in other words, it is systematic; whereas Compton scattering destroys the spectral lines because it is not systematic; each photon interacts with an individual charged particle, changing the momentum of both the photon and the charged particle by an unpredictable amount. Light that has undergone much Compton scattering no longer can be separated into spectral lines, and even a modest amount of Compton scattering broadens the lines, making them "fuzzy."

And that's why the Compton effect can't make redshift. Redshift is made by gravity and by motion (and often incorrectly attributed to the Doppler effect).

Mar 31, 2019
@egg
Pure Bollocks lying again, Satan?

whereas deification is nice to some, it's inflammatory considering your hostile promotion of creationist religious ideology and hate speech
says Satan aka CaptainDumpy

Deification? Where have I deified anyone, except for your arch enemy, the Creator God? I have repeatedly said in this science website that I do NOT subscribe to any MANMADE religion. And yet you continue to tell your LIES about your idiotic ramblings of my having a religion. WHY do you continue to tell such lies, as though you haven't read what I have already said time and time again, Satan? Do you have a mental condition that prevents you from understanding what I have said so many times? Or do you lie in this website because you believe that everyone will fall for your lies? I tend to believe that you lie because it is part of your nature to do so, and you are unable to change it.

Mar 31, 2019
The two can be told apart by examining the spectral lines; redshift moves the all the spectral lines the same amount to different frequencies than they originally had, but still with the same frequency relationships to one another, in other words, it is systematic; whereas Compton scattering destroys the spectral lines because it is not systematic; each photon interacts with an individual charged particle, changing the momentum of both the photon and the charged particle by an unpredictable amount. Light that has undergone much Compton scattering no longer can be separated into spectral lines, and even a modest amount of Compton scattering broadens the lines
......when you Copy & Paste, try doing a better job of disguising it.

Mar 31, 2019
I am not familiar with those charts. Could you submit one here so that I may see how it looks.


https://imagine.g...um1.html

Comparison of wavelength, frequency and energy for the electromagnetic spectrum. (Credit: NASA's Imagine the Universe)

The NASA site shows the spectrum configured two different ways, the postion of the chart is simply tansversed, they're the same thing though. Notice how the waves are longer at one end of the graph than the other? In between the end points the graphs show the wavelength positions of the various types of EM Waves as being radio, visible, x-ray etc, and a lot of sub-category positions.
says Benni

Thank you for that link. It is succinct and completely understandable for those (like me) who are mere scholars and interested observers. I have wondered at the wavelength, strength and power of microwaves also. The NASA site answers it fully. Thanks again, Benni

Mar 31, 2019
The two can be told apart by examining the spectral lines; redshift moves the all the spectral lines the same amount to different frequencies than they originally had, but still with the same frequency relationships to one another, in other words, it is systematic; whereas Compton scattering destroys the spectral lines because it is not systematic; each photon interacts with an individual charged particle, changing the momentum of both the photon and the charged particle by an unpredictable amount. Light that has undergone much Compton scattering no longer can be separated into spectral lines, and even a modest amount of Compton scattering broadens the lines
......when you Copy & Paste, try doing a better job of disguising it.


ROFLOL

Mar 31, 2019
The two can be told apart by examining the spectral lines; redshift moves the all the spectral lines the same amount to different frequencies than they originally had, but still with the same frequency relationships to one another, in other words, it is systematic; whereas Compton scattering destroys the spectral lines because it is not systematic; each photon interacts with an individual charged particle, changing the momentum of both the photon and the charged particle by an unpredictable amount. Light that has undergone much Compton scattering no longer can be separated into spectral lines, and even a modest amount of Compton scattering broadens the lines
......when you Copy & Paste, try doing a better job of disguising it.


Clueless clown. You really are thick, aren't you Benni? Rhetorical.

Mar 31, 2019
With voting eliminated, arguments must stand on their own.

Whose stands and whose fails now depends on the logic and citations.

And the YEC trolls are pretty shady on the whole logic and citations thing.

This is the long fight against the darkness. Just keep linking and quoting and the cred of the woo merchants will fade.

They have nothing else to do but troll and everyone who matters can see it. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

Mar 31, 2019
The two can be told apart by examining the spectral lines; redshift moves the all the spectral lines the same amount to different frequencies than they originally had, but still with the same frequency relationships to one another, in other words, it is systematic; whereas Compton scattering destroys the spectral lines because it is not systematic; each photon interacts with an individual charged particle, changing the momentum of both the photon and the charged particle by an unpredictable amount. Light that has undergone much Compton scattering no longer can be separated into spectral lines, and even a modest amount of Compton scattering broadens the lines
......when you Copy & Paste, try doing a better job of disguising it.


Clueless clown. You really are thick, aren't you Benni? Rhetorical.
says Castrovagina

Ahh jonesy. Once again you're unable to recognise Da Schniebo's hallmark 'copy&paste' self-glorification attempts to impress the yokels.

Mar 31, 2019
It doesn't matter what you say, @Satan. Anyone who checks your posting history can see you lying and trolling, not to mention having psychotic delusions of being a mind-reading space alien.

I will never respond to anything you write because I will never read it. Vade retro satana.

Mar 31, 2019
Ahh jonesy. Once again you're unable to recognise Da Schniebo's hallmark 'copy&paste' self-glorification attempts to impress the yokels.
.......for sure. There's no way that someone with such a strong penchant for 19th Century Cosmology explanations for black holes can come up with the description of photon scatter that schneibo just put up.

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni.

No, mate. Please read properly the posts I made to you, before continuing your misunderstandings.

Again, the RADIO region is at ONE END and the GAMMA region is AT OPPOSITE END....and all the OTHER regions IN BETWEEN.

The RED region was named for the EFFECT IN OUR EYES that those waves create ONLY as PERCEIVED COLOUR 'red' in our mind/brain processes.

It has NOTHING to do with the actual wavelengths SPECTRUM OVERALL except as an easy 'marker' for noting lesser/more 'redder' effects.

The REAL PHYSICAL 'wavelengths' are from LONGEST-TO-SHORTEST (or in reverse convention charts: from shortest-to-longest).

Hence RADIO region ALREADY contains the LONGEST WAVES (including Microwaves); hence if a MICROWAVE RADIO wavelength is REDSHIFTED, it becomes a LONGER WAVE RADIO wavelength....AWAY FROM the 'red' region of the spectrum graph (irrespective of which convention used).

Ok?

Again: RADIO waves can GET LONGER (redshift)...AWAY FROM 'red' region of spectrum!

:)

Mar 31, 2019
It doesn't matter what you say, @Satan. Anyone who checks your posting history can see you lying and trolling, not to mention having psychotic delusions of being a mind-reading space alien.

I will never respond to anything you write because I will never read it. Vade retro satana.

says Da Schniebo

I quite agree with you wrt what your master, Satan aka Captain Stubby says about most anything. His posting history here in physorg is atrocious, in spite of his use of big fancy-shmancy verbiage and rhetoric along with lying accusations on innocent posters. I have to wonder if his 'daughter' knows what an unrepentant LIAR he is. As well as a Troll.
Are you also saying that Stubby believes himself to be a 'space-alien mind-reader'? Wow, just Wow. I have never met such an alien before and wish that I could read minds also. Can you teach us all how to do it, Da Schniebo?

Mar 31, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Careful, mate. While you are essentially CORRECT, the USAGE is specific to CONTEXT. Both individual photonic downconversion and overall starlight downconversion are still called 'redshifting'; the context makes clear what is meant to convey, ie: whether applying to individual photon of a certain frequency; OR a collection of photons of IDENTICAL FREQUENCY; OR a collection of MIXED-FREQUENCY photons (such as from a star).

Also, given the vast quantities/reaches of IONISED material now being acknowledged ubiquitous in deep space, any collection of photons travelling through such for billions of years can be downconverted/upconverted in MYRIAD ways via MYRIAD interactions of MYRIAD 'scattering angles (as I already explained to @Benni in my post on March 30 above).

So, such extreme distance travel effect may also produce a wide-spectrum and/or "fuzzy" imprint/artifact which may 'mimic' a sort of cross-spectrum 'spectroscopic signature'.

It's complex. :)

Mar 31, 2019
hence if a MICROWAVE RADIO wavelength is REDSHIFTED, it becomes a LONGER WAVE RADIO wavelength....AWAY FROM the 'red' region of the spectrum graph (irrespective of which convention used).Ok?


Sure, "Ok", so long as you can prove this:

The RED region was named for the EFFECT IN OUR EYES that those waves create ONLY as PERCEIVED COLOUR 'red' in our mind/brain processes
......do u have a link for this?

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni.
hence if a MICROWAVE RADIO wavelength is REDSHIFTED, it becomes a LONGER WAVE RADIO wavelength....AWAY FROM the 'red' region of the spectrum graph (irrespective of which convention used).Ok?
Sure, "Ok", so long as you can prove this:

The RED region was named for the EFFECT IN OUR EYES that those waves create ONLY as PERCEIVED COLOUR 'red' in our mind/brain processes
......do u have a link for this?
No probs, mate. :)

Here is a wiki link:

https://en.wikipe...eing_red

Ok, mate? :)

Mar 31, 2019
@DanR, @Benni,

The language I used with respect to redshift and blueshift, "red direction," "blue direction," etc., has been standard for many decades. Peddle your papers, elsewhere, please.

@SEU,

Check yourself into your closest mental health treatment facility. You are having a psychotic episode.

You are also threatening people, which is not nice, at all. In fact, it's so not nice it's illegal. Stop it.

@Reality,

Redshift measurements are made quite reliably over distances of billions of lightyears.

Mar 31, 2019
@observicist.
@Reality,

Redshift measurements are made quite reliably over distances of billions of lightyears.
When you say "quite reliably" you assume that the measurement is of a known source/frequencies etc....all of which may be affected by local (there) conditions/materials/processes which you are not aware of, and hence making assumption that the measurement is as you expect it to be. Then we have the travel through vast deep space quantum vacuum processes, ionise material and cold 'Bose-Einstein type' of gases of all sorts; and then all the organic materials ALSO NOW known to be common in deep space. All these possible variables/effects can give a measurement 'here' that bears no relation at all to the original emission/source wavelengths/spectrometry/mix etc. Hence why astronomers/cosmologists are NOW paying much more attention to 'artefacts of observation/analysis etc' before making conclusions based on extremely REMOTE 'measurements' of cosmic light. :)

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni.
hence if a MICROWAVE RADIO wavelength is REDSHIFTED, it becomes a LONGER WAVE RADIO wavelength....AWAY FROM the 'red' region of the spectrum graph (irrespective of which convention used).Ok?
Sure, "Ok", so long as you can prove this:

The RED region was named for the EFFECT IN OUR EYES that those waves create ONLY as PERCEIVED COLOUR 'red' in our mind/brain processes
......do u have a link for this?
No probs, mate. :)

Here is a wiki link:

https://en.wikipe...eing_red

Ok, mate? :)


No, not "Ok", If you think I'm wading through all that just to find one or two sentences out of a full chapter you've got another think coming. Highlight what you want me to read & do a schneibo & paste it here.

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni.
......do u have a link for this?
No probs, mate. :)

Here is a wiki link:

https://en.wikipe...eing_red

Ok, mate? :)


No, not "Ok", If you think I'm wading through all that just to find one or two sentences out of a full chapter you've got another think coming. Highlight what you want me to read & do a schneibo & paste it here.
Didn't you see the " #Seeing_red " suffix to the link, mate? It goes straight to the relevant PARAGRAPH if you just click the wiki link I gave. :)

And while you're @ wiki site, you might also look up "Qualia" and "Synaesthesia", as these will give you an even fuller background about 'perceived' effects (as opposed to actual physical 'things' which may give rise to said 'perceived effects' within our human/animal brain-mind evolutionary 'construct').

Cheers. :)

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,
Check yourself into your closest mental health treatment facility. You are having a psychotic episode.
You are also threatening people, which is not nice, at all. In fact, it's so not nice it's illegal. Stop it.
says observatory

Psychotic episodes are evident in such humans as Da Schniebo who has accused me of being an "alien lizard" as well as a "mind reading space alien".
Psychotic episodes is Captain Stumbly aka Satan/Lucifer who has told me in another phorum that he has had "far far far more experience with evil" than I have. When I asked him to tell me how he knows this - he has avoided my query ever since, while lying that he had answered it - but refused to give me the link to that phorum so that I could see for myself.
So how do you imagine that Captain Dumpy has had more experience with evil than I have had. Why, he must be a "mind reader" to know with such certainty - wouldn't you say?
And no, I haven't threatened anyone with bodily harm. Read more carefull

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,

You, yourself, read more carefully. I didn't write that you were threatening people with bodily harm. I wrote that you were threatening people. Both are illegal. Stop it.

You are having a psychotic episode. Check yourself into a mental health facility, and please show them your posts from this particular article on phys.org. My horseback diagnosis is paranoid schizophrenia -- because of your obvious delusions, and your threats resulting from same. But no one can be accurately diagnosed without a personal examination (the Goldwater rule). If I knew where you lived, however, I would have no choice but to inform the local authorities about you under what's known as "duty to warn," based on your statements, here.

It's unlucky for you (you clearly need help), I hope not unlucky for your neighbors, that no one identifies themselves in these comments.

If you really are an immortal alien, you're bonkers for revealing yourself. You need help.

Either way, you need help.

Mar 31, 2019
Interesting take on Redshift

Compton scattering and redshift
or
compton scattering versus redshift
where redshift is light shifted to the sensitivity of the human eye

I smell the Rat of Obfuscation of Deception Emerging
a MICROWAVE RADIO wavelength is REDSHIFTED, it becomes a LONGER WAVE RADIO wavelength
because
The RED region was named for the EFFECT IN OUR EYES that those waves create ONLY as PERCEIVED COLOUR 'red' in our mind/brain processes

As even in pursuit of the Lords work
the art of Obfuscation in science rears its Ugly Head
where
Georges Lemaitre had Obfuscation down to a fine Art
Oh for the Powers of Commenting free from the power of that Five Star Club

p.s. phys.org is now just like physics-world used to be, simply the art of commenting

Mar 31, 2019
@Benni ......do u have a link for this? No probs, mate. :)

Here is a wiki link:

https://en.wikipe...eing_red

Ok, mate? :)


No, not "Ok", If you think I'm wading through all that just to find one or two sentences out of a full chapter you've got another think coming. Highlight what you want me to read & do a schneibo & paste it here. Didn't you see the " #Seeing_red " suffix to the link, mate? It goes straight to the relevant PARAGRAPH if you just click the wiki link I gave. :)

And while you're @ wiki site, you might also look up "Qualia" and "Synaesthesia", as these will give you an even fuller background about 'perceived' effects (as opposed to actual physical 'things' which may give rise to said 'perceived effects' within our human/animal brain-mind evolutionary 'construct').

.......I don't care about trying to read your mind, either put it up & don't expect ME or anyone else to spend an hour of time searching the damn site.

Mar 31, 2019
@SEU,

You, yourself, read more carefully. I didn't write that you were threatening people with bodily harm. I wrote that you were threatening people. Both are illegal. Stop it.

It's unlucky for you (you clearly need help), I hope not unlucky for your neighbors, that no one identifies themselves in these comments.

If you really are an immortal alien, you're bonkers for revealing yourself. You need help.

Either way, you need help.


It was your friend, Captain Dummy who alluded to my having threatened with bodily harm in his silly little "Laws" that he reported. My original statement was the fate of their "souls", not to their physical body.
I think that it is YOU who needs help, particularly in your reading and comprehension skills, else you would not continue your tirade due to your agreement with your Captain Dummy friend who had given you the "psychotic" idea beforehand in the other phorum wrt my nonexistent "time" hypothesis. And you have carried it here also.

Mar 31, 2019
@DanR, @Benni,

The language I used with respect to redshift and blueshift, "red direction," "blue direction," etc., has been standard for many decades. Peddle your papers, elsewhere, please.
.........and you're still not getting it.

Whether RADIO is blue or red shifted it's being made shorter, this because both BLUE & RED are higher Energy Levels than is RADIO. Therefore to even discuss such shifting from the relative position of RADIO to RED or BLUE on the EM Spectrum turns the entire concept on it's head right out of the starting gate.

What the hell have you been teaching all your so-called students? Are you certain you aren't just talking to yourself in one voice & giving yourself funny farm psycho-babble answers in another?

Mar 31, 2019
Benni
observicist > The language I used with respect to redshift and blueshift, "red direction," "blue direction," etc., has been standard for many decades. Peddle your papers, elsewhere, please


Benni> Whether RADIO is blue or red shifted it's being made shorter, this because both BLUE & RED are higher Energy Levels than is RADIO. Therefore to even discuss such shifting from the relative position of RADIO to RED or BLUE on the EM Spectrum turns the entire concept on it's head right out of the starting gate.

What the hell have you been teaching all your so-called students? Are you certain you aren't just talking to yourself in one voice & giving yourself funny farm psycho-babble answers in another?

Benni, if you believe observicist is a teacher
you
have
Forgotten Cox and Box

Mar 31, 2019
says Benni to obs
.........and you're still not getting it.

Whether RADIO is blue or red shifted it's being made shorter, this because both BLUE & RED are higher Energy Levels than is RADIO. Therefore to even discuss such shifting from the relative position of RADIO to RED or BLUE on the EM Spectrum turns the entire concept on it's head right out of the starting gate.

What the hell have you been teaching all your so-called students? Are you certain you aren't just talking to yourself in one voice & giving yourself funny farm psycho-babble answers in another?


I suspect that observer taught Music Theory at University - NOT science. He doesn't seem to have a good grasp of Physics and tends to believe that anyone he disagrees with has to be psychotic and/or a troll - while completely disregarding those as the REAL trolls, such as Da Schniebo and CaptainDumDum.

Mar 31, 2019
Benni, if you believe observicist is a teacher
you
have
Forgotten Cox and Box
says granville

LOL I had read that story of Cox and Box many years ago and had forgotten it. So I read it again at your suggestion, and laughed again. The absurdity of 2 men sharing a flat and fighting boisterously when one has the day off is still hilariously funny. I will tell my housemates about it. I know they will enjoy it. Thanks for the reminder.

Apr 01, 2019
@granville

You might enjoy this - https://en.wikiso...omplete)

Apr 01, 2019
@eggy the fanatical religious illiterate
It was your friend...who alluded to my having threatened with bodily harm
I stated, very clearly (to those who are literate) that you made
a criminal threat
it was *part of* the Black's Law quote that "alluded" to your having threatened bodily harm, which you didn't read

I know you didn't because, on that same page, there was clarification - had you read the reference you would have found there is no need for implied or direct physical violence

my next reference more clearly stated it in laymans terms even you could understand
...jurisdictions prohibit the use of threats and Unlawful Communications by any person. Some of the more common types of threats forbidden by law are those made with an intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage or to compel a person to act against his or her will
regardless, it was your choice to threaten and you've committed a criminal act

so, per your requests...

Apr 01, 2019
I see no reason to respond to the trolls. They're just going to lie anyway. There's no point in responding to lies; the liars will just tell more lies. The winning response is no response at all. Let them stew in their own juices.

Apr 01, 2019
Side issue. No more ratings. Did snowflakes complain? Often, it was a quicker way to comment than to comment.

Apr 01, 2019
@Thorium
Did snowflakes complain?
probably
they absolutely hated the ratings - it was why they often generated so many sock puppets
Zeph had more than a hundred (confirmed) at one point

now if the site would just abide by the rest of their guidelines ...

too bad the rest of the scientifically literate won't just report the trolls and pseudoscience

Apr 01, 2019
the terms REDSHIFT & BLUESHIFT are archaic terms & should be dumped


When they are applied to stars, which they generally are, NO, they should NOT be dumped. Why should they?
.......because it must be REVERSE described when applying such lingo to RADIO wavelengths
Benni

Not really, because most people generally know what it is supposed to mean aren't because they aren't STUPID. So, NO need to change those terms.

Apr 01, 2019
So you are getting a gravitational red shift? this is contrary to GR, but it proves my theory shown on
https://www.scrib...savvys84

Apr 01, 2019
My misedit on my last post;
What I MEANT to say was;

"This isn't a problem because most people generally know what it is supposed to mean because they aren't STUPID. So, NO need to change those terms (redshift, blueshift)

Apr 01, 2019
@Benni,

You still have no idea what you're talking about. Any real physicist would have had no problem whatsoever with my phrasing, and would have though you were an idiot (in fact, I suspect many did). My phrasing was standard, and completely correct. Your misunderstanding of it is laughable.

@SEU

I referred to your psychosis because you are exhibiting psychotic symptoms, not because anyone else said you were psychotic. In fact, I can't recall reading anyone else stating your were psychotic, although it wouldn't surprise me others have so stated. I may agree with others, and come to the same conclusions, but I don't do so unless there is good reason to do so.

Check yourself into a mental health center, for your own good. You are having a psychotic episode.

By the way, is it more correct for me to state that you claim you are inhabiting a human's central nervous system? Is that why you indicated I was wrong? Did I have it backwards?

Apr 01, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 01, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.