Flat Earth

[Proximal]

Light is a considered a particular and a wavelength. The problem is that red shift is based on observation not a measurement of said light.

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. When you see red light, what does that mean?

 

[lostchild]

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. When you see red light, what does that mean?

Stop. Duh....

 

[buellbrewer]

Stop. Duh....

not exactly.... downtown Atl the laws of science or any other need not apply

 

[Ammo cash]

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. When you see red light, what does that mean?

That I am seeing a wavelength in the 4.3x10^14 hertz.

 

[Proximal]

That I am seeing a wavelength in the 4.3x10^14 hertz.

Specifically, that you're seeing a stretched wavelength, right?

 

[lostchild]

This argument's got me like,

 

[Ammo cash]

Specifically, that you're seeing a stretched wavelength, right?

Yes. But how does that prove the star is moving away from us and isn’t just giving of a red light because of the temperature of said star or other unknown reasons. I was science nerd for over twenty years so I get what you are trying to say but science based on observation without the scientific method (test in a controlled environment) is not science. How do you test something that only happens when observing distant objects moving away from you. We don’t have the distance on earth to recreate the effect. Yes Doppler has been proven, but to assume that a sound waves and a light particle/waves reaction the same is not true. Because light is also a particle it acts different than sound waves. Light is faster than sound and light particles can travel through objects where sound waves bounces off objects. Scientists even say that they could be wrong about much of cosmology. But how could they be wrong if it is PROVEN science? (Insert a large amount of sarcasm)

 

[Jambo]

Yes. But how does that prove the star is moving away from us and isn’t just giving of a red light because of the temperature of said star or other unknown reasons. I was science nerd for over twenty years so I get what you are trying to say but science based on observation without the scientific method (test in a controlled environment) is not science. How do you test something that only happens when observing distant objects moving away from you. We don’t have the distance on earth to recreate the effect. Yes Doppler has been proven, but to assume that a sound waves and a light particle/waves reaction the same is not true. Because light is also a particle it acts different than sound waves. Light is faster than sound and light particles can travel through objects where sound waves bounces off objects. Scientists even say that they could be wrong about much of cosmology. But how could they be wrong if it is PROVEN science? (Insert a large amount of sarcasm)

Straight from Wikipedia:

"In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon (red shift) was observed in Fraunhofer lines, using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the red."
In other words, observed in our own solar system, using our own Sun.

"In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the "annual Doppler effect", the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic, due to the orbital velocity of the Earth. In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors."

Red shift was verified in a laboratory setting.

 

[Ammo cash]

Straight from Wikipedia:

"In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon (red shift) was observed in Fraunhofer lines, using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the red."
In other words, observed in our own solar system, using our own Sun.

"In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the "annual Doppler effect", the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic, due to the orbital velocity of the Earth. In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors."

Red shift was verified in a laboratory setting.

I don’t disagree with the observation, I disagree with the interpretation. Everything in heaven revolves around us. So a min 0.1 shift could be explained if the sun is simply rotating while in motion. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Proximal]

Yes. But how does that prove the star is moving away from us

Because it applies to galaxies and other large celestial bodies that otherwise wouldn't be red (or rather, present as red). Below is a deep field hubble image. Basically everything in this image is a galaxy. Why are some red and some arent? Is the whole galaxy red?

Below is another deep field image this time from JWST (with some incredible views of gravitational lensing as a bonus).

and isn’t just giving of a red light because of the temperature of said star or other unknown reasons.

Not just stars, see above.

I was science nerd for over twenty years so I get what you are trying to say but science based on observation without the scientific method (test in a controlled environment) is not science. How do you test something that only happens when observing distant objects moving away from you. We don’t have the distance on earth to recreate the effect. Yes Doppler has been proven, but to assume that a sound waves and a light particle/waves reaction the same is not true. Because light is also a particle it acts different than sound waves. Light is faster than sound and light particles can travel through objects where sound waves bounces off objects. Scientists even say that they could be wrong about much of cosmology. But how could they be wrong if it is PROVEN science? (Insert a large amount of sarcasm)

Light is also a wave, I don't know why you're trying to suggest because it has a particle component that it somehow changes that fact. This is called Wave-particle duality. Also, you must not have been much of a science nerd if this concept and the quickest of cursory searches eluded you. There have been controlled experiments performed, Pound and Rebka did this in 1959.