Re: further thougths on CMB vs. Helio redshifts

From: Michael Wood-Vasey (wmwood-vasey@lbl.gov)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:31:06 PDT

  • Next message: Michael Wood-Vasey: "Re: further thougths on CMB vs. Helio redshifts"

    On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:24:38AM -0500, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
    > I'm sure that just using CMB-based redshifts can't be right. I'm
    > realizing that my bastardized approach implicitly ignores length
    > contraction or something like that. Is the result of Eric's work that
    > *heliocentric* redshifts are the right thing to use?

    Alex, Eric, and I keep trying to explain (each in a different way),
    but I don't feel like it's making it across to everyone so I'm
    suckered in to writing yet another email on this.

    Using CMB-based redshifts for everything is fine _if_ you transform
    your observations from our frame to the CMB frame. This means the
    time, wavelength (including bandwidth), and energy of our observations
    all have to be corrected if you want to do this completly in the CMB
    frame.

     - Michael

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:31:07 PDT