I haven't researched the fundamentals of the Planck's constant i.e. how he derived it, but I will follow up on it if I do. Even if the value he provided is in some way off target, the relation of E = f or E = (x)f still stands. Energy is directly proportional to the frequency, with velocity not taken into consideration. But I know what you're saying. Say if you slow down a photon relative to yourself, would this not affect its energy? This could happen if you're moving away from the source of the photon's emmission. But in such a case, the spectrum you would observe would be redshifted and hence its frequency would be reduced reflecting in a reduced energy.
here is the paper in english http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html sorry but 'c' is the value and then underwritten by plancks constant, The original context was based on maxwell's interpretations of faraday's em 'slowed down'? an occilation (heat) upon a piece of iron aint going the speed of light (c) (ie... what is its frequency) you are using einstein arguments and they can be circumvented in a simple mental comprehend: There is no vacuum between points of mass, anytime! forget the redshift garbage of hubble. When hubble noticed the 'redshift, can you tell me, if between his observed evidence and the telescope he was using, if there was anything that could affect the recieved 'light'? ie.... if there was mass (elements/structures) in between the emitting star (galaxies) and his observations? Or even: Does the sun have a magnetosphere? The earth? The galaxy? Solar wind? The redshift ideology is on a macro basis, i was discussing the 'energy' itself and how planck screwed up with the base construct of 'energy' itself (plancks constant) As soon as the benchmark is addressed between the interaction of mass (elements), energy (em), and time (d/t: space), then perhaps the rest of the math will be far easier for you. Stop bouncing all over the table! I am trying to assist you in comprehending the single greatest error in all physics. What it will do is assist you in comprehending why and how everything from the double slit experiment, to the black body radiation curve and even the photo electric effect works. No aether, no magic particles, no BS except the conception of what ENERGY itself is, prior to playing the macro physics. ie.... as soon as you come to terms with the foundations then you can address every phenomenon ever described. Think, Paradigm shift! (the change of how to observe nature itself) Imagine a day when just you a pencil and the whole world of evidence could actually come together.
Yes, under conditions of special relativity, the speed of light will be a constant, c. Moreover, it is true that Planck's work is based on Maxwell's. Maxwell showed the existing relationship between electric and magnetic waves and essentially unified the two forms of energy (electromagnetic waves), discovered they must both be moving with velocity c from the emitter (not necessarily the observer though), and he mathematically derived the value of c as the velocity of the electromagnetic waves. Planck determined that radiation is NOT infinitely divisible, but that it occurs in quanta. Hence light cannot be defined purely in terms of a wave propagation, but rather it does have some associated discontinouity and hence particle properties, and so you have to think of it in terms of a wave pocket.
I don't see how there cannot be a magnetosphere? Any time there's an electrical charge in motion, it will induce magnetic fields --->>> think Faraday.
Well, you have all this galactic gas and dust which causes stellar spectrum reddening. That's why adjustments have been made in calculating (from fading of star's brightness with distance) distances to stars based on whether they sit in the galactic disk or in globular clusters. The intra-galactic gas and dust will increase the fading and will induce the reddness of spectrum, but will not shift spectral lines, so it's not a redshift. Redshift is due to a receding motion of the emitter relative to the observer, while reddening is due to absorption of high frequency light. You seem to be confusing the two. Read up on it. Dig into your net sources.
No black holes? No gravitational collapse? Sometimes I wonder if you might be writing checks your data can't cover....
so, let find the condition: Is there any perfect vacuum between any 2 points of mass, anywhere in the whole universe? So how big is that pocket (quanta/photon) of the radio group of the spectrum? ie... gamma versus radio, in size? does 4pir2 measure............(the pocket?)
i aint the only one realizing hubble was not all that sharp Do you have the pdf or material so each can read? pound-rebka............... perhaps try again! ie... gravitational 'fields' per se 'redshift' a lense can redshift light (optics) quite the opposite; you are seeing the same effect but masked by definitions. Mass exchanges, field exchanges. Kind of like seeing the color off a red paper or the diversion from a glass of water. Ever read about the eddington experiment? Caused by the corona just like a mirage off a hot highway. Now remember, i aint finding these answers from someone else........ I may look up more to remind me, but these comments are just me thinking it through and from many years of homework, prior to ever commenting on these forums. ie..... the debate began on evolution, and now you are into redshifting which is not because of the speed of light, in a vacuum (as a vacuum dont exists, to start with) and my comment was that 'h' by planck is a joke based on the stupidity of incorporating entropy (a direction) to the distribution of energy. i want to return the basics and all these other items will be just as easy for you as compehending 13.6eV is which wavelength to H.
In another thread he said that the Earth and moon are quantum entangled. The above claims do not surprise me at all.
look up what casimir effect is. Then think of the earth and moon as plates divided by space within a 'feild' it is why the moon faces us on one side I know you have a hard time with me and it aint me that you dont like, but that perhaps you dont have enough comprehensible knowledge to put the statements together. for example; the material that peter has been representing is over 100 yrs old and you are thanking him for sharing it, when most of it has been around for far longer than you have. You just dont have enough knowledge base to comprehend reality when it is presented to you. it is why, i dont like to argue with the fools as it is like debating with a religious wingnut; they follow what someone else claims and calls it fact. need i mention the bible aint a true rendition of 'god' either or will that just (*)(*)(*)(*) you off? Nature itself is 'god' (our creator) and every phenomenon every recorded is a natural event just awaiting definition. ie... what is gravity?
The moon faces us on one side because it is tidally locked. LOTS of moons in the solar system don't do that. That has nothing to do with quantum entanglement. Your implication is just as retarded now as it was in the other thread. Not really. I enjoy mocking your absurdly huge (and undeserved) ego. You know enough to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. But after people see a few of your posts they scratch the outer crust of "rational" and start digging into the mantle of your crazy. Yes, it is not possible that you are wrong or crazy. It must be us. We cannot grasp the magnitude of your genius. LOL! You do know that I'm an atheist, right?
Human beings are evolving.....into what? What other creatures are evolving? What's outside the universe that the universe s expanding into? Where did it come from, whatever it is?
what? What is the mechanism? (causality of gravity) never said, all other moons will do the same. the retarded, is you argue when you have no idea of what is causing any of it, but because others have given a description, that they are right and no matter what i say, it is wrong; that's retarded! name one irrational comment. I said black holes dont exist. (as defined as mass collapsing on itself) Black holes are nothing more than a hurricane in space. Dark matter is a crock life: abuses entropy and gravity is the entanglement of mass by shared energy are them the ones you dont like? I consider your renditions and rants as retarded, does that bug you too? pride and the ability to BS without anyone holding you to it, is why you and i argue. but practice the adherance of knowledge, just like a wingnut! You believe in what you have no clue about!
It does not bug me when people I think are crazy or stupid insult me, no. You managed to name several immediately following that comment. I think Webster should use that as one of their examples in their entry for "Irony".
No, one is elongation of wavelengths across the entire board so that blue for instance will show up as red to the observer, while the other is taking all shorter wavelengths out. Knock knock.
Have you ever done the experiment yourself to compare the speed issue? for example: capture the hydrogen spectral lines, and register them, then cause that 'shift' within a vacuum by motion. yet anyone can do the same thing (show a redshift) with 2 prisms. Or as my little head uses common sense: when a vacuum can be sustained and that there is NO mass between the emitter and the capturing plate (recieving mass), then you have a case. Otherwise you have far too much margin for error with hubbles law. Redshift exposes 2 problems; a. that einsteins postulate of 'c' would be incorrect, (c' taveling at a constant velocity no matter the inertial frame of reference) (ie.... it would be space is expanding, versus the speed of the object) b... to be accurate then space would have to be a 'perfect vacuum' (empty of no matter, energy (fields)) which we all know is incorrect What is causing the 'shift' is what is in between the emitter and lense. Kind of like the gps measuring as doppler I consider the redshift model almost as nutty as the cosmic background radiation hypothesis, both are practically stupid
Passing light through prisms will induce diffraction, not redshift. How would you set up this prism experiment to show redshift? Diffraction is caused due to different light colours travelling at different speeds through a dense media, and hence the rays will bend at different angles. Adjusting light speed does not induce redshift though. Blue is still blue and red is still red. Prove otherwise. What problem do you have with the cosmic background radiation? Do you acknowledge the big bang theory? Cosmic background radiation is from the time when the universe cooled down to temperatures of around 4000 K i.e. when protons could actually hold and retain electrons i.e. when photons could actually travel a long distance without constantly getting absorbed and re-emitted by plasma. What problem do you have with this model?
and unless there is a perfect vacuum of space between hubbles galaxies and his telescope, then EVERYTHING being recieved is defracted from something (stupid easy) use 2, one at a different angle than the other. One spectrum will be shifted from the other. (again, stupid easy) lamb shift there is radiation from 'everything' hell no... virial theorem reversing time for the totality of the universe (combining mass, energy, time), is a joke speculation..... ie.... ther is no such thing as a proton, without an entangled other half.... somewhere geeeze.... if everything started from a single point and blasted out at a vector, then the universe would have already equilibrated and NEVER recombined as there would have been nothing to slow the mass down, ever! it is one of the easiest sense of comprehending newtons laws of inertia that stymies the BB with simple common sense. Heck, i figured that out, at about 15 yrs old if there was nothing in the way, nothing would have slowed down the mass, ever!
Gravity. Only if you ignore one of the fundamental forces. The universe isn't slowing down--it's accelerating. However, gravity is still strong enough to keep matter together, for the time being.
if all came from a single point, then why didnt gravity hold it together from its original state? ie... it would have to have all the 'gravity' of the all the black holes in the whole of the universe, at one point.............. Not even light could have escaped! So either the black hole crap is crap or the laws of physics, dont apply to a BB model. ie... if the energy could have enabled the energy to carry away the mass from the BB single point, then do the math....... it would have kept on going as all that gravity would have decreased over every mile. Then to get funky; can you share the paper that includes the 78% addition of the dark matter and dark energy added to the universe, into the BB hypothesis? every 'force' would be affected i dont ignor, that is the problem i have. I am far more comprehensive of the 'additional' data, material and publications than most. for example; the mass curve identified (basic wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve...) which shares the galaxies dont rotate as predicted so they added the 'dark' garbage............. show the physics behind that monstrocity of combining that into the BB? No one can as it would completely rewrite the benchamarks of the four forces in order to do so. if it is accelerating, then how did it ever slow down to enable even the first accretion of the very first star? however, the actuality is.....name someone that has addressed what is being stated? or is it the first time for anyone to read arguments, that make the complacent................ go lay by their dish?
I wouldn't be so sure if the universe is accelerating. Some serious errors were revealed more recently with respect to how data was obtained in measuring the brightness-redshift-distance relationship of the Type 1a Supernovea. Seems the Type 1a's with the greatest redshifts have a certain observed brightness because of some earlier undiscovered process, and hence their distances have to be recalculated according to brightness = 1/distance**2, but taking this additional dimming or enhancing process into consideration. Redshifts don't lie, but the observed brightness can. Moreover, when ever you present Bishadi with a strong counter-argument, he always goes off topic focusing instead on some miniute detail of little relevance to the main point being argued i.e. jumps from subject to subject. Now he says because according to one viewpoint a change induced upon any particle in the universe will immediately have an effect on another one in the universe which it is entangled/paired up with, this disqualifies the cosmic background radiation and big bang outright as hoaxes. If you disqualify the big bang, how else would you account for the relative abundances and evolution of elements in the universe, as well as the evolution of galaxies? For instance, how would you account for the absence of heavy elements in globular clusters? How about the relative abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, tritium and helium in the universe?
