## 20150819

### Tired Light Theory vs. Untiring Light Theory

Blog 20150819

Captain Bligh writes: “Are you saying that light shifts its energy when encountering a new medium?”

This question was stimulated by my discussion of why the speed of light decreases by 25% when it enters water. That’s right, although light travels at 300 million m/s in vacuum, it travels at only 225 million m/s in water. Now, from the neomechanical standpoint we are reminded that light is motion. Light is not a thing, so strictly speaking, the word “it” does not apply to “it” (see how difficult it is to avoid using the nominative case for what is really a predicate?).  Another  lesson: Even if light was a microcosm (which it is not, despite Einstein’s claim), “it” would not be able to change “its” own motion independent of all else. All changes in motion—accelerations—are the result of collisions between microcosms. If light were a microcosm, it might decelerate by 25% when it entered water, but there would be nothing to cause it to accelerate 33% when it left the water. Nothing of the sort ever occurs, of course, because light is motion. It is not a thing.

Now, remember that the velocity of wave motion is determined by the medium in which it occurs. Thus, the velocity of sound in air is 343 m/s, while the velocity of sound in iron is 5,120 m/s. Because sound, like light, is a motion and not a thing, the energy concept does not apply to it. Sound, like light, does not have mass, so the kinetic energy equation would be written as:

KE = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 (0)*v2 = 0

Note, however, that the E=mc2 equation remains valid for explaining the transfer of submicrocosmic (internal) motion to supermicrocosms (aether particles) in the macrocosm. Nonetheless, the KE equation above explains why there is no gain or loss of energy when light or sound enters a new medium. It also is one of the reasons Einstein had to consider his light corpuscle, the photon, to be massless. Of course it had to be massless, since it really did not exist. It had no xyz dimensions because light is motion, not matter—the petard bedeviling relativity at every turn.

All this leads to the “tired light theory” favored by Edwin Hubble. The indeterministic opposite of that theory might be called the “untiring light theory.” Regressive physicists, who invariably favor such idealisms, see no reason for light to be affected by their imagined “perfectly empty space” through which it supposedly travels as a particle for 13.8 billion years from galaxy to eyeball. But, as I have proclaimed before: “In neomechanics, no microcosm or motion of microcosms could travel from point A to B without losses.” In the real world we cannot transmit electricity from New York to San Francisco without losses. Light is the same. Theoretically, all wave motion should behave the same way even though the losses may be insignificant at short distances. It is claimed that sound waves are redshifted when the distance is great enough (Pallidin, 2004). That is because of neomechanical interactions between the particles in the medium required for wave motion. All microcosms follow the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Thus, aether-1, which we speculate is the medium for light transmission, is made up of aether-2 particles. This means that some of the motion of aether-1 particles must be absorbed internally and taken up by the submicrocosms we call aether-2 (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011) via Type C neomechanical interactions (Borchardt. 2007). Regressive physicists, being steadfast aether deniers and believers in finity, remain estranged from any such ideas. That was not the case with Hubble, who discovered the cosmic redshifts and had this to say: "If they are valid, it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." (Hubble, 1947).

References

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html ]

Hubble, Edwin, 1947, The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve: Publications of the astronomical society of the Pacific, v. 59, no. 349, p. 165.

Pallidin, 2004, Why does sound wave frequency not decrease over distance?, Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community [ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-sound-wave-frequency-not-decrease-over-distance.15125/ ].

Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for this excellent, coherent explanation regarding light.
It is clear that particles exist in motion. A wave motion in the aether is referred to as “light”. Motion can not include any reference to mass in a definition of the word. Because light is properly understood as motion, this explains why there is no mass found in the mythical “photon”. Where there is the absence of mass, there is no existence. This is a logical indisputable truth.

Anton Dahr said...

Hi, and thanks for supporting real science!

If the universe expands so that electromagnetic waves stretch out, why would not matter, which is made from electromagnetism, also stretch, thus making matter particles larger, and likely their absorption/emission spectra shifted equally? Why would we be able to notice that the universe has expanded? It seems to me that the cosmic expansion hypothesis is based on a very far-fetched assumption, that matter would not change at all from the expansion.

(I get why large matter clusters would not expand.)

On another note I think it is exciting that we have discovered an absolute frame of reference in the CMB! BTW, is the CMB the aether's re-emission of the energy absorbed through the lossy light transmission?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Anton:

Welcome, and thanks for the comment. Please remember that the expansion hypothesis (rejected by Hubble) is based on Einstein's Untired Light Theory. In addition to hypothesizing perpetual motion, that theory is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No thing or motion travels from Point A to Point B without energy losses. So forget about the expanding universe hypothesis.

All microcosms in the Infinite Universe are in motion with respect to all other microcosms, so forget also about an "absolute frame of reference." The CMB proves that Einstein was wrong about space being empty. Temperature (in this case 2.7K) can only be produced by matter. You may be right that some of this is indicative of the energy losses undergone by light as it produces the cosmological redshift over great distances.