It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astronomical Observations Debunk Poud Rebka Experiment

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
from my cursory read thru the material, it does seem that the dude is right. I don't have a cell phone that can perform such an experiment. tho it does sound interesting
a reply to: ErosA433




posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 11:19 PM
link   
the article and the op says, "intense gravity on the stars surface lengthens the wavelength" does it not? put the whole of milky way in the same reference plane, if you cannot wrap your mind to the fact that, you will detect a redshift from anywhere, since the source itself is red shifted.
Pointless hiding behind the garbage GR and reference frames.
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Looking through the members lists of the names we have brought up in the past, you know, posting history, sign up dates, last visit dates etc, there is pretty strong evidence that you are one and the same.

And if not, then regardless...alarm bells should ring in regard to the CELL phone measurement... like... HUGE alarm bells.

So tell me, is the cell phone measurement problematic or not, and if not, why not?


edit on 12-4-2019 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
what alarm bells are you talking about? try the experiment if you have a smart phone as I don't have one
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

I can tell you the experiment doesn't work, for reasons iv already told you. Iv done the experiment, and its deeply flawed because

1) A cell phone CCD is not a spectrometer.
2) Its colour resolution is basically very very poor
3) Its bit depth is very very poor.

The experiment should be done with a tight width LED without saturating the CCD

If what you say is actually true, the shift in perceived wavelength should be enormous just looking at lights on the ground vs like say airplanes. News flash... they are not.

Iv also got a nice bit of evidence from using flashlamps and going 2km underground. There isn't an observed perceable shift in 'white' light from the lamp. So... paper, is deeply flawed and proves absolutely nothing
edit on 12-4-2019 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
i'll try to borrow someones phone to do it. what values did you get? you seem to be not competent at any experimentation. by the values shown in the paper, yes blueshift is there regardless whether you claim it not to be so, is not relevant.
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

you assessment of my experimental competence is based on what exactly? The author of the paper in question (IE you most likely) shows incompetence by not knowing the CCD is railed... but... yeah, projecting that to say im incompetent... despite the fact i have several publications in... respected... journals rather than pay to publish/fake non-peer reviewed journals...



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

you assessment of my experimental competence is based on what exactly? The author of the paper in question (IE you most likely) shows incompetence by not knowing the CCD is railed... but... yeah, projecting that to say im incompetent... despite the fact i have several publications in... respected... journals rather than pay to publish/fake non-peer reviewed journals...
What were your values? i'll let you know mine after I do the expt and will also let you know, if I ever publish any papers.
btw, link me to your papers.
tho the observation mentioned in the op and the black hole pic from m87 galaxy, both vindicate my thought theories



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

You conducted this experiment which is on YouTube to prove anti-gravity. Where's the data? Did you repeat it? Did anyone else repeat it? You never present any hard data or comparative analysis. Why should anyone waste time on your work?

You don't seem to follow the scientific method - you know, the one that everyone else in the scientific community follows?




The YouTube will not upload for some reason - here's the direct link: www.youtube.com...
edit on 13-4-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
1) A cell phone CCD is not a spectrometer.
Coincidentally, I was recently looking at another case of pseudoscience and the talk page on Wikipedia was pretty brutal about the notion of trying to do spectrometry from devices that are not designed to do spectrometry, but some people attempt it anyway. This is one of the less brutal observations which tries to explain how the concept is flawed:

Talk: Phoenix Lights

To be really clear here - the problem with even the concept of doing spectral analysis of a photograph is that the photographic emulsion consists of three light-sensitive dyes - one is responsive to red light, another to green and the third to blue. Digital photography works the same way...as to do our eyes. If you take the light from a photograph or a computer screen - or even attempt to do math to seek out the light frequencies present in a digital or emulsion photograph - all you'll get is the spectrum from the three dyes, pigments or phosphors present in the imaging device. The result is essentially three colored lines...nothing like a useable spectrum. A true spectral analysis would have had to be done from the direct light from the actual Phoenix lights themselves. Such analysis, done by some incredible flook or foresight while the actual event was happening, would have yielded some invaluable information as to the true sources of those lights. But carrying out any such analysis on the photograph of that light is beyond useless.

So it is 100% clear that this claim is not just untrue - it's completely and utterly naive, crazy! Either the original claimant is an outright liar and did not do the experiment as claimed (seems most likely) or this is someone who is incredibly scientifically naive and therefore in no position to interpret the results in any meaningful manner. Either way, any and all claims from the results of such "analysis" are entirely useless.
What more is there to say?

edit on 2019413 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:13 PM
link   
ive seen the video from the add in the papers. interesting and intriguing
a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Lol, the famous phoenix lights ufos. to get freq from a photograph, pretty whacky idea.
Tho wondering whether the pic of blackhole from m87 galaxy reveal any freqs signatures.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, the famous phoenix lights ufos. to get freq from a photograph, pretty whacky idea.
Tho wondering whether the pic of blackhole from m87 galaxy reveal any freqs signatures.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



So you agree, getting a spectral analysis from a photo is 'whacky' and by extension and identical logic, so is the claim of observing a shift using a cell phone ccd



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, the famous phoenix lights ufos. to get freq from a photograph, pretty whacky idea.
Tho wondering whether the pic of blackhole from m87 galaxy reveal any freqs signatures.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



So you agree, getting a spectral analysis from a photo is 'whacky' and by extension and identical logic, so is the claim of observing a shift using a cell phone ccd
Actually not. A print photo is totally different. Again, what values did you get?



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

A photo from a CCD.... works in exactly the same manner as a photographic emulsion... soooo how is it totally different?



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
a reply to: ErosA433

Eros is right, as usual, it's not totally different. If you read the Phoenix lights spectrographic debunk again, it doesn't just refer to photos, it also refers to anything that uses the three color scheme which includes computers (and modern cell phones are basically hand-held computers). Here is a closeup I happened to have of a computer screen, where if you zoom way in on your cell phone display the pixel shape may vary a bit but you'll get these same three colors and a spectrographic analysis just gives a line for each color:



A photograph also has three colors so with computers (including cell phones) you have the same issue you do with photographs, just three lines, one for each color, not a whole spectrum.



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

A photo from a CCD.... works in exactly the same manner as a photographic emulsion... soooo how is it totally different?
Lol, are you not aware, what the ccd actually analyses, electronically?



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
i'll read your link on the phoenix lights and exactly what transpired with these photographs
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
I'm aware of at least two analyses of the 10PM flare video.
1. Jim Dilettoso claims to have made a spectral analysis showing they weren't flares, and it's his analysis the Wiki talk page debunks. He was completely incompetent and to deflect criticism he claimed he was using software nobody else had but no software can get more than 3 lines when you only have 3 lines.
2. Another firm called Cognitech confirmed they were flares dropped behind the mountain where the Lt Col from the National Guard in the following video says he dropped them. It's the same video Dilettoso analyzed, you can get a glimpse of the video in the analysis shown here:

Phoenix Lights Explained and Debunked


So it's not just a claim that Dilettoso is a nutcase who has no idea how spectral analysis works, we also have the Col who dropped the flares saying yes I dropped them, and another analysis by someone who is competent confirming the claimed location of the drop is what was seen and photographed. So Dilettoso's claim falls apart not only on the technical incompetence of his claim, but on the stack of other lines of evidence showing he's crazy to claim the flares weren't flares. Here's a story about him:

The Hack and the Quack

Perhaps no assertion has been as widely taken for proof that aliens visited Phoenix last March than Dilettoso's claims that his "sophisticated optical analysis" eliminates more prosaic explanations for the March 13 lights. From the Discovery Channel to the Arizona Republic to USA Today, Dilettoso has been advertised as an expert who can divine the nature of lights with his bank of computers. Not one of the publications or programs has described the scientific principles behind Dilettoso's claims.

With the arrival of the Phoenix Lights anniversary, news reports will no doubt mushroom, and Dilettoso and his techniques will receive more attention as reporters breathlessly tell the UFO story of the decade: how Phoenix has, in only a year, become the center of the UFO cosmos, the site of recurring visits by strange aliens, and home of a heroic political avatar.

What they won't tell you is that Dilettoso employs the language of science to mask that, given the tools he uses, he is incapable of doing what he claims to be doing.

So what? you say. Does anyone really care if a few oddballs gain notoriety from science fiction? Who are they hurting?

Dr. Paul Scowen, a visiting professor of astronomy at Arizona State University, cares.

"I become quite offended when people pull this sort of nonsense," Scowen says. "We in the science business make our living doing this stuff to the best ability we can, and applying all of the knowledge that humankind has assembled to this point in science to figure out what's going on. . . .

"Why should people care? Because it's been so high-profile and they've been told lies. That's why people should care."


If Savvy claims to do spectral analysis with a cell phone, maybe they can write a similar article about him, though Dilettoso was much higher profile than Savvy, so maybe nobody cares what false claims are made by Savvy.

edit on 2019414 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Lol, good one. But Eros has done the expt, but will not reveal his results.
Thanks for all the info tho. This phoenix lights sighting was a long while ago, I would imagine.
a reply to: Arbitrageur







 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join