Re: Redshift without expansion

Ive responded to all replies here in one post...
From: Jan Panteltje
Hi, it does not make sense to me, yes you can set up those observers,
but given c for lightspeed, and equal distance for observers,
and you say f (color) changes [for those observers], then what makes
it change?
There ar several theories, 'tired light' was discussed here, some static
'electrostatic effect' was also discussed, the consensus is doppler, due to
that the observers are moving away from each other, what do you propose the
mechanism is here?
Hi Jan. George pointed out errors and Ive fixed and simplified the
illustration below so it should be clearer now hopefully?
As far as the mechanism goes, well what Im doing here
is only supplying redshifted data and showing that the data does indeed
show light as a wave propogating out at constant speeds
where the universe isnt expanding.
As far as a mechanism goes well I dont know yet what the vacuum
is or why reality exists. Then again no other theory except maybe
creationism can say why we are here.And no theory has yet to explain
what the vacuum is made of and how light can propogate as a wave in it.
Certainly not the standard model. So I dont see the need to
work out mechanisms just yet. Except to say that energy appears to
propogate out through a vacuum and that we can detect it
as oscillating frequencies of energy at points in space.
Quite why light frequencies are observed to decrease the farther
from source isnt something I can comment on except to say,..
Thats whats observed so we`ll have to accept it as fact.
My advantage is that although I dont supply a explanation
as to why the observors light gets redder with distance,
I dont have to add in a expanding universe. Which isnt explained
by BB theorists either.
Its worth pointing out though that if light were to not
decrease in observed frequency the farther from source in a non
expanding universe it would then be travelling at infinite speeds
Look at my graph and imagine if observor 1 and 2 were seeing
the same freqeuncy. The lines would be horizontal and instantaneous
travel would be a reality. Which isnt observed.
In other words the data shows us that if light travels
at a constant speed c , it would have to lose frequency
with distance. So in a sense thats my explanation of why light
redshifts. It has to to fit the mathematical model.
That mathematicians (like Uncle phineas) havent realized
this going back to when redshift was discovered is a monument
to their collective stupidity.

From: David A. Smith
Sounds like dispersion. As the "light wave" moves outwards from
the source, a dispersive medium will remove energy from the wave,
yielding a loss in energy (frequency).
Of course a dispersive medium affects different wavelengths
differently, and fails to describe the "red shift" of the
duration of type Ia supernovae...
Ive already shown on newsgroups how these
conclusions of SN never checked if the data fitted a
non expanding model. Look at any paper and youll see
that at no time is z replaced with 0 in any formula
calculations.
The second point is if you do substitute z with 0 then you can
fit the available raw SN data to a non dilated template and
show as a good a fit as that of a dilated template. The problem is
that the data available in about 25% of cases at least has been altered
to
fit the dilated template by having its flux increased or
decreased by up to 15% because the data DIDNT fit the dilated model.
Read Knop 12 903 to see even he admits this fiddle. So in these
examples the fit doesnt work as well to a non dilated template
but..if one removes the 15% adjustment then all examples fit a
non dilated template as well as a dilated template.


From: George Dishman

The energy is proportional to the frequency so
the fact that more distant observers see lower
frequencies means that energy _is_ being lost
however you explain it.

Im not exactly sure what you mean here.
Are you saying that this idea cant work because
each observor sees less energy in my model and
that has to be explained by me as this isnt observed
by astronomers. Or are you saying astronomers
observe less energy and this isnt explained by
my model?

I think you got it wrong somewhere, observers 2, 3
and 4 all see the same frequency in your diagram.
? No. How did you figure that? Look again Observor
2
Also observer 2 doesn't see a consistent frequency,
the gaps between the '1's are unequal. You also
seem to have lost the cycles I have labelled 1u, 1v,
1w, 1y and 1z.

Sorry Ive revised it so each observor should *now* have a
constant observed frequency. Ive also reduced it to
two observors at twice the distance and twice the
frequency which represents the idea better
as it can scale up or down infinitely.
As you can see all light propogation is
at the same speed and its constant in all
examples.
(distance across in units, time down
in equal units per line)

0 1/2 1

Source observor1 observor2
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x(yy) 0
1x 0 0 (yy)
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 0
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
As for your point that lines disappear as in example
above..at (yy). This is an illusion as in fact
these lines are virtual paths. They dont represent
a photon travelling through space but rather
show lines of peaks through space/time and are
only there to show that the peaks of each freqeuncy
which are themselves only abstract units can be traced
through time at constant speeds. Dont forget speed is an
abstract concept only on paper. We derive speed from
mathematically combining distance and time. Which
is what Ive done above. Instead of a object
measured at various points in space/time and deriving
an abstract speed. I measure frequencies at various
points in space time and draw abstract lines
from one peak to the next previous peak and back to
source and derive a constant speed in all cases.
Also please note,.. at (yy) in fact NO cycle is broken
nor any interruption of energy is observed.
See how observor 2 at (yy) experiences no
loss of energy or interruption of observed
frequency.
Im open to you pointing out any other errors
but it seems to me Ive got it above correct now
and it is indisputable that the illustration
shows a non expanding universe with a constant
c where the observed frequency diminishes
with distance.
Sean

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uh Oh, Discrepancy Alert
    ... gravitational field has zillions of such 'locally inertial reference ... We do know it could be bent by the gravity of a star. ... it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it ... speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial frames. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Adding miles.
    ... Speed is not "adding path distances". ... It is not a derived result of Euclidean geometry. ... For faster speeds, just as for paths with components in different ... "Moving observers" is close to meaningless, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why is the Speed Of Light Constant?
    ... "Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- ... no matter what their relative speeds." ... "The speed of light is the same for all observers in uniform motion" ... Einstein "derives" what everyone thought was a postulate, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why is the Speed Of Light Constant?
    ... "Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- ... no matter what their relative speeds." ... "The speed of light is the same for all observers in uniform motion" ... Einstein "derives" what everyone thought was a postulate, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why is the Speed Of Light Constant?
    ... "Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- the ... no matter what their relative speeds." ... "The speed of light is the same for all observers in uniform motion" ... Einstein "derives" what everyone thought was a postulate, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading