the Doppler Effect, the spirals, and Nibiru

You either have a cognitive dysfunction the size of Mount Everest, or you are a liar, or you don't actually read other peoples posts (even if you quote them in full).


It's not a typo.
It is a different WORD.
Denoting very different concepts.

Very BASIC different concepts.

Frankly, everybody can see you have absolutely no fucking clue about what you are trying to talk about.
Must be hard work to be wrong about everything all the time.
I think you deserve this month's Nancy Lieder Award for Accuracy.


Nope.

Still WRONG!

Use a dictionary, or wiki, for the big words.
You'll get there eventually.
Once you've retired from flipping burgers you might try for that elusive high school diploma.


Such remarks only make you look more foolish.
(If that is even humanly possible.)



That should read: everything has been debunked on this thread.

You'll feel better if you stop lying to yourself.

I can tell two things about you.. Either you ARE a shill or you just dont have any knowledge regarding this subject.

BECAUSE, when speaking of planetary objects/stars IT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.

YOU ARE A REAL SHILL.

And NOTHING has been debunked on this thread. Are you really that stupid ?

I've NEVER seen shills try to work so hard at debunking something before. And you idiots arent even debunking anything! NOT A SINGLE THING HAS BEEN DEBUNKED !


You are a very sick human being.

Mijn Nederlandse vriend;
Eerlijk gezegd, kan iedereen zien heb je absoluut geen fucking idee over wat je probeert te praten.

Hey MG-42. Sorry took so long to reply. A lot happening everywhere and its getting to the point we all need a longer day just to keep up. So I've done some more reading and can see that the Doppler Effect is also known as the Doppler Shift and from the papers on it there is more sense to call it a proven observation than a theory. The links below cover this some more and explain it a bit extra.

[link to archive.ncsa.illinois.edu]
[link to www.austincc.edu]
[link to www.astro.ucla.edu]

The third link above also illustrates and explains the spectrum of colors visible for galaxies at different distances from a point and galactic stars. As well it covers the possible velociies that are being observed - "for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light"


I thought this article might be of interest to you also. [link to www.cosmosmagazine.com] - Binary 'deathstar' has Earth in its sights

"A spectacular, rotating binary star system is a ticking time bomb, ready to throw out a searing beam of high-energy gamma rays – and Earth may be right in the line of fire."



--

Another article here on Vera Rubin and Dark Matter - [link to www.amnh.org]

When Rubin and Ford began making Doppler observations of the orbital speeds in spiral galaxies, they immediately discovered something entirely unexpected. The stars far from the centers of galaxies, in the sparsely populated outer regions, were moving just as fast as those closer in. This was odd, because the visible mass of a galaxy does not have enough gravity to hold such rapidly moving stars in orbit. It followed that there had to be a tremendous amount of unseen matter in the outer regions of galaxies where the visible stars are relatively few. Rubin and Ford went on to study some sixty spiral galaxies and always found the same thing. “What you see in a spiral galaxy,” Rubin concluded, “is not what you get.”

Her calculations showed that galaxies must contain about ten times as much “dark” mass as can be accounted for by the visible stars. In short, at least ninety percent of the mass in galaxies, and therefore in the observable universe, is invisible and unidentified. Then Rubin remembered something she learned as a graduate student about earlier evidence for unseen mass in the universe. In 1933, Fritz Zwicky had analyzed the Doppler velocities of whole galaxies within the Coma cluster. He found that the individual galaxies within the cluster are moving so fast that they would escape if the cluster were held together only by the gravity of its visible mass. Since the cluster shows no signs of flying apart, it must contain a preponderance of “dark matter”—about ten times more than the visible matter—to bind it together. Zwicky’s conclusion was correct, but his colleagues had been skeptical. Rubin realized that she had discovered compelling evidence for Zwicky’s dark matter. Most of the mass of the universe is indeed hidden from our view.

--

Some parts of this paper also relate to the spiral pattern - Doppler Effect of Nonlinear Waves and Superspirals in Oscillatory Media [link to www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de]

"Nonlinear waves emitted from a moving source are studied. A meandering spiral in a reaction-diffusion medium provides an example in which waves originate from a source exhibiting a back-and-forth movement in a radial direction. The periodic motion of the source induces a Doppler effect that causes a modulation in wavelength and amplitude of the waves ("superspiral"). Using direct simulations as well as numerical nonlinear analysis within the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation, we show that waves subject to a convective Eckhaus instability can exhibit monotonic growth or decay as well as saturation of these modulations depending on the perturbation frequency. Our findings elucidate recent experimental observations concerning superspirals and their decay to spatiotemporal chaos."

“This motion of the source leads to a modulation in amplitude, wavelength, and frequency of the emitted waves.We find that the modulation of the nonlinear waves is uniquely determined by the temporal period of the source motion in contrast to linear waves emitted by a moving source, where the source velocity is the relevant quantity.”

“Such a periodically moving source reproduces the radial dynamics of rotating spiral waves subject to external forcing or to the frequently observed oscillatory instability termed "meandering"”



So maybe this required periodic motion is caused by the shifting location of the emitting body which could possibly be by its own rotation or by the influence of other bodies in its system?

--

Read some other stuff about electrons traveling down galactic magnetic lines in a spiral pattern and about how light travelling over such distances does not travel in a straight line - black holes and such - but can't find it now. I didn't highlight anything in the text above as you would have a better idea on where any important points may be. Except that line about "decay to spatiotemporal chaos" - that just sounds too cool.

I've also read the EISCAT theory for the Norway spiral and am not giving any truth to that. For one if they could do something like these spirals from this or similar facilities (which seem to be of great technologies) then I think these sights would be far more common. Also why not admit it yourself and not through a (paid) secondary group who put together the cover story with a tecno sound track (intended to persuade a certain type of researcher) and some convenient paperwork - which actually never explains how they caused anything.

Thanks for giving me the push to look into this more. Keep up the good fight.

You people (not hust you OP) are so busy fighting you missed the debunking-part of the thread. Go and have a look on page 5, I sure as hell won't make any more effort in this bitch-fight angain..
Redshift is a misinterpretation at best, get over it, new science at hand....

[link to journalofcosmology.com]

and please stop the f*ing bitching, it makes threads like this annoying as hell

bloody typos.... sorry bout that (more coffee needed)

So I'll talk to ya. You stated on page 5 that you "Can't seem to find the most relevant links (bookmarks) at the moment" but along the lines of " the conclusion that redshifts are a means to measure an expanding universe and consequently subscribing to the theory of the Big Bang has been officially denbunked, scientifically. This has been peer-reviewed, presented, discussed and done with..." And then you also only linked the following paper - which is titled "Big Bang? A Critical Review" and uses redshifts in its analysis. Is does not mention the doppler effect, spirals, or even Nibiru. Section 6 covers using redshift to show that groups and rivers of galaxies are moving in flow and in different directions which is interesting on its own but does not disprove anything regarding a possible visual appearance of a celestial body heading towards us.

So how does all this make that "Redshift is a misinterpretation at best".

Really?

hey Pug........ what is it now, 6 or 7 pages ?

these shills werent able to debunk ANYTHING!

This thread is a perfect example of shilling.

That's funny coming from a dude who seems to be congenitally incapable to understand the difference between something being blue, and something being blueshifted.

If you can't even get the basics right, why should we take anything else your claims serious?


Denial is not a river in Egypt...


And projecting again...

Your frothing-at-the-mouth insistence that your childish misinterpretation of basic physics is the correct one only exposes you for what you really are...

A raving loonie.

Are you really that much of a shill or what ?

All I said was 'notice the colour' of the object.

If you understand ANYTHING about the Doppler Effect, then you would understand that the spiral/object in the video is a PERFECT example.

When visible light is compacted in wavelength, it shifts towards the blue end of the spectrum. Objects moving at relativistic speeds have red or blue shifts that ARE visible to the naked eye.

Light itself is an Electromagnetic wave.

So, I still dont know what you're trying to do here ?
NONE of you have been able to debunk this, yet you're all still fighting with me and finding stupid typo's instead of actually trying to debunk this idea.

If you don't agree with this idea, move along and shill another thread to death.

Last Edited by MG-42 on 03/27/2011 02:08 AM

Just for our education, and entertainment, explain in your own words what blueshift is, and how one measures it.

Not trying to step in but these were in my post above and give as good an explanation of blueshift/redshift and the doppler shift/effect as any. No entertainment value though.

This information is excellent, and I hope it helps people understand a lot better.

Thank you Pug.. You are a good person, and that goes to the rest of the people that havent shilled this thread.

If anyone has been paying attention, the shills have NOT been able to debunk this idea WHAT SO EVER.

We keep giving them answers, and they keeping shilling.
Meanwhile, the shills havent said ANYTHING that debunks this idea.

Thank you Pug, and to the rest of the good people.

the SHILLS can go back to being the elites bitches.

The entertainment lies in the fact that MG-42 keeps insisting that one can tell if something is blueshifted JUST BY LOOKING AT A PICTURE.

And, please, don't claim you actually understand what Doppler Effect of Nonlinear Waves and Superspirals in Oscillatory Media means.
You woos are all the same. You just googled for a sciency sounding source that mentions spirals and Doppler effect.

You are on some kind of a mission. And you havent debunked a SINGLE thing about this idea.

You keep coming back, as if you are dedicated. But sofar, you havent been able to prove this wrong ONE BIT.

As stated earlier but overlooked...the spiral's have nothing to do with PX or any other celestial bodies.

Seems like EISCAT (and other facilities around the world are very heavily involved in the creation and manipulation of high altitude artificial plasma - created by heating regions of the atmosphere with focused, beamed energy, then manipulating the resultant plasma with high-intensity radio waves.

Click the link below...also do a search on youtube & google for EISCAT...plenty of info

[link to www.youtube.com]

You are a moron, aren't you? You are the one making the blue shift claim. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's blue shift that's causing an object that's not blue to appear blue. Just posting crap about "blue shift" and the "Doppler effect" doesn't prove a damn thing. It's up to you to prove that the object isn't blue and the object is moving at a velocity sufficient enough to appear blue. You are totally clueless about what that velocity would be, aren't you?

For instance, if the imaginary "Nibiru" is only visible in the infrared spectrum as believers claim, it would have to be moving at us at a speed over 126,000 km/s, or over 42% of the speed of light. Considering that the escape velocity of the solar system is 618 km/s, no imaginary planet on a 3,600 year orbit could be traveling anywhere near that speed. And any planet would not be visible in just a small area of the Earth. To be shifted from the middle of the visible light spectrum to the bottom of the blue part of the spectrum, an object would have to be moving at least 40,000 km/s.

But since you have been totally unable to provide a single piece of data to support your claims of blue shift, you are an utter failure.

Again, look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It applies to you.

Last Edited by Gazmik on 03/27/2011 09:08 AM

OK shit for brains. You want personal? Don't call me a woo unless you actually know me and can back it up. When I post something like this it is because I have read it and feel I have a good enough understand of it to comment on it and to present it for others to read and do likewise. And you can probably see the validity in it as you choose it specifically to try and discredit. You sir have demonstrated that you are an ass-clown of the highest order.



And perhaps I can add that this is body (maybe Nibiru) is visible to the naked eye at certain times and in certain conditions when the moving body is in alignment with our planet.

To AC 744032 and your bullshit about EISCAT.


To Gasmik the repetitive nag. What is your problem with galactic velocities?



In summary - MG-42 has said from the start he is only presenting this information. Perhaps if you actually did some reading and research and followed that with a little critical thinking you may bring something close to useful to this very interesting topic and thread. Instead of presenting yourselves as a annoying pack boneheads.

What is your problem with understanding that blue shift is a function of velocity? And that to cause the supposed shift that MG-42 is claiming, it could not possibly be an object on a 3,600 year orbit in our solar system?

Critical thinking? That's a laugh! MG-42 has shown non of that, and neither have you. Just doing copy and paste and posting links to pictures isn't critical thinking.

And since he is the one making the claims about blue shift and the imaginary "Nibiru", the burden of proof falls on his shoulders to prove his claim that "Nibiru" would be moving fast enough to cause his supposed blue shift.

Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is applicable to you, too.

PUG

The mere fact that, rather then go with the perfectly rational and parsimonious explanation that the Norway as well as the Australian spirals were caused by man-made objects that we KNOW FOR A FACT were at the right place at the right time, you choose to twist logic and science beyond human ken to violently squeeze these observations into your pet delusion of a doomsday planet shows us all that, yes indeed, you are a woo.

Q.E.D.


You're feeling is misleading you...
Dunning-Kruger.


Ha. The old someone disagrees with me, therefor I must be right shtick.

Another hallmark of the classic woo.


Ignoring perfectly valid rebuttals and debunkings is yet another hallmark of the classic woo.

It's fairly obvious to any rational onlooker who is lacking the critical bit. Never mind the thinking.


Translated from Woowoonese: I got nuthin', so I try whining until the Big Meanie goes away.

If you can't handle your ideas being thoroughly and critically evaluated you might have to rethink publishing them on a forum.
Get a blog or something, where you only have to talk to yourself.

So, what is a superspiral?

You sir, are a jackass.

How does that make me wrong?

And you have to come to grips with the fact that in grown-up land new ideas need to be vigorously tested to see if they have any worth.

"Scientists do not coddle ideas. They crash test them. They run them into a brick wall at 60 miles per hour and examine the pieces. If the idea is sound, the pieces will be those of the wall." - Andrew Simoncini

Your idea doesn't even get moving. It's got no wheels.

Keep in mind that the terms redshift and blueshift are historical terms and not meant to be the perceived color of an object. They really should be interpreted as re shift means that a wavelength shift occurs toward longer wavelengths. Blueshift means that the wavelength is shifted to shorter wavelengths. An object that emits in the ultraviolet can be blueshifted to the far ultraviolet (shorter wavelengths) and an object emitting the near infrared can be redshifted to the mid infrared. The red and blue are not meant to be absolute color descriptions.

There is a difference between Doppler shift, relativistic Doppler shift, and cosmological redshift. These can be written mathematically as

Doppler shift
Wavelength observed = wavelength emitted *(1+ v/c)
Where v is the relative velocity between the source and the observer and c is the speed of light.

Relativistic Doppler shift
Wavelength observed = wavelength emitted * sqrt((1 + v/c)(1-v/c))
Where sqrt means square root of

Cosmological redshift
Wavelength observed = wavelength emitted * a_now/a_then
Where a_now and a_then refer to the value of the cosmological scale factor at the time of emission and the time of observations. The scale factors are related to the value of the Hubble expansion constant, which actually changes in time.

Additionally, you can have a gravitational redshift caused by and object leaving a gravity well
Wavelength observed = wavelength emitted / sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)
Where M is the mass, G is the gravitational constant and r is the radius

Misusing the definitions and use of the four different redshifts, that is the common usage, will lead to confusion and error. Also, it is more common to see the value z as used for the redshift where z is defined as

z =wavelength observed/wavelength emitted - 1

Which is a value of the redshift without interpretation; in other words, the raw data.

All the stars and planets you see at night have a Doppler shift that is far too small to be perceived by eye. As far the so called Norway spiral you would have to know its original color before you could interpret it as a velocity.

Last Edited by Commutator on 03/28/2011 08:28 AM

Forget it, this concept is above the OP's and some of the others heads. They cannot make the distinction of what you posted and visible light output. They've been trying to re-write science as they see fit without understanding all the elements involved.

I'm fully aware that this doesnt describe the ACTUAL colour of the object. How else am I supposed to explain this to people that havent heard of the Doppler ? I tried to explain it in the most simplest terms possible.

Like I said in an earlier reply, just because I chose not to argue and debate with some of the other folks that diliberately attempted to make me look like a fool, doesnt mean that I dont understand physics.

I will say this,

I can clearly see that some of the other folks that have tried to make me look like a fool on here DIDNT HAVE A SINGLE CLUE about the concept of the Doppler Effect, nor have the knowledge of physics. All they were able to do was go on to a site, read a little bit of info (without understanding the entire picture) and post a few forcefull comments and stupid questions to make me look like a fool infront of the other people that might not understand this subject nor physics.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. NO ONE is going to try and attempt to act smart as if they were actually trying to prove me wrong infront of the folks that might not understand this concept.

I let you guys babble on, page after page, after page, all at the same time letting you guys SHOW exactly how much you really knew about the subject. YOU SHILLS PROVED to me that you either didnt know the facts behind the idea, OR you are actual shills.

Which was absolutely nothing.

But, regardless of the BS so far, I KNOW that I'm right.
I wasnt born two days ago. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And if some of you shills dont like it..... well, you can all kiss my ass.

Last Edited by MG-42 on 03/28/2011 08:55 PM

You are the one that 'deduced' Doppler shift by looking at a picture?

How is that even remotely related to having a clue?