Relavistic Time Dilation Test Fraud

You seem to be saying starlight is always emitted at the same frequency and redshifted after the photon has left the station(but I'm not sure because you are using pronouns that can be connecyed to the nouns in several ways) So, is this what you mean?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />You seem to be saying starlight is always emitted at the same frequency and redshifted after the photon has left the station(but I'm not sure because you are using pronouns that can be connecyed to the nouns in several ways) So, is this what you mean?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The doppler redshift of galaxy light occurs after the photon has left the source. The gravitational redshift of clocks in a potential field occurs right at the source. So both processes are operative in the universe. -|Tom|-

Where is Hubble redshift in your view of the overall effect that doppler shift and "clocks that tick slow" cause? How much of a Z=2 for example is caused by the clock ticking slow?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Where is Hubble redshift in your view of the overall effect that doppler shift and "clocks that tick slow" cause? How much of a Z=2 for example is caused by the clock ticking slow?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That depends on which theory is used. In BB, the expansion slows the clocks at z = 2 by roughly 90% (my estimate). In MM, redshift is due to energy loss from friction, so there is no accompanying clock slowing for galaxies. -|Tom|-

Why must a theory always be used for figuring these thingg? It is a bit like using a fork when fingers would do.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Why must a theory always be used for figuring these thingg? It is a bit like using a fork when fingers would do.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The goal of physics is to understand phenomena so that we can predict them. Our understanding usually takes the form of a theory. In physics, the theory is usually accompanied by a formula used to calculate and predict things. We then compare those predictions to observations to judge how good or bad the theory is.

What has gone wrong in science is that, when theories predict wrongly or fail to predict something at all, lazy theoreticians have taken to patching the defective theory. That rarely improves understanding or predictability, but gives the illusion retrospectively that the theory still works. -|Tom|-