BTW, the extreme redshifts observed in very distant objects such as some Type 1A supernovea and especially quasars which sometimes puts the latter at velocities 90%+ of the speed of light from us, is another deathblow to the General Theory of Relativity.
the interpretation of what is causing the redshift is where the error is and as you have conceded, the speed of light of relativity is affected i have considered you a level headed type and capable of learning but that is a rude claim. this thread is on evolution and i pointed out the method of how energy being em offered a far greater method of enabling an evolving process. I pointed out the error in plancks constant which is about as grounded to the core physics of the existing paradigm and why is has ruined many concepts of describing within the current model. it is YOU that began dancing in astronomy did you ever look into the error of plancks paper as you stated you would? ie... the points that are direct and relevant?!?!?! that is an irrelevant inquiry accounting for the why is 'speculating' versus keeping both feet flat on the ground as to how it works, before thinking or pursuing the 'beginning' or 'creation' or the 'what ifs' of a time, you and i were not here. accretion in a sense, but the 'energy' causing it, not the mass as the old model sharing it is just 'gravitating' (as currently modeled, without even knowing what gravity is) not evough energy within the layers of the elements (think og how fussion works and the environment of layering 'pressures' per se) the nodes of a unit 'element' are as a unit of mass, then each element greater are layers of energy 'upon that mass' it aint protons and electrons as being the mass as they are nodes to a single hole (like a hydrogen atom, itself) please do not go tangent and then when you are confused or have no concept of debating each point, then claim it is I. I have been involved with this paradigm shift for over 3 decades. You are getting it first hand and if you actually think, i am the one confused, then find YOURSELF in error as i am literally one of the reasons changes are occurring all over the world in the area of todays physics. But no one knows! Yet now you do. So return to the 'evolution' of life and I can assist you there. if you are a physics major, then sit and think over how could colors be so varied and protiens so varied, if not because of the range of the em spectrum? How could energy cause such, if not of the radius of the fields (electric and magnetic)? I am trying to help. So stay grounded and skip the bs of just discounting astronomers ignorance. Dont defend them.
I thought that was explained by the expansion of the universe. Why would that disprove General Relativity?
Welcome to Bishadi's alternate reality. LOL! This is not the first thread he has done this in. He does it all the time. I used to suspect he was Trolling, but now I think he really does believe himself. He is genuinely confused and annoyed that people dont simply agree with him. The rest of us are foolish not to take this opportunity to learn from Bishadi's genius...that is how he really see's himself.
i dont see myself as any different that any other person. I see nature as different than what idiots accept in their belief systems. you're asking questions about the evidence that contradicts the speed of light hypothesis, which sustains all of todays physics and how the evidence which ruins that model was rehashed with another concept of a spacial expansion, but dont comprehend the implications of either forms of physics You like the story telling, versus actually doing the work yourself to comprehend. Your posts represent the similarities of how a bible thumper deals with contradictions but dont realize it means, the foundations are where the errors are. I dont need you to think like me. I just want people to think for themselves and know, they are just as capable of comprehending nature and reality as anyone is and to see relevance to multiple disciplines, that reality and nature are not only basic, but much of what idiots claim as so difficult, is actually 'stupid easy'. ie.... ptolemy's scope of the onion skin layering of the unverse was all mathematically described and made sense to the morons who ran all them calculations.............. but it only took a basic comprehension of recognizing that the earth is rotating and moving around the sun for even a kid to comprehend the old model was stupid!
LOL! You say that, and then immediately follow with this: Yes, everyone who doesnt agree with you must be an idiot. I mean, what other explanation could there be? If they do not recognize your genius, they must be idiots. ...except when they dont agree with you. Then they are idiots.
i dont believe everyone is an idiot. I find that all are capable and equally conscious to make comprehensive determinations. If idiots like to hold beliefs over evidence, they dont belong in science but rather as religious wingnuts. i aint a genius. I am focused on honesty and the integrity of comprehending reality. If an idiot wants to deny evidence to sustain a belief, then a moron makes his/her own choice. many dont agree with me. It is why i prefer letting the evidence do the work and i just witness what is being observed in the scientific community. If people dont like my explanations or myy descriptions, i dont let that bug me as much as watching a liar discount evidence, to sustain their beliefs, which in most cases aint even their beliefs but the descriptions of someone else. It is why i often ask questions, so people can answer for themselves what do they find as true. for example: i asked peter if the base four colors could create practically an infinite number of variations by mixing them. Likewise............ if the speed of light is incorrect, then so is plancks constant. Nothing magical about it, nor is it asking you to believe me. I am focused on the integrity to science and already know, each are capable of experiencing EVIDENCE, that contradicts the current belief system. ie... there is plenty enough evidence and research to contradict the current 'paradigm' of todays benchmarks and constants. One fact that few can comprehend, which is easily evidenced is that life: abuses entropy and the only reason a moron would deny it, is to sustain a belief versus realizing the fact of the matter applies to themselves.
One fact that most comprehend, which is easily evidenced is that life does not: abuse entropy and the only reason a moron would deny it, is that he/she has a misunderstanding of the concept of entropy.
a life like yours perhaps will equilbrate soon enough as it is apparent you do nothing FOR others. Now DARWIN, for example, he left material knowledge, by choice, against the scope of 'fading to extinction' that is still being built upon. I am here, by choice, causing actions to exist. But for some reason, YOU must believe your actions are just a reduction and form of equilibrating as a random act. Even as i agree your post is ignorant based on the reductionary scope of the sciences, i know better as i know YOU chose to post what you did. it is based on the second law of thermodynamic, which to comprehend the 1st law of thermodynamics. that sustains a requisite to the conservation of any potential, whether a 'potential difference' or just a direction of entropy, then to understand the 1st law, it literally makes the second law, moot! What people need to remember is that the second law was 'created' about the same time steam engines were being designed. The comprehension is just to allow anyone to realize how obsolete that concept actually is.
I haven't done any such lab research myself, but I came across the following paragraph from Royston M. Roberts, John Gilbert, Lynn B. Rodewald, Alan S. Wingrove, Modern Experimental Organic Chemistry Third Edition, Sounders College, Philadelphia, 1979 concerning the subject of band spread in molecular spectra: "The diffusiveness of the spectrum is a consequence of the fact that electronic transitions can occur from a variety of vibrational and rotational levels of the ground electronic state into a number of different such ;evels of the excited electronic state. Thus, although the transitions themselves are quantized and therefore should appear as sharp "lines", the fact that closely spaced vibrational-rotational levels give rise to closely spaced lines causes coalescence of the discrete absorptions into a band envelope to produce the broad bands observed experimentally". This is the textbook explanation for the difference in band spread between the UV and IR light emitted by molecules which unlike single atoms rotate and vibrate on their axis. In my view, the following interpretation would be more accurate. The phenomenon is not caused by electrons jumping between the ground and excited orbits, but what happens is as follows: These vibrational motions of molecules will superimpose themselves on the wavelengths of light which they emit. Since the wavelegth of infrared is longer, this vibrational motion will be of less significance and hence the IR spectrum will be more focused, while the shorter wavelength of UV will appear more diffuse and out of focus. In other words, the impact of the molecular motion on UV light will lead to more pronounced redshifts and blueshifts. This difference in focus or spread between UV and IR light can only be explained by assuming light speed is affected by the velocity of the emitter relative to the observer. GTR dismisses such assumption. As observers, we cannot readily detect such alterations in light speed. We can only indirectly detect it by measuring red and blueshifts. The spectral wavelength peaks in UV light will be more diffuse than in IR because the UV light is more "sensitive" to the motions of its emitter due to the shorter wavelengths involved.
