Re: Redshift without expansion


Craig Markwardt wrote:
"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Craig Markwardt wrote:
"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
...
But at each point in space the EM wave isnt bobbing up and down nor
back and forth. And Ive never heard a explanation from any theorist,
Maxwell or otherwise that offers an explanation how the energy
is transfered mechanically.

That's because an electromagnetic wave is not mechanical. Classical
electromagnetic waves consist of an oscillating electric and magnetic
field. The field is doing the waving.
Yes I agree . Thats exactly what I was saying. And thats why my
statistical model does work because it doesnt rely on EM waves being a
mechanical `wave`. In fact it only works for me if the waving doesnt
move in space. As you say each theoretical point in the vacuum doesnt
move but is observed to oscilatte electrically and magnetically. The
big question is how does the electrical charge transfer itself to the
next point. How does each point transfer its energy to the next point?

See above. It is the field which is "waving." There is no transfer
of charge.
What is it waving in? I dont think the standard model explains this. To
have a wave one needs a physical medium to wave in . To say it waves in
a vacuum and not explain what the vacuum is made of seems incomplete.
And if one cant say for sure *how* a wave propogates energy through
space
then one cannot rule out that a non expanding universe with a constant
c can allow the observed frequency to diminish with distance.

Well, one could argue about what "for sure" means, but the nature of
propagation of radiation is known very precisely, and does not agree
with your "picture."
I disagree, sorry about that, as I generally appreciate your
constructive criticism where its valid. But ,please be more
specific.What known part of the nature of the propogation of radiation
does not agree with my model? I cant see any data in my model that has
a conflict with known observed properties of EMR.
...

Your model shows "*"'s disappearing, which is indicative of
disappearing wavecrests. [ You don't define what "*"s are, but since
you use the "distance" between them as a measure of wavelength, it is
evident that you are claiming that wavecrests vanish. ] This is not
observed. Very sensitive tests of gravitational redshift have been
done with spacecraft and pulsars, and it is possible to track
individual cycles/pulses at a given frequency. None are lost.
Fundamentally, that is why your "theory" is incorrect.
Ill have to disagree again, sorry. My apologies. The horizontal axis
you say is
distance, isnt distance,.. it`s the time axis. Distance is on the
vertical axis.
If you say pulsars show that wavecrests dont disappear. Then thats good

news for me because my model stipulates that they shouldnt disappear
either.
But let me also show how nothing disappears at the lines of *`s
Here is a diagram showing the data differently. Ive put
distance/wavelength across the top and time up the side.
Observor A sees 4 beats, B 8 , C 16 and D 32. As you can see no
wave disappears. It just gets larger in wavelength.

EXAMPLE A (time should be even increments between A-B-C-D but
I cant do this here with the type restrictions)
*000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*
00*00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*0
0000*0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*0
000000*000000000000000000000000000000000000000*000
00000000*00000000000000000000000000000000000*00000
D 0000000000*0000000000000000000000000000000*0000000
000000000000*000000000000000000000000000*000000000
00000000000000*00000000000000000000000*0000000000
0000000000000000*0000000000000000000*00000000000
C 000000000000000000*000000000000000*0000000000000
00000000000000000000*00000000000*000000000000000
B 0000000000000000000000*0000000*00000000000000000
A 000000000000000000000000*000*0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000**00000000000000000000
|
source

Yet if I were to show the same data like this as in
previous posts..
EXAMPLE B
D 00000*0000000000000000000000000000000*000
C 0000*000000000000000*000000000000000*00
B 000*0000000*0000000*0000000*0000000*000
A 00*000*000*000*000*000*000*000*000*000*
O-source

Here you can see the *`s disappearing. But no wavecrests disappear.as
example A
confirms. Example B is time across the top, distance down the side. It
also happens to work well as distance redshift down the side.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vertical Monopole Radiation Characteristics
    ... field intensity at a given distance over real ground, ... distance over real ground as being that of the radiation launched by ... except only the people who misunderstand surface wave propagation are being misled. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... are calling wavelength. ... wave stuff if you have something else that works. ... The distance between the two points varies with rope ... starts out in phase but which travels at different speeds with no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... for the target moving away or towards the source. ... the distance between source and target will ... source through the beam splitter of the interferometer to the ... actually I can also use a sound wave or water wave ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?
    ... the wave equation for light is used as ... One can also define a meaning for distance that isn't ... > But that is all the significance there is to geometry. ... > In different universe with different physics, all of our concepts, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • ASCS: Tuesdays Top Ten on Thursday 2006-06-01
    ... with a few hundred miles or so disappearing into the distance of the ... rearview mirror along with the incessant ticking of the clock. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.info)