20131016

Types of Redshift in an Aether Medium (Part 2)


Type III Redshifts Produced by Changes in the Density of the Medium

In general, a dense medium conducts wave motion faster than a less dense medium. For instance, sound travels at 343 m/s in air, 1,484 m/s in water, and 5,120 m/s in iron. The main reason for this is the closeness of the particles involved. That is why you can hear a train coming 15 times earlier by putting your ear to the railroad track. According to neomechanics, the medium for light is aether. Light travels at nearly 300,000 km/s in vacuum, but at only 225,000 km/s in water. This is because crowding by water molecules allows less room for aether in water than in vacuum. Because of this reduction in aether density, the wavelength (l) of light traveling from air to water is reduced according to the equation: 

lwater = lair/n                  (1)

The
refractive index (n) for water is (300,000 km/s)/(225,000 km/s) = 1.333. The wavelength of light is shortened to 75% of what it would have been in vacuum. Thus, sodium light with a wavelength of 589 nm in air has a wavelength of 442 nm in water. The number of cycles per second (frequency), however, remains unchanged, but because the light is slower, it travels less distance during each cycle, resulting in a shorter wavelength. As an example, if a 100 cycle/s wave travelled in air at about 300,000 km/s, it would have a length of 3,000 km. If the 100 cycle/s wave travelled in water at 225,000 km/s, it would have a length of 2,250 km. After leaving the water for the aether-rich air, the wave again would have a length of 3,000 km. Again, during the transition from water-to-air, the number of cycles/s would not change—only the velocity of light would change due to the increased aether density in air. The color of light is dependent on the frequency, not the wavelength. Thus, red laser light entering and exiting a glass of water remains red throughout the process. Note that this is another proof that light is a wave and not a particle. If it were a particle, it would require a tremendous, inordinately mysterious force for it to accelerate instantaneously from 225,000 km/s to 300,000 km/s. Of course, regressive physicists have a nice song and dance for the gullible explaining how “light particles” maintain the 300,000 km/s velocity while spinning around and being absorbed and emitted by water molecules.

One of the most important Einsteinisms (predictions that come true, but for the wrong reason) is termed the “gravitational redshift.” By using his corpuscular theory of light, Einstein predicted that photons would gain energy under the "pull" of gravity, becoming blueshifted. Photons leaving a gravitational field would lose energy as they “fought against gravity,” becoming redshifted. A famous experiment performed by Pound and Rebka (1960)[1] at a 22.5-m tower at Harvard showed that electromagnetic radiation indeed was blueshifted when directed down the tower and redshifted when directed up the tower. Many subsequent experiments have confirmed the effect, with light emitted from all sources, such as galaxies and even galactic clusters being redshifted.

The neomechanical explanation of the misnamed “gravitational redshift” denies that light can be affected by gravity, simply based on the assumption that light is motion, not matter. What is affected by gravity is the diluent contaminating the aether medium through which the light wave travels. As in the water example, the aether in Earth’s atmosphere is diluted by ordinary baryonic matter—mostly nitrogen and oxygen. Because there is less aether, light will travel slower near sea level than at high altitude where there is more aether. As we mentioned previously, aether pressure varies inversely with atmospheric pressure[2]. In this, Einstein once again got lucky. Even though light is not a particle, as he had assumed, gravity causes the macroscopic conditions that influence the transmission of light waves, but gravity does not directly affect the waves.
 
Now, this effect is tiny, with the index of refraction of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level being only 1.000277. This means that light under natural conditions in the atmosphere travels at (300,000 km/s) / 1.000277 = 299,917 km/s—0.0277% slower than in vacuum. For yellow light with a wavelength of 589 nm, the reduction in velocity due to Earth’s entire atmosphere would produce a reduction in wavelength of only 0.163 nm, which normally would be undetectable. Nonetheless, the Mossbauer setup used by Pound and Rebka was so sensitive that they were able to claim a frequency change of only 1 part in 1015 for the gamma rays they used. In terms of wavelength, this would be a reduction in the 589-nm wavelength of sodium light by only 5.89 X 10-13 nm. The wavelength of light going away from Earth would be increased by a similarly tiny amount, as the velocity of light increases due to increasing aether density. Now, Pound and Rebka were exceedingly clever in that they used flowing helium gas to displace the atmospheric gases that would have produced the above degree of natural refraction. Thus, their measurement involves no significant refraction because the refractive index of helium gas is negligible and, in any case, would not be expected to have a significant gravitational gradient within the 22.5 m used in the experiment. On the other hand, aether, being densest in the distal portion of the vortex formed by each rotating body, such as Earth, always has a pressure gradient. That is, after all, what produces gravity according to our Neomechanical Gravitation Theory. This means that the "gravitational redshift" is produced by two factors: 1) natural refraction in the atmosphere and 2) increases in distal aether density due to vortex rotation of the cosmic body in question.

The result is a redshift indeed, but it is not a direct effect of gravitation as Einstein supposed. It is simply due to refraction and/or the aether pressure gradient surrounding all massive bodies, the same petard that bedevilled Eddington’s “proof” that space was curved and that light was affected by gravity in 1919. As in the Eddington experiment, it certainly is no proof that light is a particle, as erroneously interpreted by Pound and Rebka and Einstein’s followers. The equation for the experiment can be expressed as:

                          c = lu                        (2)

Where:

c = velocity of light, 300,000 km/s
l = wavelength, nm
u = frequency, cycles/s

This implies that, if c is assumed constant, then frequency must increase whenever wavelength decreases. If c should actually decrease due to refraction, as it does in water, then the wavelength would decrease by the corresponding fraction while the frequency would not. However, by assuming that both c and l were constant, Pound and Rebka were forced to conclude instead that the frequency actually increased. Because there is no known reason for frequency to change during refraction, they then attributed the faux frequency shift to gravitation and its attendant “time dilation.” Thus if one erroneously assumes that time can dilate, each second would be slightly longer, the frequency would then remain the same, and c would too. This is the origin of "time dilation" in relativity, even though time is motion and cannot possibly dilate or contract. Dilation is invariably used to protect the constancy of and maintain the ruse that light does not need a medium. The upshot on Pound and Rebka: good data; bad interpretation.




[1] Pound, R.V., and Rebka, G.A., 1960, Apparent Weight of Photons: Physical Review Letters, v. 4, no. 7, p. 337-341.

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.


2 comments:

dehilster said...

Glen, I do not understand this phrase "This is because crowding by water molecules allows less room for aether in water than in vacuum." I know what you are saying but where do the "thrown away aether particles go? Do they bounce off water? Where do they go? I'm not picturing that part. Seems like they would All continue through. Maybe at a different speed?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Aether particles are what baryonic matter is made of. They don’t “bounce off water,” but are crowded out by the baryonic matter in water. In other words, wherever there is baryonic matter (complexed aether), there can be no free, active aether, which is what is required for light transmission. It is sort of like running across a grassy field compared to running through the jungle. The presence of thick vegetation, as well as the presence of water molecules, is sure to slow you down. Once you get through the jungle, you can travel at your regular velocity. Light behaves the same way.

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html