Sorcerer wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| xxein; Some day they will understand.

You reckon?
Some people would rather die than think; and they do.

| You cannot force belief. It has to be nutured.

Even that is futile. History is written by opinion, not fact.
2000 years ago a political upstart was nailed to a tree. Now
they worship him and begged to be "saved".
Man is a curious animal, he wants to know. Finding out tickles
his brain, but he's also lazy. Anyone that provides the answer
is revered, no matter whether the answer is valid or not.
"It is written", therefore it is.

| But nature/physic is not exactly a belief, although most treat it as
| such.

Nature is. I believe that. How she works is for us to discover,
but I can say with 100% certainty that Einstein had no more
of a clue than anyone else, and he lied.

Androcles.

xxein: History is written by the winners. They have their way.

The universal (or beyond) physic is set to what it IS and is
independent of what we think of it or write about it or simply declare
it to be. Harry Potter knows that - he shows respect for the unknown
and is not afraid to investigate it in seeking a source.

We seem more satisfied with utilitatial tools and only wish to discover
such instead of taking a broader approach. So, you are right in that
we are lazy. But not all of us. There is still one for every
ten-million of us that seek a foundation and only one in a billion that
get to relaize the real sense of it all. While there is the open door
to belief in a higher power, it also opens the door to where that
notion has legs that do not lead to an infinite regression to
infinity^(x).

If we see no end to "all things", why should we expect a beginning of
it? It appears that this notion it not handy to belief. Who created
our god? A god^2 or god^(.5)? We should learn that there is a lot of
logic to be applied here that we don't currently suspect.

But were are mere humans with beliefs. We should be forgiven by
ourselves. What a copout. We should blame ourselves for being lazy
(as you said). But, then again, we are incapable of knowing all
(logical deduction). So we invent belief structures that cannot be
true in order to suplicate our immediate selves (our present
understanding of a local equilibrium that cannot remain the same
throughout infinity).

So, what do we do about it? We don't change our beliefs - we just
modify them while holding onto our "basic" belief.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory of what that belief was, again.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
it might break down." "

GR has been scrutinized closedly on the top level, and it appears
flawless. However, the very foundation is extremely faulty and absurd
which no one has attempted to examine unitl now by Koobee Wublee yours
truly.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
" So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars.

The slowdown in the speed of light locally is hinted through
gravitational time dilation in the equations of GR. However, due to
the possibilities of different values of speed of light exist in other
part of our universe, it would violate one of the very postulates that
SR is built on. If one of the postulates that SR is built on is in
question, SR would break down. The concept of spacetime would
breakdown. As a chain reaction, GR would also break down. Einstein
cannot be deified, and that is a violation of established history. The
whole industry that benefits from deifying Einstein will resist to the
end even at the price of scientific truth.

One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.

Huygens' derivation of Snell's Law stands on no solid ground. Fermat's
Principel of Least Time does a much more professional job.

Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of
Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured. "

Yes, Einstein's pre-GR calculations on bending photons and Mercury's
orbital anomaly were total bogus. Both calculations were influenced by
Soldner and Gerber respectively.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory.

GR was born when Hilbert acting as a medieval alchemist patched
together a Lagrangian to the now called Einstein-Hilbert Action. It is
impossible to credit GR to Einstein. The proof is in the mathematics
as Lugunov and Winterberg have already pointed out.

In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .]
cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
that he did mean so. "

Einstein talked about a lot of gibberish. However, he managed to get a
few things right. Why do I say Einstein's stuff was gibberish? Just
follow any of the derivations.

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

MMX did prove the speed of light for an observer must be isotropic in
every direction. This experimental fact cannot be easily challenged.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
| " Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely.
| Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the
| theory of general relativity, there are some points where general
| relativity may not apply. "General relativity is doing really
| well," he explains to PhysOrg.com, "but there are two places where
| it might break down." "
|
| GR has been scrutinized closedly on the top level, and it appears
| flawless. However, the very foundation is extremely faulty and absurd
| which no one has attempted to examine unitl now by Koobee Wublee yours
| truly.
|
| http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
| " So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
| in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
| as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
| were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
| field of stars.
|
| The slowdown in the speed of light locally is hinted through
| gravitational time dilation in the equations of GR. However, due to
| the possibilities of different values of speed of light exist in other
| part of our universe, it would violate one of the very postulates that
| SR is built on. If one of the postulates that SR is built on is in
| question, SR would break down. The concept of spacetime would
| breakdown. As a chain reaction, GR would also break down. Einstein
| cannot be deified, and that is a violation of established history. The
| whole industry that benefits from deifying Einstein will resist to the
| end even at the price of scientific truth.

In other words, a house of cards.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.GIF




|
| One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave
| front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the
| wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of
| light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
|
| Huygens' derivation of Snell's Law stands on no solid ground. Fermat's
| Principel of Least Time does a much more professional job.
|
| Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
| 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
| der Physik, 35, 1911.
| which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
| about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
| find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of
| Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
| derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
| potential, eqn (3). The result is,
| c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
| where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
| speed of light c0 is measured. "
|
| Yes, Einstein's pre-GR calculations on bending photons and Mercury's
| orbital anomaly were total bogus. Both calculations were influenced by
| Soldner and Gerber respectively.

43 arc seconds in a century. That's 415 orbits of Mercury, 360
degrees/orbit, 3600 arc
seconds per degree = 537840000 arc seconds.
An error of 43/537840000 * 100 = 0.0000079949427338985571917298824929347%
Not bad for a guy with a 3 significant figure slide-rule and a book of log
tables.



|
|
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
| " Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
| which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
| about the speed of light changing in this new theory.
|
| GR was born when Hilbert acting as a medieval alchemist patched
| together a Lagrangian to the now called Einstein-Hilbert Action. It is
| impossible to credit GR to Einstein. The proof is in the mathematics
| as Lugunov and Winterberg have already pointed out.
|
| In the 1920 book
| "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according
| to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
| velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
| fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .]
| cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
| only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
| position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
| with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
| the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests
| that he did mean so. "
|
| Einstein talked about a lot of gibberish. However, he managed to get a
| few things right. Why do I say Einstein's stuff was gibberish? Just
| follow any of the derivations.
|
| http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
| " Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
| modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "
|
| MMX did prove the speed of light for an observer must be isotropic in
| every direction. This experimental fact cannot be easily challenged.

Sagnac is challenged...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
Androcles.

Koobee Wublee, the bumbling boobie:

GR has been scrutinized closedly on the top level, and it appears
flawless. However, the very foundation is extremely faulty and absurd
which no one has attempted to examine unitl now by Koobee Wublee yours
truly.

Since you also stated:

. com

``The Principle of Equivalence does not show any useful purpose.''

you do not even understand how the foundation of general relativity
relates to general relativity. What is faulty is your understanding. You
also lack the ability to recognize your own incompetence.

www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[...]

Einstein talked about a lot of gibberish. However, he managed to get a
few things right. Why do I say Einstein's stuff was gibberish?

Because you are convinced that no one can understand anything that
you don't despite the fact that you don't understand physics at the
level expected of the average freshman engineering students.

Just follow any of the derivations.

And...?

"Bilge" wrote in message
...

Koobee Wublee [wrote]:

GR has been scrutinized closedly on the top level, and it appears
flawless. However, the very foundation is extremely faulty and absurd
which no one has attempted to examine unitl now by Koobee Wublee yours
truly.

Since you also stated:

. com

``The Principle of Equivalence does not show any useful purpose.''

you do not even understand how the foundation of general relativity
relates to general relativity. What is faulty is your understanding. You
also lack the ability to recognize your own incompetence.

Since you have brought it up, let me say that again. Einstein's
version of the principle of Equivalence represents a dead end in the
development of GR. Thus, it suits no purpose in further development of
GR or physics. When Newton oberved that apple fallen off a tree, he
described the law of gravity in which better than 99.9% of the
situations it is still valid. When you fall from a 10 story building,
you don't feel gravity. Big deal, except bracing for a tragic end!
So, care to prove me wrong?

www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

This is the same bullie tactics Galileo faced many centuries ago. This
article is absolutely meaningless since it can apply to everyone
including your idol Einstein Himself. For your sake of argument, you'd
better concentrate on the technical issues.

Einstein talked about a lot of gibberish. However, he managed to get a
few things right. Why do I say Einstein's stuff was gibberish?

Because you are convinced that no one can understand anything that
you don't despite the fact that you don't understand physics at the
level expected of the average freshman engineering students.

Just follow any of the derivations.

And...?

You have to be a lot more specific in order for us to carry on a
meaningful discussion.

--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start
"light"
isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds.
It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember
right.

No, you do not remember right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it is the Doppler
effect that is being measured referred to commonly as the red shift. The
wavelength of colours in the spectrum vary.

Correct up to here.


Doppler effect is the difference in sound of a race car approaching you
from
that when it has past you and is going away from you. The sound waves
are
compressed (high pitch) when the car is approaching you, and they sound
waves get elongated (low pitch) when it is leaving you. That is the
doppler
effect

Correct up to here.


Light just like sound is a "wave" the blue spectrum is a high frequenct
(short wave length - most occilations in a given distance) and red has
the
opposite. This is what causes the "red shift" (for a star some 4.5
billion
light years away). This tells an astronomer if the star is moving away
from,
or towards you for a starter. The amount of red shift will tell the
astronomer the relative speed the star is moving at.

Correct up to here.


As light is in a "wave" the more occilations it has the greater the
distance
it covered. The less it has the less distance covered, the least being
no
occilations or a straight line (and no light). Therefor the blue
spectrum
has to cover more distance than the red spectrum. There will then become
a
point where the blue spectrum light an no longer be stretched any
further
and ceases to exist. Then for light from the sun, the blue spectrum
must
therefore travel faster than the red spectrum to arrive at the same time
as
it coverds a greater distance. If this was not so the Doppler effect
could
not exist.

No, this is all bolluxed up.

Several comments:
1. There is no limit to how low or high a frequency can be, nor can you
stretch it so much that it "ceases to exist".

If that was true, then light speed would be infinite. Light ceases to be
light at some point and the object becomes invisible even if the wave length
merely.becames extreme.

Consider the supersonic aircraft, flying at supersonic speed. You cannot
hear it coming because it travels faster than sound. The "sonic boom" you
hear is an atmospheric event (like thunder) and not the sound of the
aircraft engines. The reason you will hear the aircraft after it has passed
is that sound propagates through vibrations in matter and has no existence
of its own (as in a vaccume).

2. The shifting has nothing to do with how fast the light is traveling.
Redshifted light from a star is still traveling toward your eye at c
(the speed of light), at the same speed that it would have if the star
were not receding and the light unshifted.

If the measure of the band between the top and the bottom of the occilation
is seen as "light", you are correct. It is understood most often in that
manner as well, hence the difficulty in picturing this concept. One would
need to think of a single photon. This occilation we measure is a "wave" and
the more often it visits the top and bottom of the band, in a given
distance, the further it has to travel. Therefore light at two different
frequencies must have different speeds to arrive simultaneously at a given
point..

3. If light from a star is redshifted, then *all* the frequencies of
light from that star are shifted by the same ratio, whether the
original light was red, green, or blue. Recall that the light from a
star is an entire spectrum, not just a particular color, and all
frequencies in that spectrum are shifted.

True and this is the proof of the pudding of my view. You state that
all.colours shift to the red by the same amount, no disagreement there. If
one then takes an extreme example and say that it has shifted so far that
blue is now red, then the light spectrum above red has been extingusihed by
the speed of the object emiting the light. To put it another way, light of
the other spectrums were too slow to get here.

4. A blue part of the spectrum that is shifted into the green is still
lower in frequency and so we still call it red-shifted, even though it
is not red.

True, but green is no longer blue either and that is really the point.

5. The shift is due to the relative motion of the *star*, not the
light. The red light from a star doesn't shift differently than the
blue light from the same star, nor does it travel at a different speed
than the blue light from that star.

Naturally it is the star that has a speed - however it does affect the speed
of light in realtion to a stationary point (assuming us to be "stationary").
Therefor that light is; C - speed of the star. If C was constant (in
relation to us) it would require a variable speed for C - eg in this case,
C+ speed of the star.

Of course it can be argued that it is "constant", by only looking at the
red, where other spectrums have dropped off and not made it here.

Does this help?

Yours is a fairly common view most would ascribe to. "Light" is not in
general considered per individual colour.

"Orator" wrote in message ...


--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start
"light"
isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds.
It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember
right.

No, you do not remember right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it is the Doppler
effect that is being measured referred to commonly as the red shift. The
wavelength of colours in the spectrum vary.

Correct up to here.


Doppler effect is the difference in sound of a race car approaching you
from
that when it has past you and is going away from you. The sound waves
are
compressed (high pitch) when the car is approaching you, and they sound
waves get elongated (low pitch) when it is leaving you. That is the
doppler
effect

Correct up to here.


Light just like sound is a "wave" the blue spectrum is a high frequenct
(short wave length - most occilations in a given distance) and red has
the
opposite. This is what causes the "red shift" (for a star some 4.5
billion
light years away). This tells an astronomer if the star is moving away
from,
or towards you for a starter. The amount of red shift will tell the
astronomer the relative speed the star is moving at.

Correct up to here.


As light is in a "wave" the more occilations it has the greater the
distance
it covered. The less it has the less distance covered, the least being
no
occilations or a straight line (and no light). Therefor the blue
spectrum
has to cover more distance than the red spectrum. There will then become
a
point where the blue spectrum light an no longer be stretched any
further
and ceases to exist. Then for light from the sun, the blue spectrum
must
therefore travel faster than the red spectrum to arrive at the same time
as
it coverds a greater distance. If this was not so the Doppler effect
could
not exist.

No, this is all bolluxed up.

Several comments:
1. There is no limit to how low or high a frequency can be, nor can you
stretch it so much that it "ceases to exist".

If that was true, then light speed would be infinite. Light ceases to be
light at some point and the object becomes invisible even if the wave length
merely.becames extreme.

Consider the supersonic aircraft, flying at supersonic speed. You cannot
hear it coming because it travels faster than sound. The "sonic boom" you
hear is an atmospheric event (like thunder) and not the sound of the
aircraft engines. The reason you will hear the aircraft after it has passed
is that sound propagates through vibrations in matter and has no existence
of its own (as in a vaccume).

2. The shifting has nothing to do with how fast the light is traveling.
Redshifted light from a star is still traveling toward your eye at c
(the speed of light), at the same speed that it would have if the star
were not receding and the light unshifted.

If the measure of the band between the top and the bottom of the occilation
is seen as "light", you are correct. It is understood most often in that
manner as well, hence the difficulty in picturing this concept. One would
need to think of a single photon. This occilation we measure is a "wave" and
the more often it visits the top and bottom of the band, in a given
distance, the further it has to travel. Therefore light at two different
frequencies must have different speeds to arrive simultaneously at a given
point..

3. If light from a star is redshifted, then *all* the frequencies of
light from that star are shifted by the same ratio, whether the
original light was red, green, or blue. Recall that the light from a
star is an entire spectrum, not just a particular color, and all
frequencies in that spectrum are shifted.

True and this is the proof of the pudding of my view. You state that
all.colours shift to the red by the same amount, no disagreement there. If
one then takes an extreme example and say that it has shifted so far that
blue is now red, then the light spectrum above red has been extingusihed by
the speed of the object emiting the light. To put it another way, light of
the other spectrums were too slow to get here.

4. A blue part of the spectrum that is shifted into the green is still
lower in frequency and so we still call it red-shifted, even though it
is not red.

True, but green is no longer blue either and that is really the point.

5. The shift is due to the relative motion of the *star*, not the
light. The red light from a star doesn't shift differently than the
blue light from the same star, nor does it travel at a different speed
than the blue light from that star.

Naturally it is the star that has a speed - however it does affect the speed
of light in realtion to a stationary point (assuming us to be "stationary").
Therefor that light is; C - speed of the star. If C was constant (in
relation to us) it would require a variable speed for C - eg in this case,
C+ speed of the star.

Of course it can be argued that it is "constant", by only looking at the
red, where other spectrums have dropped off and not made it here.

Does this help?

It obviously didn't.
I'm pessimistic on this one.
Sounds like a troll.
But good luck anyway ;-)

Dirk Vdm


Yours is a fairly common view most would ascribe to. "Light" is not in
general considered per individual colour.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message oups.com...
"Bilge" wrote in message
...

Koobee Wublee [wrote]:

GR has been scrutinized closedly on the top level, and it appears
flawless. However, the very foundation is extremely faulty and absurd
which no one has attempted to examine unitl now by Koobee Wublee yours
truly.

Since you also stated:

. com

``The Principle of Equivalence does not show any useful purpose.''

you do not even understand how the foundation of general relativity
relates to general relativity. What is faulty is your understanding. You
also lack the ability to recognize your own incompetence.

Since you have brought it up, let me say that again. Einstein's
version of the principle of Equivalence represents a dead end in the
development of GR. Thus, it suits no purpose in further development of
GR or physics. When Newton oberved that apple fallen off a tree, he
described the law of gravity in which better than 99.9% of the
situations it is still valid. When you fall from a 10 story building,
you don't feel gravity. Big deal, except bracing for a tragic end!
So, care to prove me wrong?

www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

This is the same bullie tactics Galileo faced many centuries ago. This
article is absolutely meaningless since it can apply to everyone
including your idol Einstein Himself. For your sake of argument, you'd
better concentrate on the technical issues.

Einstein talked about a lot of gibberish. However, he managed to get a
few things right. Why do I say Einstein's stuff was gibberish?

Because you are convinced that no one can understand anything that
you don't despite the fact that you don't understand physics at the
level expected of the average freshman engineering students.

Just follow any of the derivations.

And...?

You have to be a lot more specific in order for us to carry on a
meaningful discussion.

Don't bother, retard.
No one can have a meaningful discussion with someone who writes
something like this:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html

Dirk Vdm

" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

No, for instance, when relativity was first developed many physicists
thought that photons might have mass. Your challenge is to work out
how physicists such as de Broglie could believe in relativity and in
the idea that the speed of photons might not be equal to the universal
constant "c". See:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity

Best wishes

Alex Green

Orator wrote:
--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
--

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

Orator wrote:
I don't think so. Speed of light is not constant. For a start
"light"
isn't
constant. The two ends of the spectrum travel at different speeds.
It is
used in astronomy to determine how far away a star is if I remember
right.

No, you do not remember right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it is the Doppler
effect that is being measured referred to commonly as the red shift. The
wavelength of colours in the spectrum vary.

Correct up to here.


Doppler effect is the difference in sound of a race car approaching you
from
that when it has past you and is going away from you. The sound waves
are
compressed (high pitch) when the car is approaching you, and they sound
waves get elongated (low pitch) when it is leaving you. That is the
doppler
effect

Correct up to here.


Light just like sound is a "wave" the blue spectrum is a high frequenct
(short wave length - most occilations in a given distance) and red has
the
opposite. This is what causes the "red shift" (for a star some 4.5
billion
light years away). This tells an astronomer if the star is moving away
from,
or towards you for a starter. The amount of red shift will tell the
astronomer the relative speed the star is moving at.

Correct up to here.


As light is in a "wave" the more occilations it has the greater the
distance
it covered. The less it has the less distance covered, the least being
no
occilations or a straight line (and no light). Therefor the blue
spectrum
has to cover more distance than the red spectrum. There will then become
a
point where the blue spectrum light an no longer be stretched any
further
and ceases to exist. Then for light from the sun, the blue spectrum
must
therefore travel faster than the red spectrum to arrive at the same time
as
it coverds a greater distance. If this was not so the Doppler effect
could
not exist.

No, this is all bolluxed up.

Several comments:
1. There is no limit to how low or high a frequency can be, nor can you
stretch it so much that it "ceases to exist".

If that was true, then light speed would be infinite. Light ceases to be
light at some point and the object becomes invisible even if the wave length
merely.becames extreme.

I choose only to make one more return comment.
If red light is shifted beyond the visible spectrum (into, say, the
infrared) it becomes invisible only to the human eye. It is not the
least bit invisible to a camera that is sensitive to the infrared.
In fact, many of the lines in the hydrogen spectrum (Balmer, Lyman,
Paschen...) are outside the range of *human* vision, but they were
nevertheless studied and recorded and are used in redshift studies.


PD


Consider the supersonic aircraft, flying at supersonic speed. You cannot
hear it coming because it travels faster than sound. The "sonic boom" you
hear is an atmospheric event (like thunder) and not the sound of the
aircraft engines. The reason you will hear the aircraft after it has passed
is that sound propagates through vibrations in matter and has no existence
of its own (as in a vaccume).

2. The shifting has nothing to do with how fast the light is traveling.
Redshifted light from a star is still traveling toward your eye at c
(the speed of light), at the same speed that it would have if the star
were not receding and the light unshifted.

If the measure of the band between the top and the bottom of the occilation
is seen as "light", you are correct. It is understood most often in that
manner as well, hence the difficulty in picturing this concept. One would
need to think of a single photon. This occilation we measure is a "wave" and
the more often it visits the top and bottom of the band, in a given
distance, the further it has to travel. Therefore light at two different
frequencies must have different speeds to arrive simultaneously at a given
point..

3. If light from a star is redshifted, then *all* the frequencies of
light from that star are shifted by the same ratio, whether the
original light was red, green, or blue. Recall that the light from a
star is an entire spectrum, not just a particular color, and all
frequencies in that spectrum are shifted.

True and this is the proof of the pudding of my view. You state that
all.colours shift to the red by the same amount, no disagreement there. If
one then takes an extreme example and say that it has shifted so far that
blue is now red, then the light spectrum above red has been extingusihed by
the speed of the object emiting the light. To put it another way, light of
the other spectrums were too slow to get here.

4. A blue part of the spectrum that is shifted into the green is still
lower in frequency and so we still call it red-shifted, even though it
is not red.

True, but green is no longer blue either and that is really the point.

5. The shift is due to the relative motion of the *star*, not the
light. The red light from a star doesn't shift differently than the
blue light from the same star, nor does it travel at a different speed
than the blue light from that star.

Naturally it is the star that has a speed - however it does affect the speed
of light in realtion to a stationary point (assuming us to be "stationary").
Therefor that light is; C - speed of the star. If C was constant (in
relation to us) it would require a variable speed for C - eg in this case,
C+ speed of the star.

Of course it can be argued that it is "constant", by only looking at the
red, where other spectrums have dropped off and not made it here.

Does this help?

Yours is a fairly common view most would ascribe to. "Light" is not in
general considered per individual colour.