4 ms·
> A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer What physical process would cause this? Have we ever observed it?
by SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
> A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer
What physical process would cause this? Have we ever observed it?
Large bodies of matter don't just "move back and forth" of their own accord. Try shaking any heavy object, it takes a lot of energy.
Do you mean ringing like a gong or a pond with ripples? Then "moving back and forth" is a confusing poor choice of words. Do you mean "orbiting a black hole in such a way that it comes nearer to us and then further again?" Then why not say so?
How would the mode be out of synch with our own, whatever that even means?
> The jargon of science is one of her bugbears and she is trying to demystify it.
By introducing new and incomprehensible jargon that is literally mystical?
> oscillating in a mode which is out of phase with the motion of the detector
Are you saying that undetectable EM radiation exists because of modes / phases? This is complete hand-wavy mysticism.
- nixtaken 7y agoThe physical process is gravity as Laplace described it back in the 1700s as a sort of breathing motion. Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. Jargon from the past only sounds mystical when present-day jargon loses contact with foundational principles.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago> Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. I appreciate your effort, but this is not science in any way. Changing the jargon won't help that.
- nixtaken 7y agoYou're right that this language is not precise enough. Where you put the clocks matters a lot. What is synchronous to one person is asynchronous to another.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y agoPrecisely explaining this nonsense won't help.
- EliRivers 7y agoStars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. Utter, utter rot. You're vanishing into your own new-age hand-wavy magic word bullshit, creating new nonsense to explain away huge flaws in a hypothesis. They're easy to see because they're emitting photons that intersect with us.
- nixtaken 7y agoIf atoms in star A and star B are moving in opposition - away and towards one other in a steady-state oscillation - this would cause destructive interference between the emitted photons. No energy will be exchanged and they will be blind to one another. If the atoms of stars A and C are moving back and forth synchronously in the same direction at the same time, the photons they emit will add constructively and they will see one another. If you want to, you can make stars A and C stationary and just let star B vibrate. The result is the same.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago> If atoms in star A and star B are moving in opposition - away and towards one other in a steady-state oscillation - this would cause destructive interference between the emitted photons. No energy will be exchanged and they will be blind to one another. Poppycock.
- nixtaken 7y agoHe wanted a quantum explanation in terms of photons, so I gave him one. I liked the original explanation I gave in terms of the speed of light better: "If a vibrating star is always moving towards or away from the detector at greater than the speed of light, you won't see it." What I like about tired-light is that it is consistent with both quantum and cosmic processes whereas the big-bang people insist that there is a mysterious incompatibility between the two realms (domains if you want to sound technical). I suppose that this isn't surprising because wherever there is a mystery, they can ask for money from politicians. Taxpayers like you and I pay for it.