Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
I know that you will all accuse me of trying to hijack this thread but this was one of the very first things that started me off on my theory.
|
You might have shot my explanation down! Are the spectral images you are talking about digital reductions, or unreduced spectral plates?
If the Balwin effects show up in unprocessed images at the same intensity as corrected images, the data reductions in the k corrections are immaterial. Can you elaborate on the data type? Do you know how the images were filtered, ect.?
You should always feel welcome to comment on any thread, as long as you are providing relavent supportive or contradicting evidence. |
No, you are not shot down Jerry. The pictures I was referring to really where pictures-photos in the text book. As light relief from studying "Astronomy and Cosmogony" by Sir James Jeans (lovely name cosmogony) lots of other text books always had photos of galaxies at differing distances showing how the redshift got bigger and bigger. But as uou say the lines became narrower and more distinct the further away the galaxies were. It went against a photographer's (one of my many talents)common sense - where things get less distinct the further away they are.
I suspected a statistical effect and this spurred me on with my tired light effect as the more collisions the photons make, the more repeatable the shifts should be (but put it to one side until i saw your post - didn't know it had a name either) so thanks for that. I will look up the Balwin effect
Cheers Lyndon