Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: The possible source for a red shift phenomenon

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24

    The possible source for a red shift phenomenon

    The colors into the intensely burning candle flame appear after the hottest and brightest flame sector, which is 100% transparent. This sector around the wick is like glass, having no colors is followed by gradually changing to blueish, orangery and red which is getting darker red as flame is cooled by oxygen molecules. So it appears, there are no colors in the original flame until it is saturated with oxygen molecules. Therefore, oxygen feeds the flame, cools it and acts as a color filter according to flames temperature. This action may coincide with characteristics of sun light and the light from the distant galaxy. The emitted sunlight may be colorless and travel colorlessly until subjected with naturally occurring chemical filters. Thus, oxygen molecules seem to act as chemical color filter. Therefore, the following may apply in solving the red shift phenomenon. In the outer space environment, oxygen molecules are rare but the emitted light from the distant galaxy has long time to travel. During this time these pure light waves can get contaminated with oxygen molecules, which act like natural filters and adds red color to these oncoming light waves. Furthermore, if I am correct, the blue shift is observed in galaxies being in closer distances to an observer, thus there is time for light waves to accumulate oxygen molecules only for blue shifted galaxies. These concepts work as well for galaxies in the edge of the observable universe.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Kennewick, Washington
    Posts
    27
    You are aware that red shift occurs across the electromagnetic spectrum. And that suns do not "burn" with oxygen. And that interstellar gas and dust scattering and absorbing light of select wavelengths is well understood. I'm not aware of a problem.

    Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    10,735
    Jaakko Kurhi,

    Please define "colorless" light and describe its properties. How does it travel "colorlessly"?

    Please explain your understanding of how filters work to change the apparent color of light. How would any filter "add" light in the red wavelengths to light of other non-red wavelengths?

    Please define "pure" light. How would pure light become contaminated with molecular oxygen?
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    The colors into the intensely burning candle flame appear after the hottest and brightest flame sector, which is 100% transparent.....
    Many problems with that idea, Jaakko Kurhi, starting with that stars are not burning candles so what we see for candles has nothing to do with the light from stars.
    The "colorless" part of a candle flame is where there is no burning wax - it is dark because there is no light being emitted.
    There is no such thing as "colorless" light. The visible spectrum is given everyday color labels (red, blue, etc.). The rest of the spectrum has "color" labels (extremely low frequency, far infrared, extreme ultraviolet, gamma rays, etc.).
    We know what oxygen does to light which does not include redshift.
    Oxygen produces red and green light when excited.
    If light from galaxies were interacting with oxygen atoms enough to cause cosmological redshift then we should also detect the spectral lines of oxygen in space.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-14 at 03:40 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Kennewick Man
    You are aware that red shift occurs across the electromagnetic spectrum. And that suns do not "burn" with oxygen. And that interstellar gas and dust scattering and absorbing light of select wavelengths is well understood. I'm not aware of a problem.
    I am seeking a cause for observed red shift and condition of the emitted light from the sun. What makes the sun burn is not related to either subject.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    I am seeking a cause for observed red shift and condition of the emitted light from the sun.
    These appear to be unrelated problems. Also, explanations for both are easily found.

    And what do you mean by the "condition" of the emitted light?

    What problem are you trying to solve?
    Last edited by Strange; 2017-Mar-14 at 08:10 AM. Reason: add question

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek
    Please define "colorless" light and describe its properties. How does it travel "colorlessly"?
    The constant stream of sunlight is colorless (transparent) and cannot be observed till it lands on earthly matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek
    Please explain your understanding of how filters work to change the apparent color of light.
    The devise called a “variable color light source,” which is used during post production in the motion picture industry. Before the digital age, this device required three light bulbs. Red, Blue and Yellow color filters. All assembled so that with mirrors all three lights are focused on the same film gate. All bulbs are ON at same time and by controlling the lights density of each bulb, depending of the light controls accuracy, a million color shades are obtainable. Currently, the same concept is applied in digital format where red, blue and yellow (or green) LED lamps are used. So, the filters change the character of the original light weather they are man-made filters of naturally occurring filters.

    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek
    How would any filter "add" light in the red wavelengths to light of other non-red wavelengths?
    It may be true. All sources of light, except biotic illumination, require intense action for light to originate in transparent state. Thus, there are no colors present until following portions of flame gets saturated with oxygen. Because the flame in the red state completely blocks the see thru condition, suggest that colors are not an inherent property of the light and all color waves have to be color particles instead. Therefore, calor particles are not suitable to be carried by massless photons. Therefore, the original transparent light is combinable with color particles.

    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek
    Please define "pure" light. How would pure light become contaminated with molecular oxygen?
    In this case transparent light and pure light represent the same light condition, light is pure if it’s free of foreign matter (free of colors), so is transparent light because colors seem to dampen transparency. In other words, the light that originates from the intense action has no mechanism to add colors unless action happens in the environment where molecular oxygen is present. I use a candle light because its simplest light to observe what is happening in very close to the source. Observation results, because oxygen only has access to candle lights pure flame, it has to be a source for change in flames’ characteristics and source for colors.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,271
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

    jaako, you need to read (and understand) the above article. You have some very basic misunderstandings about light. And particles and filters and chemistry and astronomy, and it is not the job of responders to you ATM (which would be better as a series of Q&A questions) to explain all of science and physics to you.

    Hints: there is no "colorless" light; there is no "transparent" light; etcetera. You need to understand the theory and definitions before you make assertions about anything.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    The constant stream of sunlight is colorless (transparent) and cannot be observed till it lands on earthly matter.
    That isn't much of a definition. It's simply a restatement of your assertion. But is it just "earthly matter"? What is reflected by extra-earthly bodies like the Moon?

    The devise called a “variable color light source,” which is used during post production in the motion picture industry. Before the digital age, this device required three light bulbs. Red, Blue and Yellow color filters. All assembled so that with mirrors all three lights are focused on the same film gate. All bulbs are ON at same time and by controlling the lights density of each bulb, depending of the light controls accuracy, a million color shades are obtainable. Currently, the same concept is applied in digital format where red, blue and yellow (or green) LED lamps are used. So, the filters change the character of the original light weather they are man-made filters of naturally occurring filters.
    I did not ask you to describe a variable color light source. While one may employ filters, it is not itself a filter. It is a light source. To restate my questions: Please explain your understanding of how filters work to change the apparent color of light. How would any filter "add" light in the red wavelengths to light of other non-red wavelengths...as you claim oxygen molecules can do? Please cite any relevant literature that supports your understanding.

    It may be true. All sources of light, except biotic illumination, require intense action for light to originate in transparent state. Thus, there are no colors present until following portions of flame gets saturated with oxygen. Because the flame in the red state completely blocks the see thru condition, suggest that colors are not an inherent property of the light and all color waves have to be color particles instead. Therefore, calor particles are not suitable to be carried by massless photons. Therefore, the original transparent light is combinable with color particles.
    The relationship between the wavelength of light and its perceived color is well established. Therefore, it is not enough to just say that it must be some combination of "transparent light" and "color particles"...which has no basis in mainstream physics. You must show that what you say is factual, using evidence, math, etc. Rewording your statements slightly does not do that.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    During this time these pure light waves can get contaminated with oxygen molecules, which act like natural filters and adds red color to these oncoming light waves.

    The definition of redshift is not the adding of red color. It is the shifting of spectral features to "redder" wavelengths. Due to this misunderstanding on your part, your entire argument is flawed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    ....suggest that colors are not an inherent property of the light and all color waves have to be color particles instead...
    No one thinks that colors are a property of light. Colors are labels for parts of the visible spectrum which is a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
    Human beings look at light spread into different wavelengths, e.g. a rainbow or light shining though a prism. Human beings label parts of wavelengths of light that they see as "red", "blue", etc. This is a subjective spitting, e.g. color blind people will disagree!
    Scientists come along and use the same labels for specific ranges of light wavelengths - Spectral colors. The light with wavelengths of 620–750 nm has a label of "red" etc. When scientists say red light we know that they are referring to light with wavelengths between 620 nm and 750 nm.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    The constant stream of sunlight is colorless (transparent) and cannot be observed till it lands on earthly matter.
    If by this you mean that you can't see light until it hits something and scatters back to your eye, that is how light works. If, instead, you mean to make some philosophical point that one cannot define a color until the light is detected, then I suppose that's a fine position to take, although what relevance that has to any scientific question is dubious.

    I have no idea why you specify "earthly". Light from celestial matter is detected just fine. Light from earth is detected just fine by deep-space probes.

    So, the filters change the character of the original light weather they are man-made filters of naturally occurring filters.
    It is trivially true that filters perform the action of filtering. What you seem confused about is what filtering means. The spectrum of the light source is broad, and spans many colors. The filters selectively pass some of them. Filters do not shift, nor do they create, colors. So, again, the relevance of filters in the context of a discussion about redshift is mysterious. It appears that you do not understand much about how light actually behaves, and that you have confused redshift with filtering. These are very different things.

    All sources of light, except biotic illumination, require intense action for light to originate in transparent state.
    From your introduction, the "transparent state" is merely the same as "undetected state". No "intense action" is necessary not to detect light.

    Thus, there are no colors present until following portions of flame gets saturated with oxygen.
    This is a non sequitur. The clause after "thus" in no way follows from what precedes it.

    I suggest first reading a bit about what redshift actually is. Once you do, you will see that everything that you've conjectured here is nonsense.

    As one bit of information to ponder, when one examines the entire spectrum of light emitted from a star, say, we see that the spectrum has discrete lines corresponding to the signatures of various elements (e.g., hydrogen and helium). Distant stars have their spectra shifted toward longer wavelengths (they "redden", metaphorically). This shifting (note the word) cannot result from filtering. And it has nothing whatever to do with oxygen, burning candles, or the light from movie projector lamps.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek
    Please explain your understanding of how filters work to change the apparent color of light. How would any filter "add" light in the red wavelengths to light of other non-red wavelengths...as you claim oxygen molecules can do? Please cite any relevant literature that supports your understanding.
    Calor filters are commonly used in the color correction proses, for example, a selected filter changes yellow light to green light, and the wave length has to change accordingly. How this wave length change happens I have no idea, but this works for any color combination. I think this is not your request, perhaps can I explain how photons work with filters is more to the point. There is no conclusive evidence or explanation how photons are made and assembled as baskets of color’s spectrum. However, filters work the same regardless how photons are designed.
    Does a photon have mass is still debated? According how colors work in atmospheric environment, light is always associated with mass. As you know from my previous posts, I began suspecting any statement concerning an event that happened, but is not explained how it was possible to happen. A big-bang and related event, Atoms, Photons these items have worked in theory for a hundred years, but yet to be verified.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    Calor filters are commonly used in the color correction proses, for example, a selected filter changes yellow light to green light, and the wave length has to change accordingly.
    A filter does not change wavelengths; it just allows some through and blocks others.

    On the other hand, as Amber Robot said, red-shift does change wavelengths. So your talk of filters is irrelevant.

    Does a photon have mass is still debated?
    Not really. There have been experiments to test the mass of a photon. As far as anyone can tell it is zero.

    According how colors work in atmospheric environment, light is always associated with mass.
    In which case your idea is wrong as light has no mass.

    As you know from my previous posts, I began suspecting any statement concerning an event that happened, but is not explained how it was possible to happen. A big-bang and related event, Atoms, Photons these items have worked in theory for a hundred years, but yet to be verified.
    These theories are verified by the fact that they have worked for a hundred years.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    [...]for example, a selected filter changes yellow light to green light, and the wave length has to change accordingly. How this wave length change happens I have no idea, but this works for any color combination.
    You should read up on filters because that is not correct. Passive filters do not change the wavelength of light. They either pass or block (absorb or reflect) certain wavelengths. If the target wavelength is not present in the light to be filtered, it cannot be transmitted by the filter. In your example, shining yellow light through a green filter would theoretically result in no light getting through the filter.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,137
    As already pointed out Jaakko Kurhi, filters block light. A yellow filter blocks all light except for yellow light, etc.

    Photons are not "assembled as baskets of color’s spectrum" because No one thinks that colors are a property of light. We could label the visible spectrum as fish, spider, unicorn, Frodo, etc. and photons would not have fish or spider or unicorn or Frodo properties .

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Srange
    In which case your idea is wrong as light has no mass.
    Observation indicates, adding color to the light adds mass to the light also.


    Quote Originally Posted by Srange
    What problem are you trying to solve?
    Red shift problem because it is the original factor to the Big-Bang theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Srange
    And what do you mean by the "condition" of the emitted light?
    When light is emitted from the sun, is it clear like glass, partially transparent or same color as suns surface?
    Last edited by Jaakko Kurhi; 2017-Mar-15 at 10:16 PM. Reason: Typing mistage

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    Observation indicates, adding color to the light adds mass to the light also.
    Please cite a source for this assertion. The statement "adding color to the light" is scientifically meaningless.

    When light is emitted from the sun, is it clear like glass, partially transparent or same color as suns surface?
    The Sun emits light across a wide spectrum including radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays; with a peak in the visible spectrum at the wavelengths we perceive as green. All combined, barring atmospheric effects, we see that output as white light.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek
    Please cite a source for this assertion. The statement "adding color to the light" is scientifically meaningless.
    As I have mentioned before Candle light is visually observable source of light. The flame begins with the clear sector (not white) followed by colored flame. What causes colors to appear has to be due to surrounding oxygen. Perhaps chemistry comes to play, resulting solid colored flame. In this case,
    the light is associated with the mass.
    Last edited by Swift; 2017-Mar-16 at 04:46 PM. Reason: fixed quote function typo

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    10,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    As I have mentioned before Candle light is visually observable source of light. The flame begins with the clear sector (not white) followed by colored flame. What causes colors to appear has to be due to surrounding oxygen. Perhaps chemistry comes to play, resulting solid colored flame. In this case,
    the light is associated with the mass.
    I didn't ask you to tell me what you said before. That is just restating your assertion and is not at all helpful. You said, "Observation indicates, adding color to the light adds mass to the light also." I asked you to cite a source to support that statement. What observations? Under what conditions were those observations made? Where are those observations documented? How did they "add color" to light?
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    As I have mentioned before Candle light is visually observable source of light. The flame begins with the clear sector (not white) followed by colored flame. What causes colors to appear has to be due to surrounding oxygen. Perhaps chemistry comes to play, resulting solid colored flame. In this case,
    the light is associated with the mass.
    Jaakko Kurhi,

    So far in this thread you have given zero evidence to support your assertions. And just repeating them, is not evidence. For example, the physics and chemistry of flames are well understood and you could have found any number of references to link to. But of course, none of that supports your primary idea.

    In your next post you will post some actual information to support your idea about red shift - whether it is experimental results, published works, or some calculations, or this thread will be closed and you will be done with this topic.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    Observation indicates, adding color to the light adds mass to the light also.
    What observations are these? I am not aware that light of any frequency (colour) has mass.

    Red shift problem because it is the original factor to the Big-Bang theory.
    The red-shift is explained by the big bang model. What are you trying to add to that?

    And none of your comments about filters, etc have any connection to red-shift. Filters do NOT shift frequency.)

    When light is emitted from the sun, is it clear like glass, partially transparent or same color as suns surface?
    Light doesn't really have colour. But the light we receive from the sun has the same mix of frequencies (i.e. colour), more or less, as when it was emitted.
    Last edited by Strange; 2017-Mar-16 at 06:52 PM. Reason: fix quote

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    As I have mentioned before Candle light is visually observable source of light. The flame begins with the clear sector (not white) followed by colored flame. What causes colors to appear has to be due to surrounding oxygen.
    Nope. It is caused by the physics and chemistry of the flame. This is well understood. Faraday devoted the entire Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to a candle flame. Perhaps you should read what he said: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474

    In this case,the light is associated with the mass.
    Nope. There is no evidence of this.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    As I have mentioned before Candle light is.... In this case,
    the light is associated with the mass.
    Time for formal questions since you are ignoring that fact that colors are merely labels for parts of the visible spectrum, Jaakko Kurhi:
    IF01a: Define "the mass".
    IF01b: Show how "the mass" produces a real candle flame.
    This is a real candle flame
    A candle flame is formed because wax vaporizes on burning. It has three distinct regions. The innermost zone, directly above the wick, contains wax that has been vaporized but that is unburnt. It is the darkest zone. The middle zone is yellow and luminous. As it is an oxygen depleted zone, insufficient oxygen exists to burn all of the wax vapor. As such, partial combustion of wax takes place. The zone also contains unburnt carbon vapor. The temperature in this region is hotter than the innermost zone, but cooler than the outer zone. The outer zone is the area where the flame is the hottest and complete combustion of wax takes place. It is light blue in color and not normally visible.[23]
    There is no "clear" sector of the flame. The entire flame emits light (just about the definition of a flame!). From the top: Most of the flame is white (completely burning wax), then there is a thin blue region (partially burning wax), then an orange-yellow zone with unburnt wax vapors. Below the main body of the flame is a blue region around the wick where carbon vapor is burning.
    Another description: 4 Things You Dint Know About Candle Flame Zones
    And another: Candle Science
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-16 at 08:55 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    As I have mentioned before Candle light is visually observable source of light. The flame begins with the clear sector (not white) followed by colored flame. What causes colors to appear has to be due to surrounding oxygen. Perhaps chemistry comes to play, resulting solid colored flame. In this case,
    the light is associated with the mass.

    The bolded section appears to be the source of your confusion. You have jumped to a bit of a conclusion there, but unfortunately it's quite wide of the mark.

    "Light" has an intrinsic property of frequency, which ranges from very low (radio waves for example) to very high (such as gamma radiation). The human eye/brain has evolved to be able to interpret a very narrow band of those frequencies - we interpret that range of frequency as the spectrum of "colour" between red (at the lower end) and blue (at the higher end). Other animals are able to interpret slightly different ranges - a rattlesnake can see in infrared, which is too low a frequency for us, while a bee can see in ultraviolet, which is too high.

    So what you are seeing as 'colour' has nothing whatever to do with light being emitted by the candle, coming into contact with oxygen and thereby being provided "colour". It simply means that the photons of light emitted from that location have a particular frequency that our eyes/brain have evolved to identify, for example, as "yellow".

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check
    There is no "clear" sector of the flame. The entire flame emits light (just about the definition of a flame!). From the top: Most of the flame is white (completely burning wax), then there is a thin blue region (partially burning wax), then an orange-yellow zone with sunburn wax vapors. Below the main body of the flame is a blue region around the wick where carbon vapor is burning. Another description: 4 Things You Dint Know About Candle Flame
    This is a real candle flame. And another: Candle Science
    Throughout this treat I have been puzzled by members responding so negatively to the term of the “transparent light” within the candle flame. Until you presented informative links, I got more puzzled.. Because, links lead to internet pages that are not even close to reality of scientifically qualified observation. For example, one cannot expect to see any transparency if the flame is observed and photographed against the black background. Illustrating photos are over exposed, which enhance color density and hides any delicate details from the flame. Anyone can do a personal observation: Use a white wax candle, cut the wick into 3/16" to 1/4" length, lit the candle and let it burn one minute or so. Use magnifier glass and observe the flame from upper angle till the wick appears within the candle wax. The transition from clear to very light blue is hard to observe but the transparency is obvious. You can see details of the wick, but also details of the candle wax including the trim behind the flame area. How much this observation has to do with the emitted light? Looking from the natures point of view, it suggests the visual sun light is clear very bright wave or constant stream of emitted light. Which cannot be observed until associated with the matter. Also can be a factor associated with the observed red shift.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaakko Kurhi View Post
    Throughout this treat I have been puzzled by members responding so negatively to the term of the “transparent light” within the candle flame. Until you presented informative links, I got more puzzled.. Because, links lead to internet pages that are not even close to reality of scientifically qualified observation. For example, one cannot expect to see any transparency if the flame is observed and photographed against the black background. Illustrating photos are over exposed, which enhance color density and hides any delicate details from the flame. Anyone can do a personal observation: Use a white wax candle, cut the wick into 3/16" to 1/4" length, lit the candle and let it burn one minute or so. Use magnifier glass and observe the flame from upper angle till the wick appears within the candle wax. The transition from clear to very light blue is hard to observe but the transparency is obvious. You can see details of the wick, but also details of the candle wax including the trim behind the flame area. How much this observation has to do with the emitted light? Looking from the natures point of view, it suggests the visual sun light is clear very bright wave or constant stream of emitted light. Which cannot be observed until associated with the matter. Also can be a factor associated with the observed red shift.
    Still full of assertions, entirely free of evidence, and other than a casual, undemonstrated mention in the last sentence, nothing to do with red shift.

    This thread is done.

    Jaakko Kurhi, you had your chance; do not bring this topic up again on CQ.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •