Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Victory Defined
« Reply #80 on: May 28, 2014, 03:58:42 AM »
For especially the noobs, I wanted to take the time to post my sense of what a victory looks like. In this thread, we demolished EnaG. Especially successful was showing the Rowbotham did not understand the concept of momentum and his incorrect application of it to the cannon shooting straight up experiment. He then based later chapters on this erroneous result, and the entire EnaG falls for want of support.

Tom Bishop, an FEer, seemed to be the only one coming to the aid of Rowbotham. Unfortunately, Tom Bishop chose two very wrong approaches. First, he threw the baby out with the  bathwater when he withdrew support for any illustrations in EnaG. Rowbotam did some excellent work on the illustrations, but rather than admit the Rowbotham did not under momentum, Tom Bishop said that the publisher had simply not been true in reproducing Rowbotham's illustrations.

Second, Tom Bishop tries to redefine acceleration in vain This results in a great parallel with Thork's recent refusal to accept that the ISS accelerates.

Now, how do we know when an FEer has admitted defeat? I hope that every good scientist admits his or her error; however, we don't see that very often from an FEer. Here it's clear that a cannon set deep in sand is not accelerating, so Tom Bishop is wrong, so Rowbotham is wrong, and EnaG is worthless. Rather than post his admission of defeat, Tom Bishop just stopped posting, but keeps visiting the forums. We need to learn to take the "disappearance" from a thread as resignation. (We will hear from both Tom Bishop and Thork excuses from illness to being busy to allegations of already demonstrating their success. Don't let FEers bait you with those excuses.)
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6746
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #81 on: May 28, 2014, 10:59:02 PM »
I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.

Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.'  For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face.  This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
Quote
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly

Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.

Quote
But let's assume for the moment that Rowbotham actually meant 'accelerate' instead of 'rapid.'  He performed an experiment to prove that if one object accelerates away from another, that object will accelerate away from the other.  Wow.  Brilliant.

What does that have to do with a round Earth?

It has more to do with improper tarnishing of a work beyond your reading level.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 11:30:56 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6746
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 69
« Reply #82 on: May 28, 2014, 11:10:50 PM »
Quote from: EnaG p. 69
EXPERIMENT 3.

When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter.

If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced.

Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is a globe, and moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen--many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude--have declared that no difference whatever is observable.
Alas Robotham is again imprecise. Motion is relative. But let's try to get through the confusion. Let's work only with the cannon example. It the cannon were mounted to the Earth and fired east and then west, we could measure the distance each cannonball traveled from the breech. Based on other comments here, I believe the R. is again forgetting that the cannonball had momentum (of its mass time the Earth's velocity) before, during, and after the firing. The effect of the RE's spinning would be measures in inches for drop times over 5 seconds. Since R. doesn't document that experiment well, omitting muzzle velocities, aiming, droop times, we can't peer review this experiment. We don't know what outcomes he expects, to what degree of accuracy he has built into the experiment and which results indicate failure of RET. I can say that there are many high-school-level rifle firing that confirm the RE's rotation. Here's a good one: So. R. is wrong and RET is further confirmed.

Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6746
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 80
« Reply #83 on: May 28, 2014, 11:25:01 PM »
Quote from: EnaG Critique p. 80
Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
[paragraph continues] But as no such difference in the direction of the tube B, C, is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.
Rowbotham fails to consider that the star might be so far away that its light travels to the Earth in the same direction, within the measurement error of this sloppy experiment. See:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Stellar_parallax
The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec

ETA: I thought I should continue to make the point that R. has a poor understanding of Science. First, consider the record keeping of this experiment. From the phrasing, we have no reason to believe that he ever did this experiment. He fails to present the times of the observations, the name of his accomplice, or even the name of the star observed. Furthermore, if we guess that "its meridan time" means when it's directly overhead, then we know there is no star directly overhead visible at six months intervals. So we know Rowbotham lied about the results of this experiment. Once we know that a researcher has faked at least one result and published the fictitious results as real, we must forevermore reject his results without extraordinary scrutiny. Rowboatham's fraud is harming. See:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Consequences_for_science
The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence.

Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."

A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!

See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 11:29:47 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6746
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 201
« Reply #84 on: May 28, 2014, 11:42:56 PM »
Quote from: EnaG p. 201
CHAPTER XIV.

EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.

IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.
Rowbotham is just setting up for his failure. Perspective does not, indeed cannot, explain the "sinking ship" effect. Indeed, it not even just confined to out-bound ships. For example: from: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv18300.php

Read the Chapter Perspective on the Sea.

As sea the effect is primarily due to the waves building up at the eye-level horizon.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 11:46:14 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5892
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2014, 12:19:34 AM »
I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
Quote
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly

Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.

Something happening quickly in a short period of time does not necessitate acceleration. You are taking shoe-horning to dizzying heights. Although rapidity may have acceleration as an element in it, it is neither the only nor the defining characteristic.

Quote

It has more to do with improper tarnishing of a work beyond your reading level.



Personal attacks are against the rules as I am sure you know.

You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5892
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2014, 12:22:38 AM »

Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."

A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!

See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf

Might I ask why you are ignoring redshift?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 69
« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2014, 12:35:05 AM »
Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.
Irrelevant. Robotham erred in claiming that the cannonball should have travelled more than a mile because the RE is spinning. He forgot about the concept of momentum. He failed. His conclusion that the Earth doesn't spin based on the cannon experiment is without merit.

Since you've failed for days to address this obvious and clear failure and now dodge it with distractions, I'm sure everyone is convinced by now that you're not able to assist Rowbotham survive this critique.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2014, 02:02:19 AM »
Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.'  For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face.  This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
Quote
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accelerate
Quote
ac·cel·er·ate verb \-lə-ˌrāt\
: to move faster : to gain speed
: to cause (something) to happen sooner or more quickly

Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.
 

Accelerate does not mean 'to happen quickly in a short amount of time.'  Read the definitions of those two words.  Notice that they have different meanings. 

In physics, acceleration is a change in velocity.  'Rapidly' does not mean 'a change in velocity.'  If Rowbotham wanted to say that the horse is accelerating away from the rider, then he should have used that word instead of rapidly, because 'rapidly' does not mean 'to accelerate.'  Equivocate all you like.  Those two words are not synonyms.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4119
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 80
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2014, 02:31:03 AM »
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.

??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom?  Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 02:33:08 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6746
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2014, 03:36:29 AM »

Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."

A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!

See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf

Might I ask why you are ignoring redshift?

Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.

Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.

Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6746
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 80
« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2014, 03:38:54 AM »
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.

??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom?  Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.

This is addressed in Earth Not a Globe and the last pdf I posted about terrestrial motion. These claims were not able to be replicated.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 04:38:52 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4119
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 80
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2014, 04:03:19 AM »
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.

??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom?  Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.

This is addressed in Earth Not a Globe and the articles and the last pdf I posted about terrestrial motion. These claims were not able to be replicated.
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to supply some citations. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 201
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2014, 06:44:06 AM »
As sea the effect is primarily due to the waves building up at the eye-level horizon.
And just what does the purported "sea the effect[sic]" have to do with a lake? You just argued in another thread that the wind blows only east to west or west to east, so a south-to-north view as photographed would not have waves in the needed direction. Also shouldn't you be able to predict seeing less of the Toronto when the winds are higher? Have you been to New York to verify the cause of the photograph effect matches your claim?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2014, 08:19:35 AM »
...
Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.
I just had to quote this to highlight such a stupid error. Redshift is not about a color change. It's about a spectrum shift. For example the lines for the calcium atom's state changes move towards the red in a "red-shifted" observation. Please pay attention. Thanks.

You might need to reread "Stellar Atmospheres". I already pointed you to that remarkable work, but here's another link: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925PhDT.........1P
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 69
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2014, 09:43:56 AM »
Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.
First, no, wind does not always travel east to west or west to east.
Second, as the narrative explains and the video shows, they adjust for wind.
Third, you've confused accuracy with repeatability.

Please study the Scientific Method. For a start, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability Until you understand the Scientific Method, you will continue to post only foolish claims. Please take the time, so we may have an intelligent discussion. Thanks!
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 80
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2014, 09:48:55 AM »
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.

??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom?  Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.

This is addressed in Earth Not a Globe and the articles and the last pdf I posted about terrestrial motion. These claims were not able to be replicated.
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to supply some citations.
I second markjo's polite request. Why would having to consider the stats, excluding the Sun, to be farther away be of any concern? Are you so biased for your notion of the size of the Galaxy  that facts are too inconvenient? Please be as open minded as you suggest noobs should be. Thanks.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5892
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #97 on: May 29, 2014, 04:55:09 PM »

Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."

A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!

See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf

Might I ask why you are ignoring redshift?

Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.

Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.

Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.

When would any heavenly bodies be at superluminal speeds? 
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #98 on: July 04, 2014, 02:53:44 PM »
I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.

Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.'  For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face.  This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
Quote
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly

Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.

No.
Something can move rapidly and yet, do have a constant speed. Rapid, doesn't imply that you must chage your velocity.
Photons move rapidly when they cross the air in my telescope's tube, are them accelerating? Please, explain.


Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the [...]

I can easily observe star parallax. Anyone can.
Also, paralax is not predicted, it is demonstrated.



Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.

Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.

Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.

With all respect, and without trying to insult you at all, you really need to learn a lot more about physics and astronomy.

Firstly, redshift implies speed and relative distance. There can't be redshift if those two bodies are always at the same distance (i.e. not moving one respect another). Redshift becomes stronger the farther the objects are from each other. And Redshift becomes stronger the faster the objects are moving away from each other. So your first conclussion is just the opposite as how doppler's effect work.

Secondly, bodies moving at superluminal speeds? I bet you (or anyone in this planet) can't show me any photo of such bodies!!!

Thirdly, again, please study Doppler's Effect and basic astrophysics. You have here a serious concept error. You are confusing and mixing concepts, as well as ignoring and unknowing a lot important ones.

When would any heavenly bodies be at superluminal speeds?

When/where gravitational force is infinite.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 09:23:06 PM by Yamato »