Re: A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:46:12 -0700
Dear earthshrink:
<earthshrink@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142184973.420640.122720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's no trick. I've shown that the variation of grating
intervals exactly amounts to a continuously
changing time scale of the receiver.
The same "grating" is used and detects different red shifts from
distant objects. The detected redshift agrees with the duration
of events at those objects, their subtended angular size (where
available), and the intensity of the light from the source.
Clever how the "grating" agrees with the rest of the data.
The receiver's physical scale is not expressly
represented in standard relativistic notation -
Einstein's notion of scale was based on thinking
of space as the possible set of extensions or
relocations of an object (see "The Meaning of
Relativity", chapter 1, first few pages), and he
didn't, evidently, think too much of the measuring
instruments except as being absolutely constant
for the scope of observations at hand.
I doubt that he was that naive. He was well aware of
experimental error, and how that can derive from instrumentation.
Attention to instrument effects and error from
the observational process itself only came later
No.
with Heisenberg's principle and quantum theory.
Not at all. "Attention to instrument effects" started as early
as Galileo, and his attempt to measure c.
What I've pointed out is that the
spectrum analysis process needs to be
considered further for systematic errors.
Have you done any research into what was actually done? I mean,
before you claim everyone else in Science has their head up their
*ss...
To make a fair comparison with relativistic theory,
you'd need to represent the receiver (or
spectrometer)'s physical scale expressly in the
FRW metrics - I did that exercise some years ago
and showed that the correction in fact amounts to
hitherto unobvious additional terms in the
equations of the metric representing the first order
rate of change effects.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0005014 .
These first order effects happen to be proportional
to the source distances,
How does your "grating" know how far away these objects are?
whereas our notions of photons doesn't allow for
such information except in more obvious ways
like 1/r^2 attenuation and simple parallax, so the
big question was where's this source distance
information coming from.
Indeed.
The needed theoretical breakthrough in 2004 was
that it lies in the spectral phase gradients of all
real signals. This has been peer reviewed by
and is being field verified, appropriately, by
signals folks, as mentioned.
Good luck then.
The carrot for us
signals-types is that it would, if found workable,
allow us to overcome Shannon's bounds on
channel capacities in ways unimaginable before,
and other good stuff, including, per my
calculations, realizable separation of radio
signals with precisions of a few metres without
depending on modulation at all!
So whether the effect really does exist - the
equations being damningly hard to avoid (to
many very top radar/signals eyes in this
country) - is a moot question for all of us,
and whether it does the trick for Type 1a SNe
is somewhat of an academic question given
the terrestrial applications.
Your claim starts as if *all* red shifting with distance is a
result of a hitherto unaccounted for error in simple instrument
analysis. Such is a tall order, and is contraindicated by type
Ia Supernovae.
My object in publicising this here is to
hopefully motivate verification from the astro
field (I'm already doing this in the general
physics at the APS), given that we seem to
have gone through signals and radar
perspectives.
Good luck.
[Incidently, re: the Type 1a SNe, I had
informally predicted the Lambda, and the
specific value of q, to several of my
colleagues at IBM including the late
Landauer in ca. 1995-96 based on a hunch
of this problem, but none of those I knew
knew where to look for tests of the hunch.
So the 1998 discoveries got me revisiting
this favourite spectrometric problem of mine
from my undergrad (77-82) days. I was
fortunate to then get a very good mentor
within IBM to look at the Type 1a SNe time
dilation and numerous other aspects of
astrophysics. In retrospect, it shouldn't
matter if the effect falls short of explaining
the Hubble redshifts - it's a basic
systematic error issue and needs to
be checked.]
thanks,
Yep. You have been warned what you will come up against. Your
effect will need to be "in the error bars" of Hubble red shift,
or is already falsified. Therefore must also be undetectable on
terrestrial time and distance scales.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- From: earthshrink
- Re: A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- From: earthshrink
- A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- Prev by Date: Re: Visionaries (leaders) who are wrong:
- Next by Date: Re: Editor's question--altitude/elevation
- Previous by thread: Re: A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- Next by thread: Re: A fundamental Doppler-like frequency scaling effect proportional to source distances
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
