Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: "sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Jun 2006 02:30:51 -0700
Craig Markwardt wrote:
"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:Im giving the wrong signals out then sorry. Im trying to illustrate how
...
See above. It is the field which is "waving." There is no transferWhat is it waving in? I dont think the standard model explains this. To
of charge.
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.
What do you mean, what is it waving "in?" The medium is the field
itself. It occupies whatever space it occupies.
You are arguing too closely by analogy to water waves.
the maxwell model *isnt* like water waves in that it dosnt offer a
mechanical explanation. I find it difficult to see how we can be so
certain that EM propogates as oscillating flux & mag fields in a vacuum
when magnetism or the vacuum isnt understood.
No sorry about the confusion, Ill try to simplify theEXAMPLE 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
You are showing two solitary waves. What does this have to do with
electromagnetic waves, which are periodic, and have a semi-fixed
wavelength? I.e. the wavecrests do not "spread apart" as you show.
illustration.
Its one wave with a wavelength *0* long at year 1 that stretches
to wavelength *0000000* long in year 4 after having travelled
4 light years.As below...
00000000000000*0000000*0000000000 year4
000000000000000*00000*00000000000 year3
0000000000000000*000*000000000000 year2
00000000000000000*0*0000000000000 year1
*
|
source
And if the distance between each year is constant then
the graph shows the wave stretching while it travels
at a constant speed.
But I have so much trouble getting this understood maybe think
like this. Imagine you are looking at stock market electronic
ticker board that has a row of lights in a line. Each light
is represented below as a 0.
0000
Now imagine if each of these lights turned on and off.
But the first did so once every 2 seconds , the second
light once every 4 seconds the third every eight seconds
and the fourth once every 16 seconds.
You would get this pattern as time progresses..
1 sec *0*0
2 sec 000*
3 sec *000
4 sec 0*00
5 sec *000
6 sec 0000
7 sec *000
8 sec 0*00
9 sec *0*0
10 sec0000
11 sec*000
12 sec0*00
13 sec*000
14 sec0000
15 sec*000
16 sec0*00
17sec *0*0
18 sec000*
Notice that at 15 seconds a pattern starts so that the first
light goes on at 15 sec, the second at 16 sec,the third at
17sec, the fourth at 18 seconds. A constant speed between
lights is shown. Yet each light is flashing on at a
different frequency. In fact the same progression is seen
starting at 3,7,and 11 seconds although they last 2 or 3
lights only. The important point being; their speed is also
1 light forward per second.
Sean
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: Craig Markwardt
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- References:
- Redshift without expansion
- From: sean
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: sean
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: sean
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: sean
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: Craig Markwardt
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: sean
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: Craig Markwardt
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: sean
- Re: Redshift without expansion
- From: Craig Markwardt
- Redshift without expansion
- Prev by Date: Re: Redshift without expansion
- Next by Date: Re: Redshift without expansion
- Previous by thread: Re: Redshift without expansion
- Next by thread: Re: Redshift without expansion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|