PDA

View Full Version : Non-Doppler red shift

John Kierein
2002-Jul-10, 11:36 AM
http://eunomie.u-bourgogne.fr/elearning/Quasars-BigBang.html

You may also want to look at this:
http://eunomie.u-bourgogne.fr/elearning/theorie-quantique.html

(The second link is in French, the first has an English version. The second one is a quantum mechanic analysis.)

Oh there an english version; http://eunomie.u-bourgogne.fr/elearning/forum/webj_a.html
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-07-10 08:04 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-07-10 08:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-07-10 08:21 ]</font>

Verlan J. Kliewer
2002-Oct-02, 06:15 PM
Theoretically, a red shift can occur when a star is speeding away from us, or when a star is moving at a high speed, perpendicular to us without moving away from us or towards us.

This is because the star, as it speeds along, slows down in time because of its motion, according to the special theory of relativity. When time slows down on the star, the oscillations of the atoms slows down, resulting in a red shift.

For the red shift to be caused by perpendicular motion, the speed of the star must be much greater than the same red shift caused by a star speeding away from us.

The star would also appear squashed, in the direction of motion.

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-02, 10:07 PM
No, sorry, that's not true. Time dilation is made up for by length contraction. There is no such thing as perpendicular redshift.

2002-Oct-03, 09:01 AM
<a name="20021003.1:48"> POST 20021003.1:48 aka My version of 2
On 2002-10-02 18:07, JS Princeton wrote: To: ? 2
No, sorry, that's not true. Time dilation is made up for by length contraction. There is no such thing as perpendicular redshift.
___ hmm?
anyway the Frech link look to me like a
Purfume commercial
and the "English version an attack on Math
I did not see RED SHIFT mentioned even once
let alone twice {now bavk to HUb': JSP}
lemme thin? As the pod "drifted left" to center up on the door ... and the Shell rippled its awareness responce I now relived .. TBC maybe

JS Princeton
2002-Oct-03, 04:09 PM
John, I was finally able to access your pages today. Let me just say they are basically junk. He says that lasers were not accepted by quantum theory (they were). He says that spectral shifts can be explained by Compton effects (they cannot). He says that quantum theory is based upon observations of errors in optical effects (it is not). This page relies on misunderstandings and downright lies about quantum physics. It is utterly pointless from the point-of-view of science and is only useful pedagogically to show what whackos can come up with.

Ever noticed how these junk pages never use any mathematics? Why is that? Are physics-deniers afraid of math for some reason?