Possibility of star formation around black holes
- Thread starter Beaconator
- Start date
Frequency and wavelength are not the same thing!!!
Frequency is the number of cycles or oscillations that electromagnet waves complete in a given period of time.
Wavelength is the length or distance between the immediately adjacent "peaks" or "crests" of those cycles or oscillations of said electromagnetic waves.
If they were the same you would not be able to divide the "speed of light" by by the "length of the wave" to get the "frequency of the wave" - or vice-versa - divide the "speed of light" by by the "frequency of the wave" to get the "length of the wave"!
Simply, "frequency" refers to cycles in time and "wavelength" refers to distance in length.
Frequency is the number of cycles or oscillations that electromagnet waves complete in a given period of time.
Wavelength is the length or distance between the immediately adjacent "peaks" or "crests" of those cycles or oscillations of said electromagnetic waves.
If they were the same you would not be able to divide the "speed of light" by by the "length of the wave" to get the "frequency of the wave" - or vice-versa - divide the "speed of light" by by the "frequency of the wave" to get the "length of the wave"!
Simply, "frequency" refers to cycles in time and "wavelength" refers to distance in length.
Last edited:
Of course you are basically correct, they do though have a close relationship and are sometimes interchanged when speaking of variations in light. eg:
Put the following forms of LIGHT in order of increasing frequency: or decreasing wavelength......
The manner beaconator was using each was rather haphazard to say the least.
Hmmmm, it is rather revealing though that you pick up on that error of mine, with the number of errors that the originator of the thread has made...to the point that he is seemingly proposing another theory.
Naturally then, you being such a stickler for detail, would agree this thread should be in alternate theories? ...or maybe pseudoscience?.
Sorry, paddoboy, but I am more than basically correct!
They have an inseparable relationship in reference to the electromagnetic spectrum - and so far only you have "interchanged" them "when speaking of variations in light", in this Thread, that I have noticed.
What, exactly, is your point in Posting the ^^immediately above quoted^^? Do you think that means that "frequency" and "wavelength" are the same and therefore interchangeable?
The following is much more than "haphazard to say the least". :
Relative motion can cause an apparent or perceived change - Doppler Effect. You know that.
They are two different things!
...
"Hmmmm" all you want. Check Post #3.
So...?!
All true science is dependent on the smallest of details - and this is, after all, a science Forum.
Maybe "the originator of the thread" is ESL, or has come here seeking knowledge. From what I understand, there is no prerequisite that one must have any Degree in any of the Sciences to Post on this Forum.
Heck, for all any of us know, Beaconator, may be a Degreed Scientist!
A Scientist, even an amateur scientist or a simple Layman, should not jump to conclusions or make assumptions or presumptions about anything unknown.
Last edited:
Don't be sorry...Again although you are correct in the exact meanings and applications, they are interchanged when we discuss light. I gave you an example....
No, the speed of light never changes...full stop...that's just you doing what you do best...misinterpreting, and driven by an obvious agenda, that others have noted.
Unlike you, others and myself, admit to our errors. You only troll, misinterprete posts, answer questions with more questions, and general avoidance when nailed down as in the other thread.
You should also realize that its wrong to pinch a quote without referencing it.
Worth noting that you posted your post correcting me at 9.08AM and editid it at 10.56AM.
No jumping to conclusions necessary. He has posted rubbish and has been pulled up on it by more than I.
Although your above rant is more evidence to my previous claims of YOU being a closet anti mainstreamer, which was also noted by others in your other thread. Yeah, a degree in science
In actual fact dmoe, you remind me of one of them reality crappy TV shows..... Nothing could be further from the truth, as far as the reality and genuine nature of your posts are concerned.
Last edited:
AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG. Light speed never changes, stop adding conveniances and justifications, that still doesn't change that fact....and light from distant galaxies is not doppler shifted....it is cosmologically red shifted...which is not a change in speed but frequency...or to longer wavelengths....
Last edited:
Bold by me.
I must apologize for my blatant "error".
My error was in believing that all of the Posters on this Science Forum knew that the Doppler Effect does not actually change the the "speed of light" !
I must apologize for my blatant "error".
My error was in believing that all of the Posters on this Science Forum knew that the Doppler Effect does not actually change the the "speed of light" !
Last edited:
Again, the change in frequency and wave length of light from a distant galaxy, is not a Doppler effect. It is a cosmological red shift.....
The other affect that produces the same phenomena is a gravitational red or blue shift...ie, falling into, or climbing out of a gravitational well.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Say it were longer wavelengths, would that effect the size of a photon sphere.
Frequency is measured by a distance traveled. Wavelength is the indirect path a photon travels on the way to its frequency. Propagation of light ensures directional travel. Frequency and wavelength have an indirect relationship which keeps velocity relatively constant. Except when a huge mass causes a change in direction.
Then we are sure of many things such as gravity, Vacuum fluctuations, quantum mechanics, and relativistic physics, just as much as we are unsure of how well our observations are able to explain interactions we have not seen.
The following quotes are from (Bold by me) : http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/u10l3d.cfm
Again, the ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/u10l3d.cfm
My intent for Posting is clarification of the Doppler effect for any who may not be completely familiar with it.
physicsclassroom.com said:
Again, the ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/u10l3d.cfm
My intent for Posting is clarification of the Doppler effect for any who may not be completely familiar with it.
well, astronomers refer to it as a red-shift, and give it a z value, as if it were a recessional value. mathematically, it is treated the same, and you can calculate the recessional speed. but people like to talk about 'expansion of space' for distant galaxies, instead of recession, even though it is essentially the same thing.
The terminology is used to illustrate different realities and causes......
People talk of space/time expansion, because that is what evidence shows happens.
The Doppler Redshift results from the relative motion of the light emitting object and the observer. If the source of light is moving away from you then the wavelength of the light is stretched out, i.e., the light is shifted towards the red. These effects, individually called the blueshift, and the redshift are together known as doppler shifts. The shift in the wavelength is given by a simple formula
(Observed wavelength - Rest wavelength)/(Rest wavelength) = (v/c)
so long as the velocity v is much less than the speed of light. A relativistic doppler formula is required when velocity is comparable to the speed of light.
The Cosmological Redshift is a redshift caused by the expansion of space. The wavelength of light increases as it traverses the expanding universe between its point of emission and its point of detection by the same amount that space has expanded during the crossing time.
The Gravitational Redshift is a shift in the frequency of a photon to lower energy as it climbs out of a gravitational field.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/redshift.htm
One of your problem of course is because you fail to "bold" the most relevant part in the opening paragraph.
" That was the Doppler effect - an apparent shift in frequency for a sound wave produced by a moving source." NOTE: MOVING SOURCE.
and then lo and behold you further more try and confuse the issue when you refer to stars within our own Milky Way, thus
"Furthermore, specific information about stars within galaxies can be determined by application of the Doppler effect"
when of course we were talking of Quasars and distant galaxies near the edge of our observable horizon.
Then you harp on about honesty.
Again just to alleviate some confusion, a QUASAR is nothing more than an AGN [Active Galactic Nucleii] and [my take on this to follow] is just a normal epch in galactic formations. Evidence for this is that we see QUASARS as they were not too long after the BB itself. A stage in the galactic evolution where the central SMBH had not as yet cleared out a path, to devoid it of stars etc, as our Milky Way has seemingly done.
Just to clarify even further for some......
Galaxies we see near the edge of our observable horizon, may have the whole three components to add to the observed red shift...
A Doppler component...due to local galactic movement, but very tiny.
The gravitational component, due to lengthening of wave length and decreasing of frequency when climbing out of the local gravity well...again a rather small amount, although larger then any Doppler effect.
Finally the greater bulk of observed redshift is of the cosmological kind due to the expansion of space/time.
Galaxies we see near the edge of our observable horizon, may have the whole three components to add to the observed red shift...
A Doppler component...due to local galactic movement, but very tiny.
The gravitational component, due to lengthening of wave length and decreasing of frequency when climbing out of the local gravity well...again a rather small amount, although larger then any Doppler effect.
Finally the greater bulk of observed redshift is of the cosmological kind due to the expansion of space/time.
Redshift;
"The data points generally fall close to a straight line, indicating that a simple relationship connects recessional velocity and distance: the rate at which a galaxy recedes is directly proportional to its distance from us. This rule is called Hubble's law. We could construct such a diagram for any group of galaxies, provided we could determine their distances and velocities. … Many redshifted objects have recessional motions that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light. The most distant object thus far observed in the universe has the catalog name 0140 + 326RD1. Its extremely high redshift implies a recessional velocity 95 percent that of light. At that speed, ultraviolet spectral lines are Doppler shifted all the way into the far infrared!"
http://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/AT324/HTML/AT32405.HTM
see also:
http://en.mimi.hu/astronomy/recessional_velocity.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=454
I put in Bold the parts that I thought were relevant in relation to your earlier accusations and assertions :
- your Post #46 (Bold by dmoe):
- your Post #48 (Bold by dmoe):
BTW, paddoboy, in reference to your :
Paddoboy, what part of our Universe, relative to Earth, is NOT a MOVING SOURCE?
I remember reading something about it being : - "wrong to pinch a quote without referencing it"!! ***NOTE - see final quoted content below - NOTE***
I believe that it was the Link : http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/u10l3d.cfm , that was being quoted, that made the reference you attributed to me!?
It does seem somewhat odd that what you "quoted", (possibly from www.physicsclassroom.com ?) would use the word "galaxies", if it was only referring to "stars within our own Milky Way". As far as I know, astronomers have yet to name another galaxy "Milky Way".
paddoboy, did you not read the part from : http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/u10l3d.cfm , that mentioned (Bold by dmoe) :
www.physicsclassroom.com said:
Then you harp on about honesty.
...harp? ...honesty? (Bold by dmoe) :
Yeah...harp...honesty...genuine...!!!???
That you thought, does not come into the equation.
Doppler of course is equated to a moving source and/or receiver...That's it, pure and simple.
The rest of your post is, well, rubbish, shall we say?
Again, the games you attribute to others, is your usual ploy [as noted by others] to turn the tables so to speak.[part of your game]
As usual though, I'll stand by the judgement of my peers here and the moderators, as you will also.
Post 52 covers it admirably Walter...including proper terminology labelling the reasons for different red shifts.
I don't think so...The photon sphere at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is dictated by the speed of the light, which always remains constant.