Re: Redshift without expansion


sean wrote:
George Dishman wrote:

So * is not the peak but lets you see what the different cycle
time lengths are.

The only way I can understand what you have drawn
is if they represent crests on the voltage waveform
that is propagating, which are commonly known as
peaks and that was the word you used.

No,sorry. I didnt mean `peak` to mean peak amplitude in voltage.

That's what I was trying to get you to explain.

But this does lead back to what is for me, the central question
of this thread...Sunlight in a vacuum is apparently unpolarized.

It is a random mix of all polarisations (roughly, you can
see flows in the surface because they cause some
polarisation).

But how do we know the amplitude fluctuates before we measure it?

Because the voltage waveform out of a receive antenna
is an exact copy of the waveform that was put into the
transmit antenna.

Couldnt it be the case that measuring light introduces this
fluctuation ?

Not easily if you are to explain why the waveform is
preserved.

And isnt this fluctuation in amplitude the same as polarization?

No. Tie a string to a post, draw in taut and you can set up
vibrations. You can make it vribrate vertically or horizontally,
that is polarisation. You can also vary the size of the vibration
which is amplitude. In this analogy the physical displacement
of the string represents the voltage in an EM wave. Bigger
displacement means more volts.

In which case it seems to be to me a logical conclusion that
unobserved light direct from source does not fluctuate in
amplitude and only rotates in magnetic field.
And it is this rotation that introduces the illusion of flux
oscillating in amplitude.
The reason for this question is that the textbook description
does not explain how amplitude/flux oscillates in a 3-d xyz axis
as flux isnt measured in distance units.

It doesn't, it is the strength of the field that varies. If
you set up an antenna in a field, the antenna doesn't
move, it is the voltage at the terminals that varies.

Sort of like the books saying that light that is twice as bright
is twice as wide. It doesnt make sense to me.

Light that is twice as bright has a field that has more
volts per metre just as putting a higher voltage into a
light bulb makes it glow brighter, it doesn't get longer.

<snip>

It seems that the pattern youve made with every third
dropped is an impossible EM frequency to have. EM frequencies
must be regular shouldnt they?.

A sine wave does, real waveforms can be arbitrary
but any arbitrary waveform can be decomposed into
a sum of sines via a Fourier transform, hence
the universal use of spectra.

Yes I get most of this except the reference to spectra.
What is common between fourier transforms and spectra?
I assumed spectral graphs were just a translation of
flux/wavelength taken directly from telescope source
by ccd . Rather than using film and getting the coloured bar
image with lines one got a computor printout of a line plot
flux/frequency graph.


With just a CCD, all the light lands on the same pixel
so you just get a value for the total energy at that point.
To get a spectrum you have to separate the frequencies
usually using a diffraction grating.

Where would the fourier transform
come into the process?

The grating essentially
does the transform by dsplacing different sine components
by different amounts so that they land on different pixels.

I would have thought the overlapping
lines and troughs in a spectra were too complex to unravel using
a fourier analysis but maybe Im wrong here.

Think of a grating as a very efficient analog computer ;-)

Sean, look at the picture top right here and try
to imagine the blue line is a snapshot of voltage
versus distance at one time while the red line is
the same a moment later. Cosmological redshift of
say 0.01 means that 1000 cycles of the red line
take the same distance as 1001 of the blue line
yet both must have precisely a sine wave shape if
you are to avoid harmonics. Your diagrams aren't
going to explain the cause of that, even though
you can find many was to illustrate the effect.

If I can condense all your above points into one answer.
It confuses me how you come to the conclusion that the
individual wavelengths in my model somehow overlap over
distance and produce multiple spectral lines or produce
sidebands when redshifting by expansion doesnt and yet
both models produce identical stretching.

Well you had it right last post, you realised dropping
every third peak would require a mix of sine waves.

If Im saying that a range of wavelengths like 10-20nm can
stretch without expansion to 20-40nm, in the same way
as expansion would give then how would my stretched
wavelengths overlap if theyve all been stretched by the
same factor?

I think there is some confusion as I wasn't talking much
about an overlap, but since you ask, if the factor is 1.001,
they would stretch from 10-20nm to 10.01-20.02 nm.

I assume its something about my graphs that has led you
to this conclusion but I cant see what.
For instance you give this example where you introduce
a 1/3 factor at B. But you dont explain how B gets
a compound frequency or why it should be compound.

You had worked it out for yourself but I did explain
by showing you the fourier equivaletn of a pattern
of two peaks then one missing.

B 000*00*00000*00*00000*00*00000*00*00000*
A 00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*

Because in my original idea every observor is
only seeing one frequency. Thats an absolute rule that
cant be broken.

But dropping peaks breaks it hence your explanation
doesn't work.

I think this a relates to all
your other points so maybe if we can sort out how you think
an observor should see a compound frequency and if I
can make it clear it can never do this we could have sorted
out the confusion one way or another.
Maybe this further explanation may help clarify what I
am trying to express..
Forget the graphs for the moment and instead imagine a car
travelling at 100mph from point A-E. At point A the car is
at 100mph and a guy is waving a flag in and out the window
every second. Over the time x it takes the car to get
to E the guy slows his waving down at either a constant
or logarithmic rate so that by the time the car gets
to E hes waving his flag out the window every 5 seconds.
If we had many observors placed at equal distances between
A and E and collated what frequency of the guys flag waving
they saw as the car passed we`d get this data..
A 1 wave/ sec
B 2 waves/ s
C 3 waves/s
D 4 waves/s
E 5 waves/s

Yes that's ok, and if the pattern of waving wasn't just a sine
wave but complex, it would still work but the pattern would
take longer. That's a good description of redshift.

If the road was really wide and thousands of cars were all
passing by in a huge flow and all doing the same thing

Not quite, try a train with passengers doing a "Mexican
Wave" out of the windows along the length of the train,
but it would be similar to what you have drawn with the
right interpretation of the axes.

then the observors would see this pattern emerging where
observors time axis is across and down is each observors
distance from source A
0000-0000-0000-0000-000 E
000-000-000-000-000-000- D
00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00- C
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0- B
---------------------- A
Pretend the bottom line is source.
Notice how we get the same pattern emmerging as my other
graphs.

Notice how the lines of '-' are no longer parallel
suggesting different speeds.

So clearly here in this car example a constant
speed of propogation can coexist with a decreasing frequency
of oscillation leading to an apparent stretching of wavelength.
Which leaves me unsure as to why you think there is something
wrong with my graphs.

This new one is different, it was your vanishing peaks that
was the problem previously. Now you have different speed
peaks in the diagram even though the car was moving at
constant speed. A different problem to resolve.

Also as Ive outlined before in this thread this
is possible to explain theoretically by having the oscillation
of the magnetic field decay or deccelerate as it propogates
out at constant speed c ...

How can anything "deccelerate ... at constant
speed"? I think you need to slow down and think
a bit more before typing ;-)

I agree, I dont think anything can decellerate whilst still going at
constant speed. A contradiction of terms. But in my case the
`decelleration` referred to the speed of oscillation of the magnetic
field at right angles to the direction of propogation.

That would be rate-of-change-of-flux, not speed which is
rate-of-change-of-distance.

By this I
suggest that if the magnetic field oscillated at decreasing frequency
this would supply the stretching of observed wavelength whilst still
retaining a constant c. If this still doesnt make sense then think of
this analogy... A corksrew is rotating at 3 turns per second and moving
forwards screw tip first at 10 miles an hour. The apparent frequency
and speed is constant. But then change this by having the corkscrew
decellerate its rotation speed so that over a short time its only
turning at 1 turn a second. The apparent frequency diminishes over time
but the speed remains constant.
Now youll say "Ahh,.. but maxwell says EM waves mag field rotates at a
constant rate and doesnt decellerate".. and Ill say .. What
observations conflict with an EM model where the decceleration variable
is added to effect a decreased observed frequency of EM waves over
time?
And as far *as I know* no known observations of any EM phenomena
conflict with this revised model.

Your ideas of polarisation are messed up but i covered that earlier,
you are here describing circular polarisation which is a composite
form.

But more importantly redshift is now
explaineed.

Nah, not even close.

George

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rechargeable v. throwaway batteries
    ... provide adequate illumination even at lower speeds, so at higher speeds, ... where the voltage is too high, it bleeds off the excess energy as heat. ... It's a fallacy that generators just waste energy to avoid ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Train speed
    ... is it O.K. to run at low speeds for extended periods ... This is going to depend on how the power pack 'works'. ... silicon rectifier with a fixed voltage transformer. ... with either a variable voltage ...
    (rec.models.railroad)
  • Re: Please help to translate this short Delphi code
    ... bit mono waveform (with every pair of bytes of the received data representing one two byte signed Integer) where each signed Integer represents a voltage in the range 32767 to - 32768. ... If these values were temporarily held in standard 16 bit signed Integers then the voltage of zero would be represented by a Integer value of zero and the voltage levels could be read directly but if they were instead held in 16 bit unsigned Integers then the voltage of zero would be represented by an unsigned Integer value of 32767. ... If such data represents 16 bit signed voltage values and if you happen to be reading the lo byte of each pair then you are effectively reading almost random byte data between zero and 255, the average of which is likely to be about 127 regardless of the overall "loudness" of the waveform, which is itself controlled almost entirely by the data in the hi byte, which you are not reading. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Do you think NI can fix my PLL?
    ... At low speeds both the switch Vce and interlock time create huge errors in the actual output voltage waveform. ... As the percent of time spent in dead time vs. on-time decreases with increasing duty, ie higher speed, what does that predict for the effective motor voltage constant one would measure taking the motor+drive combo to be a black box? ... S.K. Sul has written a number of good papers about dead time compensation; the guts of it is this: ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: P5e3 deluxe, anyone gotten 8GB of 1333 or 1600mhz to work? (OCZ or ?) q9650
    ... CPU ratio = auto ... DRAM skew channel a = ... reach the higher speeds that way. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
Loading