Limits of Spectroscopy

Martin Brown wrote:

[ text omitted ]

Hi Martin,
Do you have a reference for this? I want to be able to give a proper
reference to people who claim that red-shift is due to 'tired light'


Google "Lyman forest" ought to bring something useful up.
Combine it with "tired light" and you may get exactly what you seek.

Regards,


Martin:

'Tired light' is a term that suits then advocates of the BB; it is a
derogatory term that is intended to place an emotional wet blanket upon
the issue in order to discredit any possible explanation for a physical
cause of the diminution of the energy levels of photons as they traverse
the openness of space.

If you grant the recognition of physical reality to the existents in
space, rather than trying to create a metaphysical reality out of an
epistemological mathematical graphical concept of the instant locations
of gravitational acceleration forces, i.e., curved space-time, you may
find that there are causes for the "Apparent Red Shift" of light that do
not depend upon the Hubble - Doppler creationist-expansionist BB theory.

The proper scientific question to ask is, "What happens to light photons
as they traverse to openness of outer space that causes the diminution
of their energy levels?"

The issue is whether mathematical EM waves, that have no physical
existence, except insofar as the waves are the properties of actual
physical existents, i.e., photons, are valid as a metaphysical concept.
Or whether physical existents, i.e., light photons, actually have
physical properties that in interactions with other physical existents,
for example, gravitons or photons, can have different energy levels.

In terms of the validity of methods of scientific proof, the method of
'application' is an inferior method proof for the identification of
causal relationships. For example, if, due to the "Apparent Red Shift"
and the hypothesized "Doppler Effect", some Euclidean straight lines are
made to represent velocity or distance vectors, and those lines are
extended in reverse to some claimed point of intersection, or central
point or origin, the universe is claimed to not have existed prior to
that geometric extension - you know you have a problem. The fact of
existence is that existence is what it is, and that it continues to
exist as what it is. There is no reason to claim that the universe ever
did not exist or ever will exist, and that there is every reason to know
that the plurality of the universe exists continually. Period.

If you claim the Biblical creationist-expansionist -Euclidean -Hubble
-Doppler theory that leads to the suggestion of the origin of the
universe you must at the same time deny the principle of the continuity
of the plurality of universe and of all its changing existents. BB
advocates can never, for that reason find what happens to photons in
their travels that causes the "Apparent Red Shift".

BTW, the Post modernist mathematical argument that Euclid's "Parallel
Postulate" is invalid because parallel lines are impossible or that
projected lines can never meet throws cold water on the BB proposition.
To arrive at the BB hypothesis the BB advocates must admit to the
validity of Euclid's Parallel Postulate and quite a few other proved
propositions, definitions, and axioms from, at least, Book I of Euclid's
"Elements".

Existence is existing, and logic, inductive and deductive, is competent
to know the facts of the constituent existents and properties of the
plural universe, their relationships, potentials for change, and their
resulting identities.

Ralph Hertle

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:32:50 GMT, Ralph Hertle wrote:

'Tired light' is a term that suits then advocates of the BB; it is a
derogatory term that is intended to place an emotional wet blanket upon
the issue in order to discredit any possible explanation for a physical
cause of the diminution of the energy levels of photons as they traverse
the openness of space...

Nonsense. "Tired light" is no more derogatory than "big bang". It is simply a
term used to cover a collection of theories that seek to explain redshift in
unconventional ways.

Perhaps your rather defensive position follows from the fact that most (if not
all) of these theories have either been discredited or are so seriously lacking
in supporting evidence as to make scientific discussion difficult.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Martin Brown wrote:

[ text omitted ]

Hi Martin,
Do you have a reference for this? I want to be able to give a proper
reference to people who claim that red-shift is due to 'tired light'

Google "Lyman forest" ought to bring something useful up.
Combine it with "tired light" and you may get exactly what you seek.

Regards,



Martin:

'Tired light' is a term that suits then advocates of the BB; it is a
derogatory term that is intended to place an emotional wet blanket upon
the issue in order to discredit any possible explanation for a physical
cause of the diminution of the energy levels of photons as they traverse
the openness of space.

If you grant the recognition of physical reality to the existents in
space, rather than trying to create a metaphysical reality out of an
epistemological mathematical graphical concept of the instant locations
of gravitational acceleration forces, i.e., curved space-time, you may
find that there are causes for the "Apparent Red Shift" of light that do
not depend upon the Hubble - Doppler creationist-expansionist BB theory.

The proper scientific question to ask is, "What happens to light photons
as they traverse the openness of outer space that causes the diminution
of their energy levels?"

The issue is whether mathematical EM waves, that have no physical
existence, except insofar as the waves are the properties of actual
physical existents, i.e., photons, are valid as a metaphysical concept.
Or whether physical existents, i.e., light photons, actually have
physical properties that in interactions with other physical existents,
for example, gravitons or photons, can have different energy levels.

In terms of the validity of methods of scientific proof, the method of
'application' is an inferior method proof for the identification of
causal relationships. For example, if, due to the "Apparent Red Shift"
and the hypothesized "Doppler Effect", some Euclidean straight lines are
made to represent velocity or distance vectors, and those lines are
extended in reverse to some claimed point of intersection, or central
point or origin, the universe is claimed to not have existed prior to
that geometric extension - you know you have a problem. The fact of
existence is that existence is what it is, and that it continues to
exist as what it is. There is no reason to claim that the universe ever
did not exist or ever will exist, and that there is every reason to know
that the plurality of the universe exists continually. Period.

If you claim the Biblical creationist-expansionist -Euclidean -Hubble
-Doppler theory that leads to the suggestion of the origin of the
universe you must at the same time deny the principle of the continuity
of the plurality of universe and of all its changing existents. BB
advocates can never, for that reason find what happens to photons in
their travels that causes the "Apparent Red Shift".

BTW, the Post modernist mathematical argument that Euclid's "Parallel
Postulate" is invalid because parallel lines are impossible or that
projected lines can never meet throws cold water on the BB proposition.
To arrive at the BB hypothesis the BB advocates must admit to the
validity of Euclid's Parallel Postulate and quite a few other proved
propositions, definitions, and axioms from, at least, Book I of Euclid's
"Elements".

Existence is existing, and logic, inductive and deductive, is competent
to know the facts of the constituent existents and properties of the
plural universe, their relationships, potentials for change, and their
resulting identities.

Ralph Hertle

Chris:


Chris L Peterson wrote:

[ text omitted ]

Nonsense. "Tired light" is no more derogatory than "big bang". It is simply a
term used to cover a collection of theories that seek to explain redshift in
unconventional ways.


Is said that because the term, "tired" is a sloppy choice of a
scientific term. The term, tired, is a biological term that refers to a
state of physical exhaustion or lack of sleep, and it is inapplicable
this matter of physics, specifically, to photons.

I have no answer as to what a better term would be - one that would
refer to the actual causal principle involved for the reduction of the
energy levels of photons.

Fred Hoyle coined the term, "Big Bang", as a lark. he was intending to
poke fun at the creationist - expansionists by means of an implied ad
absurdum argument. That was used to counter the BB argument that relied
upon the false principle of the application of Euclidean geometry to
find the supposed origin of the BB in the absence of any explained
physical cause for the physical matter whatsoever. The BB argument
implies that the non-existence that was supposedly prior to the universe
is supposed to be the cause of the universe. That's pure hokum. Hoyle
pointed out a huge contradiction. I think that, based on his interviews,
he did not intend that the term, "Big Bang", should be used as if it
were a proper scientific term, which it is not. The "Big Bang" term is,
however, better and more descriptive of its hypothesis than is "tired
light" of its.


Perhaps your rather defensive position follows from the fact that most (if not
all) of these theories have either been discredited or are so seriously lacking
in supporting evidence as to make scientific discussion difficult.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


My position is not defensive. The universe does exist, and it exists as
a continually existing plurality of existents. Do you disagree with
that? If so prove your case.

The term you use, "discredited", is a term that refers to the social
agreement or to the acceptance or non-acceptance of the facts of
existence. Science, or the existence of any fact whatsoever, is not a
matter of social agreement. Existence is objective, and facts are facts.

The supporting evidence is the evidence already gained regarding the
nature of light frequencies. In the laboratory, Lord Rayleigh
demonstrated that the energy level of light photons is lowered as a
result of inelastic collisions of the photons with hydrogen atoms. He
explained that that was the cause for the "Apparent Red Shift" of the
frequencies of light.

Those who deny the reduction of the energy levels of light, also deny,
or ignore, the important relationship of the energy level of light, the
ratio to the frequency of the light, and the constant to which the ratio
is numerically equal, the number of the velocity of light. Do you deny that?

If you deny what you and the 'biologists' call, "tired light", you also
deny the continual existence of existence, Rayleigh's photon - hydrogen
collision experiment, and the universal, and well proved, mathematical
-physics relationship of the energy level and the frequency of light.

The issue is one of science being objective, factual, and logical, and,
on the other hand, being a matter of social agreement. Take your sides.

Ralph Hertle

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...

The supporting evidence is the evidence already gained regarding the
nature of light frequencies. In the laboratory, Lord Rayleigh
demonstrated that the energy level of light photons is lowered as a
result of inelastic collisions of the photons with hydrogen atoms. He
explained that that was the cause for the "Apparent Red Shift" of the
frequencies of light.

That's absolute nonsense Ralph. We've been over this before. Do we need to
go over it again???


Those who deny the reduction of the energy levels of light, also deny,
or ignore, the important relationship of the energy level of light, the
ratio to the frequency of the light, and the constant to which the ratio
is numerically equal, the number of the velocity of light. Do you deny
that?

If you deny what you and the 'biologists' call, "tired light", you also
deny the continual existence of existence, Rayleigh's photon - hydrogen
collision experiment, and the universal, and well proved, mathematical
-physics relationship of the energy level and the frequency of light.

The issue is one of science being objective, factual, and logical, and,
on the other hand, being a matter of social agreement. Take your sides.

Ralph Hertle

In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

........
Existence is existing, and logic, inductive and deductive, is competent
to know the facts of the constituent existents and properties of the
plural universe, their relationships, potentials for change, and their
resulting identities.

Ralph Hertle

and yet another interesting thread on spectroscopy is dragged kicking
and screaming into the smoke-filled garden of philosophy, unfettered by
coarse and ugly evidence, reason, logic or other nasty trappings of
reality......

Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream.......
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills

John Zinni:

John Zinni wrote:
"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...

The supporting evidence is the evidence already gained regarding the
nature of light frequencies. In the laboratory, Lord Rayleigh
demonstrated that the energy level of light photons is lowered as a
result of inelastic collisions of the photons with hydrogen atoms. He
explained that that was the cause for the "Apparent Red Shift" of the
frequencies of light.


That's absolute nonsense Ralph. We've been over this before. Do we need to
go over it again???

[ text omitted ]



Who are the we that you refer to. Certainly not me?

If you disagree with the photon-hydrogen experiments of Lord Rayleigh
where is the evidence that specifically refutes his context of facts,
premises, methods, demonstrations, and conclusions? I have never seen
any refutations of his experiment. I don't know all of his work, and nor
do I know all the literature on the subject, however, several scientists
and commentators support Lord Rayleigh in the matter. If you have some
specific information or library research sources or information, please
offer it. I would be interested.

Apparently, you disagree with the three points that I made. That would
mean that you disagree with the fact of the continuing existence of
universe, with the work on photon energy levels by Lord Rayleigh, and
with the fundamental principle of physics that relates the ratio of the
energy level of the photon with its frequency. How you I know? By the
level of condescension toward me in your answers, and, also, in your
reply that failed to address the three specific questions that I asked.

Some people do not use inductive logic, and even though they go over the
facts repeatedly, they don't seem to grasp the essential principles or
the facts of reality. It is clear that you don't want to go over the
problems again.

What is you motive for rejecting the science involved? Are you trying to
support a particular religious view? What is your point of view?

Ralph Hertle

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...

If you disagree with the photon-hydrogen experiments of Lord Rayleigh
where is the evidence that specifically refutes his context of facts,
premises, methods, demonstrations, and conclusions? I have never seen
any refutations of his experiment. I don't know all of his work, and nor
do I know all the literature on the subject, however, several scientists
and commentators support Lord Rayleigh in the matter. If you have some
specific information or library research sources or information, please
offer it. I would be interested.

Give us a reference Ralph. Any reference at all of ...

"Lord Rayleigh demonstrated that the energy level of light photons is
lowered as a result of inelastic collisions of the photons with hydrogen
atoms. He explained that that was the cause for the "Apparent Red Shift" of
the frequencies of light."

DT:

DT wrote:

In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

.......

Existence is existing, and logic, inductive and deductive, is
competent to know the facts of the constituent existents and
properties of the plural universe, their relationships, potentials for
change, and their resulting identities.

Ralph Hertle


and yet another interesting thread on spectroscopy is dragged kicking
and screaming into the smoke-filled garden of philosophy, unfettered by
coarse and ugly evidence, reason, logic or other nasty trappings of
reality......

Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream.......


I don't have the slightest idea of what you are getting at by your
comments regarding the "garden" and the "stream", for example.

I am not at all opposed to the science of spectroscopy. I am strongly
supportive of it. Just because I may not agree with the conclusion that
a BB is a logical conclusion to be drawn from the data and discoveries
of the "Apparent Red Shift", that does not mean that I disagree with
any of the science involved in spectroscopy. I know only the basic
fundamentals, however, the discovery of the "Apparent Red Shift" stands
as a valid conclusion whether or not the complex light that they analyze
is the result of wave phenomena or photons - or photons that have
certain integrated energy level and frequency properties.

BTW, philosophy is a science. Philosophy identifies, unifies, and
integrates the broad principles of the fact of the universe into
comprehensible sums. It identifies the most basic axioms of science,
discusses the proper methods of science, i.e., is scientific knowledge
gained by wishing or by inductive logic?, for example. The methods of
the 'scientific method', experimentation, demonstration, correct
inductive and deductive logic, the broader methods for the acquisition
of knowledge, and the fundamental identity of facts, existents,
properties, characteristics, the universe, proper definitions, proof,
the validations of concepts and identifications, up and down, lengths,
and more.

You didn't bring forth any substantive discussion regarding what I have
said, and I surmise that you disagree with what I say regarding existence.

Still, the facts exist. Existence is existing, and everything out there
in the universe has properties that are knowable by the minds of logical
scientists. One day scientists will discover the nature, identity and
properties of individual photons. When the facts are identified I'll
strongly support them.

Ralph Hertle

(Mitch Alsup) wrote in message om...
(Abdul Ahad) wrote in message . com...
then how do we get elements further up the scale on the Periodic Table
such as Rubidium, Strontium, Lead... all the way to Uranium? What are
the theories for their formation?

The heavier elements are cooked in the milliseconds between the
colapse of the supernovaing star and the rebound of the supernovaing
star. The nuclear density goes up many times, and allows reactions
that do not occur in a normal fusion buring star. Pressure and
temperatures are extreme during this colapse through rebound phase
of the supernova, providing the environment to cook up the heavy
elements.

The beautiful, shiny, yellow metal making up this here 22-carat gold
ring I'm wearing was made inside a massive star during a supernova
explosion... many billions of years ago! Makes me feel quite
priveleged to own a bit of 'star stuff' that has such superb
properties.

When is the next supernova due in our part of the galaxy, I wonder.
Tycho's star 1572 ... Kepler's star 1604 ... supernova 1987A inside
the large magellanic cloud ... should be one soon???

Abdul Ahad


Mtich