# Light Calculations for Webb Telescope

Page

**1**of**1**## Light Calculations for Webb Telescope

I was on a physics email list a few years ago and I still get emails occasionally that mostly go to Spam. But I checked out this one, which I think is interesting and relevant for this forum. I'll quote the whole thing, as it's not too long.

James Webb pictures

Jul 19 at 3:33 PM

uitterdijk

To: Sjaak & Lutske

Dear Physicist, James Webb pictures

_The interpretations of the James Webb pictures on the one hand rest on the assumption, as prescribed by the theory of relativity, that the velocity of light in vacuum is c relative to any reference, so also relative to the telescope under consideration.

_On the other hand the so-called red shift of the cosmological light, observed by this instrument, is calculated by means of the expression

fr - fs = fs vsr/c.

_This expression is deduced from: fr = fs(c+vsr)/c, with fs the frequency transmitted by the source, fr the frequency as perceived by the receiver/telescope and vsr the velocity between source and receiver.

_The term c+vsr explicitly represents the velocity of the light relative to the receiver and c represents simultaneously the velocity of that same light relative to its source.

_Just like for example a car driving 100 km/h relative to the road and simultaneously 200 km/h relative to a car driving 100 km/h on the same road in the opposite direction.

So, if the velocity relative to the receiver were also c, as prescribed by the theory of relativity, a Doppler/red shift would not be measured!

_I would be surprised if I now explained something spectacular regarding the Doppler effect. Yet this contradiction with the fundamental assumption, as shown in the theory of relativity, is ignored by using the mentioned mathematical expression, or by its "theory of relativity version”:

fr = fs √ (c + vsr )/√ (c - vsr) ~ fs(c+vsr)/c for vsr << c.

_So the choice is: accept the theory of relativity and reject the generally accepted measure of Doppler shift; or reject that theory and accept that method of measuring Doppler shift.

_As follows from the mathematical expression a Doppler/red shift can only be calculated if either fs or vsr is known. Normally fs is known and vsr is calculated.

_In the situation under consideration both are unknown (the only knowledge about fs is that its value lies somewhere between 300 and 500 TeraHz), so the question is: what is effectively presented about the velocity of the alleged expanding universe by means of the James Webb telescope?

_Kind regards,

_Sjaak Uitterdijk

_END OF MESSAGE

I guess he's Dutch.

The high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy (discussed on the Thunderbolts.info forum) proves that redshift isn't always caused by the Doppler effect. In fact it's rarely due to Doppler. As physicist John Kierein has concluded, redshift is generally due to the Compton effect, which is a measure of ionization. This means the universe isn't expanding at high velocity and that the distances to celestial objects are largely unknown. So the telescope doesn't need to calculate the Doppler effect. By the way, Kierein also concluded long ago that photons have mass. He believes that gravity is caused by longwave radiation, i.e. IR or Radio photons. Do any of the rest of you all here have any comments on any of this?

James Webb pictures

Jul 19 at 3:33 PM

uitterdijk

To: Sjaak & Lutske

Dear Physicist, James Webb pictures

_The interpretations of the James Webb pictures on the one hand rest on the assumption, as prescribed by the theory of relativity, that the velocity of light in vacuum is c relative to any reference, so also relative to the telescope under consideration.

_On the other hand the so-called red shift of the cosmological light, observed by this instrument, is calculated by means of the expression

fr - fs = fs vsr/c.

_This expression is deduced from: fr = fs(c+vsr)/c, with fs the frequency transmitted by the source, fr the frequency as perceived by the receiver/telescope and vsr the velocity between source and receiver.

_The term c+vsr explicitly represents the velocity of the light relative to the receiver and c represents simultaneously the velocity of that same light relative to its source.

_Just like for example a car driving 100 km/h relative to the road and simultaneously 200 km/h relative to a car driving 100 km/h on the same road in the opposite direction.

So, if the velocity relative to the receiver were also c, as prescribed by the theory of relativity, a Doppler/red shift would not be measured!

_I would be surprised if I now explained something spectacular regarding the Doppler effect. Yet this contradiction with the fundamental assumption, as shown in the theory of relativity, is ignored by using the mentioned mathematical expression, or by its "theory of relativity version”:

fr = fs √ (c + vsr )/√ (c - vsr) ~ fs(c+vsr)/c for vsr << c.

_So the choice is: accept the theory of relativity and reject the generally accepted measure of Doppler shift; or reject that theory and accept that method of measuring Doppler shift.

_As follows from the mathematical expression a Doppler/red shift can only be calculated if either fs or vsr is known. Normally fs is known and vsr is calculated.

_In the situation under consideration both are unknown (the only knowledge about fs is that its value lies somewhere between 300 and 500 TeraHz), so the question is: what is effectively presented about the velocity of the alleged expanding universe by means of the James Webb telescope?

_Kind regards,

_Sjaak Uitterdijk

_END OF MESSAGE

I guess he's Dutch.

The high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy (discussed on the Thunderbolts.info forum) proves that redshift isn't always caused by the Doppler effect. In fact it's rarely due to Doppler. As physicist John Kierein has concluded, redshift is generally due to the Compton effect, which is a measure of ionization. This means the universe isn't expanding at high velocity and that the distances to celestial objects are largely unknown. So the telescope doesn't need to calculate the Doppler effect. By the way, Kierein also concluded long ago that photons have mass. He believes that gravity is caused by longwave radiation, i.e. IR or Radio photons. Do any of the rest of you all here have any comments on any of this?

**Lloyd**- Posts : 191

Join date : 2022-04-12

Chromium6 likes this post

Similar topics

» About Expansion and light

» c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

» Calculations on Equation of State - PVT

» The Event Horizon Telescope experiment

» Light Speed

» c, the speed of light, and the BPhoton

» Calculations on Equation of State - PVT

» The Event Horizon Telescope experiment

» Light Speed

Page

**1**of**1****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum