Recent content by nanjo

Thanks, Berkeman, for the most informative diagram and interesting link. You have confirmed the angle star/observer/apparent star I wasn't sure about, and provided a bit more information. I didn't realise an angle ϵ1 was involved which, for a star obscured by the Sun, is effectively the angle...

I'm having difficulty finding the definition of Eddington's deflection angle. Can anyone tell me precisely which three points were used to define the deflection angle of 1.75" confirmed by Eddington's experiment in 1919? John

Thanks for the reply Ibix. Moving on to other parameters, I understand that there are numerous and complex methods for estimating the mass and diameter of the the most distant stellar objects. But are there any estimation methods that do NOT require prior knowledge of the distance to such...

As a cosmological layman I believe that measurements of the distance extremely distant stellar objects is built upon quite a complex scale ladder which ultimately requires the use of Hubble's Law. First of all, is that belief correct? Secondly, if true, then are there any other methods which...

Thanks , but I had already acknowledged a misunderstanding. Again, the observed spectrum is what I wanted and did get posts ago.

No!

Hi Orodruin, <The raw data is not a wavelength. The raw data is going to be some counts in a detector that needs to be appropriately calibrated and set up. > The information provided by phyzguy was a wavelength spectrum and is exactly what I was looking for. As I am more familiar with spectrum...

Hi Orodruin, <You are missing the entire point. If you know the emitted wavelength .....> Sorry - You are correct, I did miss this implication. All I actually wanted was the raw spectrum data.

Hi berkeman, <The Doppler effect is not controversial in this context.> But it is disputed by many. For just one example see 'The Static Universe 'by Hilton Ratcliffe.

<It is therefore obvious what the value of λ was given this and your objection here holds no water whatsoever.> Granted but, as in any discipline it is reassuring to see the raw data including any sidebands and/or shape of the 'discrete'.

Hi Weirdoguy, <Prove it. Or stop making up some nonsensical conspiracy theories.> There are many examples on the internet. Research it for yourself. I only asked for one piece of basic but not readily accessible information which was kindly provided by the very helpful Physguy.

Hi Bandersnatch, <.... not because it's en vogue ....> There are those that believe it's en vogue with the general public. <Probably a more purposeful use of one's time than checking for arithmetic errors in random findings.> Of course - but why jump directly into the Doppler route. Starting...

I disagree. I would say that many (not virtually all) physicists and astronomers accept it. Those that are not among the "many" are unlikely to have gained their promotions nor kept their employment as such. They would have become unknowns or even dissidents. As regards flat-earthers (pre 6th...

Raw data can be extremely useful, especially when not wanting to be tied to the very controversial Doppler effect and its popular inference.

Many thanks for you help phyzguy. I've seen the spectrum data and have confirmed the value of z for myself thus satisfying my curiosity.