Frank asks:
Why the redshift? Isn't c a supposedly fixed constant regardless of the relative velocities of the producers of electromagnetic radiation and its observers? I like your explanation: c changes due to some interaction with a medium between distant galaxies and our telescopes.
Frank, sorry for not answering this sooner in Part 1. The full answer is in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," the book that Steve Puetz and I were keeping under wraps at the time. Since then, we got it off to press and scientists at CERN, as well as other researchers, have shown that c is not the universal speed limit. A particle they called a neutrino was accelerated to a velocity greater than c. Of course, this challenge to Einstein gives the cosmogonists “some splaining to do.” As you imply, the velocity of light is simply dependent on the properties of the medium through which the wave travels. The upshot of our theory is that aether exists wherever ordinary matter does not. This means that the velocity of light waves will be greatest where aether density is greatest. The cosmogonist’s “perfect vacuum of empty space” has the greatest aether density and therefore the highest light velocity. All cosmic light sources, of course, have surroundings that contain baryonic matter that prevents light waves from attaining the highest velocity.
There are many reasons for the galactic redshift (the scatter in distance vs. redshift curves is huge, indicating that the relationship is multivariate). One of the most important is the gravitational redshift, which is otherwise interpreted by cosmogonists as a proof of GRT (Pound and Rebka, 1960). Each light source is surrounded by what is called a “gravity well.” It is said that light traveling from that source has to “fight gravity,” losing energy in the process. What actually happens is that, the refraction and deflection produced by the interfering baryonic matter increases with nearness to the light source. Due to this interference, the light path near the celestial body is slightly longer than it is in open space. These contortions in the light path amount to a short wavelength. As that light reaches open space, the contortions diminish, the light path straightens out, and the wavelength appears long. Another way of looking at it is from the velocity side. In an extreme example, suppose that 10 waves occur over a distance of 10 meters in 1 second (wavelength of 1 m). Now suppose that those same 10 waves occur over the 10-m distance in 0.9 second (wavelength of 1.11 m)—a redshift. If we nevertheless assume that c is constant, then we are forced to hypothesize silly concepts such as length contraction and/or time dilation like Einstein did to save the theory of relativity.
The upshot of the above is that the wavelength of light is slightly influenced by its velocity, which in turn is dependent on the purity and density of the aether that transmits it. As we hypothesized in UCT, aether density varies (cyclically yet!) throughout the universe, being greatest in the intergalactic regions. We cannot expect that the velocity of light measurements we determine in our messy solar system or within our slightly less messy Milky Way galaxy could possibly apply throughout the universe. Once we give up assuming that c is constant, things fall into place for the 3D universe. Light travels faster through intergalactic regions, stretching luminal wavelengths as a function of the amount of intergalactic distance traveled. The result is an increase in galactic redshift with distance in the 3D universe. As Hubble stubbornly insisted, the galactic redshift occurs primarily because of what happens in the medium between galaxy and telescope. It is not evidence for a universal expansion requiring the fantastic belief in 4 dimensions.
References
Pound, R. V. and G. A. Rebka (1960). "Apparent Weight of Photons."Physical Review Letters 4(7): 337-341. (see also my blog “Redshift of Galaxy Clusters”)
Posts
1 comment:
Re: Vel of Light Part 1 and Part 2
Again, without using circular definitions you must decide what reality is. Matter or motion. You can't have two abstract ideas as one. You could IF you first said that universe is totally made up of matter which is provided by motion. I like the word oscillation between two states one positive and one negative. In that case, maybe it would be better to choose motion or oscillation as a model for what the universe is, as I do. It is an oscillation between two states. This is what the field is.
This oscillation can make up mass as matter, but also it can produce EMR. Two different phenomena that oscillation can produce. It appears that C is fixed, even using Al Kelly's UR or my experimental standard the URP universal ref point. Mass can have velocity added onto it up to the SOL limit which seems to be due to fundamental limit in the field. Don't know why.
Galactic redshift has nothing to do with the SOL. It is a loss frequency over distance travelled. No free lunch. The Field has its rules. Loss of frequency is considered loss of energy by Planck. However, light freq is attenuated by the field, or by interactions with electrons and protons floating free in the intervening non visible to usual methods space, it does lose frequency or energy in its travel. No expansion of space or medium, just simple attenuation.
Light doesn't HAVE a medium, it is a disturbance or change in the medium.
Are you saying matter is mass? Solely. Equivalently?
Yes, a photon can be 10 kms long. Potentially, but not actually even infinitely long. But I prefer to think of them as disturbances in the field that have frequency and wavelength qualities, not that they are actually that long. Infinitesimal photons that make up the phenomena of a photon, are instantaneous actions in the field. Together and in continuous continuity they are a photon.
So, if you were to select matter or motion as the one thing of the universe, I think it would be easier to explain physics to non physicists.
None of the above, by the way disagrees with the 10 assumptions.{I don't think it does) It is just a slightly different way to explain the phenomena.
Blighcapn
Post a Comment