Originally posted by: kengreen
"you really are a glutton for punishment. "
Perhaps, perhaps not. I seem to get the impression that you get wounded, and retire hurt, more often from these verbal jousts than I do.
"Your addiction to Theory-speak would be comical were you not so obviously sincere."
Theories are needed to be able to interpret what we observe and measure. As has been shown throughout the history of science and engineering the interpretation of experiment results can change with time. As to whether I am addicted to one particular theoretical framework I don't know; I was under the impression that I am less addicted than most, but that may be a delusion on my part.
I haven't found a way to talk about, observe and experiment on the world in a way that is completely independent of theory. I am not aware of anyone who has. Until I get the chance to evaluate evidence of your new model for discourse perhaps as presented in your book, I will continue with my theory-speak as you call it. It's all I have since I don't claim that reasoning via induction, from the particular to the general, is a reliable and solid foundation for all knowledge.
"(a)... The observed red shift in light received from distant bodies is attributed to a Doppler effect as the universe expands? This comes in two flavours - which do treasure the most?"
I have heard of flavours referred to in particle physics speak, but not sure what you are referring to here...
(b)...the Doppler effect was described with reference to sound waves as they proPpagate using the air as a medium. It is not gEenerally realised that two different effects are in action caused by (i) motion of the sound-source relative to the medium, which changes any pressure pattern laid down in a medium and (ii) motion of an observer relative to the medium which affects the interpretation of any pressure- pattern.
As far as I am aware you can't measure source effects independent of receiver effects (its the relative velocity that is measured), although in many cases it is possible to disentangle source and receiver effects due to asymmetries in the physical problem.
In regard to an expanding universe one simple 'theoretical' assumption is that the universe is expanding away from us in the same way in all directions. This gives an isotropic and uniform red shift on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in every direction that we we look. The motion of our planet, the sun, our galaxy and galaxy cluster show up as dipole type distributions on this field, with components which change on various timescales; for example changes associated with the orbit of the earth around the sun produce changes on the timescale of a year.
"QUESTION: ... to which of these physically-different effects would you apply to the red-shifting of e-m radiations?"
There is active source Doppler shift and reflective Doppler Radar techniques. In terms of the reflective Doppler radar, I am not entirely sure if the Doppler shift is due to a passive reflection as electromagnetic theory might describe, or as a result of an absorption and re-emission phenomenon. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
"(c )... Have you noticed that the Ffull spectrum of white light, including the several series such as the Balmer series, Ryder series and others, very closely resembles that of a frequency-modulated E-M radiation in which the modulation index has an appreciable value? This must surely implies that any mathematical process applied to e-m radiations must be based on elliptic forms rather than on circular. Please say which of these manipulations Maxwell used in deriving his prognostications."
As you will know from your history Maxwell wrote virtually nothing on the topic of electromagnetic radiation, after establishing his famous wave equation. Electromagnetic reflection and refraction theory was established by Fitzgerald, and the theoretical interpretation of spectra did not really progress until the work of Ritz, and then Bohr.
I won't comment on your frequency-modulated E-M radiation until I have seen them further developed or dismissed as an outrage in your book.