Tired Light

buz,tired light is a failure for about 10 times the material of this entire thread. Not just what has been mentioned here.For one thing, every thing beyond a nearby distance would be blurry. All this absorig and reradiating of photons would not preserve the original direction of the photons. It would have to introduce a "blurriness" to everything distant.You can take my word for it, or not, but tired light is considered one of the weakest challenges to BB Theory.

how are you able to make any judgments on the scientific material when your supernovae questions show that you don't have a science background or knowledge in these areas?Spectrum at z=3 of a Lyman Break galaxy with strong [OIII] emission
Error 404: File Not Found | University of Alabama College of Arts & Sciences
Here are a whole bunch of high z quasars
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/...3/200511/200511.fg2.htmlDO YOU see that big peak on the left of all the quasar spectra?
That is the Lyman Alpha emission line. Divide it's wavelength by (1+z) and you'll see you get 1216 Angstroms.
Notice how the largeest peak also has a peak almost on top of it at slightly higher wavelength? That is N V emission at a rest wavelength of 1240A.
The next biggest peak is CIV emission at a rest wavelength of 1549 A.
The large peak on the far right is CIII emission at a rest wavelength of 1909 A.How many more do you need????How can you straightfaced make the claim such spectra do not exist?
In fact I'll make the claim you don't know enough science to know one way or the other.
You seem to be the classic example of someone who has a conclusion already etched in the mind and you then go out, with little knowledge I might add, and try to squeeze the evidence to fit your conclusion.
I saw how you did this with your radioactive dating "paper". Now you are doing it to astrophysics.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-11-2005 05:59 AMThis message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-11-2005 05:59 AM

that is the spectrum of a cataclysmic variable SS Cygni. He wants high redshift showing more than one H line.

It's not a case of making the claim for a single line. The C and N lines present are just as valid as other Hydrogen lines.I am coming to the conclusion that you are being idiotic!

showing Ly Alpah & Lyman Beta & the Lyman limit.Page not found | American Institute of Physics

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/...{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-11-2005 02:51 PM

SpitzerDo you know why you don't see the Balmer series lines in emission from high redshift objects????See peaceharris, you are thinking you've stumbled upon something when in reality all you have done is found the huge holes in your knowledge.

you have a view so ingrained that it isn't allowing you to look at the data.I show you the Lyman series and you say fantasy. I also provided a link showing the Balmer lines at slightly lower redshifts of 1.5 or so.I also linked a Spitzer observation of the Paschen lines in a high redshift object.Here are some Balmer series lines with Spitzer observations of some low-medium redshift objects.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0411/0411416.pdfThe only fantasy involved here is you thinking you are interpretings correctly.Here I'll help you out - the reason you don't see Balmer lines for high redshift objects is because they are shifted into regions that we cannot observe die to the atmosphere not allowing it through. The IR region has only limited windows for observation. That is why for high redshift objects you see the Lyman series used and the CIV and CIII lines and Mg lines used.At lower redshifts, which I also linked to, you do see the Balmer lines used since they are still observable.DO NOTE HOWEVER, that often in Quasars the Balmer lines can be quite weak because of absorption effects and ionisation conditions which is another reason the Lyman lines are often preferable.Now that Spitzer is on line you will see the Balmer lines used. In fact I showed you a link using the Paschen series.What do you think the odds are that all these lines from various elements happpen to line up in tens of thousands of spectra if somehow we all have it wrong?This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-11-2005 10:13 PM

Huh?At a z of 4 the Lyman Beta line is at 5125 Angstroms which is right at the edge of the plot for the 2 or 3 examples they have at zof about 4.You can see it rising up right at the edge or just in from the edge.Are you blind?These peaks are matched by fitting template spectra from lower redshift data and even though the peaks are sometimes embedded in the noise they can be statistically picked out. But in these examples you can pick them out by eye anyway.I also provided another link where the Beta line is really obvious.The reason the Beta line is often much weaker is because of intervening absorption by hydrogen along the line of sight.

Absolute complete and utter hogwash.You have almost no free parameters to twiddle. I agree this is the case with the supposed z=9 objects where you have one line that has been interpreted as Lyman Alpha.But in all these cases you have many lines from several elements all lining up and statistically matched and correlated with template spectra.The odds of this giving a wrong redshift are bascally zero.You cannot choose which element it is. If someone was saying that such and such line was a line due to Technetium of Hafnium then I'd agree that would be contrived since these elements are very very rare but when you have all the common elements seen in low redshift AGN and the same order and relative strength of lines and continuum indices lie up and correlate then you have a cast iron redshift.NO you cannot imagine lines existing when there are none. These are statistically matched using templates. If the lines were imaginary they would be rejected.You haven't a clue!!!!!!This is not some guy on his own doing this by eye - even though this could be done for many of these spectra - it's done by a sophisticated correlation analysis often with a dozen or two lines.

that is correct.At high redshift people don't realise the difficulty of getting the data.You need long integration times and thus you aren't going to get the resolution like the SS Cygni spectrum you provided earlier. But these spectra are still pretty good.The problem with the Balmer series lines H alpha, H beta and so on is that at these high redshifts they have been redshifted into wavelengths we cannot observe on the ground due to the water vapour in the atmosphere making it opaque at these wavelengths.Thus the Lyman lines are used since those UV lines (at rest wavelengths) are shifted into the red part of the visible as these spectra show.Another factor going on is if you notice to the left of the big Lyman Alpha line there is a huge dropoff of the continuum level - the Lyman trough. This is why the Lyman Beta line is much weaker and sometimes seems almost buried in the noise. This is because of the absorption by hydrogen along the path from the quasar to us. In nearby AGN this feature isn't there.With the new Spitzer telescope being a space observatory you are starting to see spectra in the IR of these ojects. One link I provided showed a mid-far IR spectra with some of the Paschen series of Hydrogen.What peaceharris is doing is basically being guilty of not knowing how spectra are interpreted and why the Balmer lines are not usually plotted and why the intervening absorption dampens the Lyman Beta line and also, as can be seen, makes the stron Lyman Alpha line asymmetric.

I think the 'are you blind' comment is appropriate. No one who is being honest can say they cannot see the Lyman Beta peak in those spectra.'you haven't a clue' I think seems obvious.I only make comments like that when I feel I'm being lied to. peaceharris is I think actually lying when he says he cannot see the Ly Beta line. People being wrong is one thing - but the only posters I have ever got irritated at are peaceharris, lyndonashmore & buzsaw about 18 months ago. peace & lyndon I actually think in some posts are fibbing. buz was just inept.

Yes, in fact you can get the redshifts of the intervening clouds if they are dense enough. In fact you can work out their column densities.Also from the immediate slope of the Ly Alpha line and the depth of the trough you can work out the size of the ionisation zone around the quasar and calculate how long it has been active. It's called the proximity effect. You can also estimate the wind velocity of the material being blown out of the quasar too.

I somehow don't think that is what goes on here most of the time. I must admit I get sick to death of basically being called a conspiracist (the great evil atheist one) or a liar.I'm not some 18 year old armed with Google and a vocabulary. I do this for a living because it's what I wanted to do from being 4 years of age - plus I have a talent for it which was spotted early in life.What possible reason would I have for lying about the data, falsifying theories and being an all around dope? All I ever want to do is to figure out how this universe ticks. I don't give a rats ass about t<0.peaceharris is an excellent example of a very little knowledge being a very dangerous thing - especially since I'm sure he has his conclusion already in place and he NEEDS the data to fit this.

Did you not read earlier where I mentioned that the lower wavelength side of the Lyman Alpha line is often heavily absorbed by intervening Lyman Alpha absorption? This is why the continuum drops by such a degree and you get the famous 'Lyman Alpha forest' where the other Lyman lines in the quasar would be located?Did you miss that? The z=4.04 quasar has much less of this than the z=4.49 quasar. Notice how the continuum level is more depressed in the latter then the former. I would expect the Beta line to be difficult to pick out by eye in such a case.Also by placing a line you are also misleading yourself because the instrument response function is not that narrow. You really should take account of that and place a bar not a line.That is why you use the Lyman Alpha line & the Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulphur and Magnesium lines to the longer wavelength side for redshift determination.Redshift determinations in these examples are not done by matching one or two lines but many lines and the mathematical fitting of template spectra using some maximum likelihood analysis or even a neural net fitting.Tell me, WHY are you so desperate to believe that thousands of researchers for 40 years are incompetent in something this basic as spectral analysis?Why do you disregard the entire wealth of lines to the right of Lyman Alpha that ae used in this analysis? Why do the template spectra of nearby AGN match up so well with several dozen lines all in their correct places and the doublets in the correct ratios if this is 'just picking parameters' as you have put it?Why don't you study this further instead of picking holes before you have enough knowledge?I know for a fact you didn't know anything about the atmosphere not allowing much observation where the Balmer lines are and that you didn't think about the Lyman Alpha forest suppressing the continuum and the other lines.