Re: Redshift without expansion


"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152541956.849682.271430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George Dishman wrote:

The answer to that is that we know our measurement
isn't the sole cause of apparent variation of the
amplitude of EM signals in general (including that from
the Sun) because we can apply and retrieve modulation.

I dont understand how the second point leads to the first point above.
How can we know what the suns (non)-modulation is like if we can
only compare it to a known modulated source at reception?

The argument is simple, we know that the apparent
modulation of _any_ received EM signal is not
caused by the receiver because, when we modulate
a transmitted signal, we see an exact copy at
the receiver, just scaled down due to "1/r^2" loss.

From that we deduce that any variation in amplitude
seen in the received solar signal was impressed at
source.

To be honest I don't see how this relates to anything
else in the discussion.

The problem with this analogy is that the amplitude ismeasured in
distance of the physical displacement of the string. But the flux in EM
does not get its amplitude by it varying in *distance* from some
central path.

Right, that's what the word "analogy" means. You are not
supposed to take it literally.

Yes I agree . But the point is that the same theory uses the same
analogy
later as a *literal* explanation to explain polarization.

No, the point is that you are trying to take it literally
when in fact it remains an analogy.

If one couldnt
think of the fluctuation as aliteral one in the two vectors then you
couldnt explain polarization. So maxwellls theory contradicts itself by
saying that it *has* to fluctuate in a dimension and distance to
explain
polarization but then saying that it *cant* fluctuate in a dimension
with distance
because light only travels in straight lines. It cant be both literal
and analogical.

It is an analogy in both cases.

If the analogy is incorrect in this respect then it
follows that its incorrect to assume that polarization occurs because
the flux amplitude is oscillating like a sine wave at right angles to
the filter.The orientation is there indisputably but not the flux
oscillating in 3- dimensions.

Right again, the movement of the string as a physical
displacement is analogous to the displacement of the
potential in a voltage "direction", nothing moves.

But if nothing moves then
how do you explain the polarization?

The voltage is not displaced sideways, each point
in space has a potential which varies with location
and time. It is like a three-dimensional mexican wave.

To explain polarization
in the maxwell model one needs to have the physical displacement
in one vector or the other.

No. Perhaps if you think of it like a mexican wave in
a square stadium it might help. You can get everyone
on the left to raise their hands and everyone on the
right to lower theirs and linearly interpolate between.
Now the rule is that everyone with their hands up lowers
them while everyone with them down raises them and the
speed depends on how far away from the middle position
they started. The result is that the slope seems to
reverse (from \ to /) but nobody moves.

Now consider applying the same approach but this time
everybody in the front row starts with their hands up
and everybody in the back row starts with hands down.
The first situation is analogous to horizontal
polarization since every body in a column does the same
thing at the same time and the hands slope from left
to right. The second is vertical polarisation since
everybody in a row does the same and the slope is from
front to back.

The equivalent of Maxwell's Equations is a rule that
tells each person what to do based _only_ on the height
and speed of the hands of the person adjacent. Any one
person has no idea that he is part of a wave.

Otherwise theres no vectors to
give polarization. Yet you say no fluctuation occurs in any
spatial vectors. That means no polarization can occur.
Can you understand the dichotomy?

I can see why you are having trouble understanding it
but it isn't easy to find a way to break through your
entrenched ideas.

I think its better to view the field of a
wave as a dipole that travels at c. If its oriented with its axis
parralel to the path it is unpolarized. If lets say it reflects off
water at 90 degrees then its axis has been rotated by 90 and the
`dipole`EM wave is now oriented at right angles to the path

Almost, the dipole is always oriented perpendicular to
the direction of motion but say that is the X direction,
then if light polarised in the Y direction is reflected,
it can be turned towards the Z direction.

Circular polarisation is like a dipole that rotates as
it moves.

I understand your above point although I was suggesting that the
dipole orientation *can* be reflected.

I know, I wasn't disagreeing with that part. It is
known that it does change but in a way that keeps
it as a transverse wave.

Its hard to see here but
you can explain polarization, circular polarization, unpolarized light
etc
by allowing the dipole to reflect its z axis and rotate in propogation.
And if you disagree then try simulating it in 3-d and youll see that
a reflected dipole has its z axis rotated by 90 degrees. I dont make
this up . Its basic geometry. Thats what happens.

_|__________|_
/ | | \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
\_|__________|_/
| |
-Ve +Ve

Now the field is horizontal on the drawing.

The amplitude is the voltage of the battery,
the polarisation is the direction perpendicular
to lines of equal potential.

Ive seen this in the textbooks. Its the one with two electrodes in a
dish of castor oil with semolina?

Well I did it with conductive paper and a voltmeter
(many! years ago).

But this isnt EM waves.

No, it is the DC equivalent, like a snapshot of a
wave at one instant.

And the
fields dont oscillate here so I fail to see the comparison? How does
this show how EM flux oscillates?

As I said, replace the battery with an AC source.

Thats the contradiction at the heart of maxwells model that
makes it unworkable in my opinion.

You just haven't grasped what polarisation and
amplitude mean, there is no contradiction because
nothing is moving, you are taking the vibration in a
string analogy too literally.

But this is exactly the opposite of what I say. Im not taking the
analogy too literally. I dont believe anything moves. When did I say I
thought it did?

You are just about to ...

You making up the fact I say I think flux moves. In
fact my whole argument is based on the view that flux *doesnt*
oscillate in any dimension.

OK, we agree.

Its maxwells model that claims it does.

Oops, no it doesn't. Maxwells Equations say nothing
of the kind. Why don't you look at them sometime.

I think its wrong.

So would I, but they don't say that.

Why would I take the string analogy too literally?

Because you think Maxwell's Equation imply motion
in a spatial dimension when in fact lots of books
use that as an analogy, not to be taken literally.

In
fact I think anyone who does , like maxwell,.. is wrong.

I agree, but you are the only person I have ever
talked to who took the analogy that way. Certainly
Maxwell didn't.

This is the raison d`etre of this thread. If I took it literally I
wouldnt have started this thread.

What equation written only in terms of the height and
speed of the hands of the guys immediately either side
would produce that memory effect? That's why you will
have trouble modifying Maxwell's Equations.

Dont forget the waving mexican is a bit different.
In fact my model has the dipole `mexican` *moving* and waving slower
over time. Not telling the next mex to wave.

Maxwell's Equations deal with a three dimensional array
of mexicans and they only specify the speed of the hands
as a function of those immediately adjacent, nothing more.
The possibility of waves emerges from those rules.

I was only trying to alter your analogy to show how it
is possible to take almost any situation and make it a constant speed
`wave` that slows its oscillation. I can do this with cars , mexicans
propellors and EMR. THe graphs is there to show how it works
generically.

But none of your graphs has worked yet, that's another
subject.

The implication is that it is applicable to EM too.

It's not a bad description actually, it is the mechanism
that is missing.

The mechanism is the dipole that rotates at a decreasing frequency
through space at a constant speed. And if you want a physical
mechanism.
Then I cant explain what the vacuum is that allows light to
exist, but neither does the standard model.

GR does just fine at explaining it.

Every line starting at A is parralel.

Nope, let's label them:

0000x0000y0000z0000-000 E
000x000y000z000-000-000- D
00x00y00z00-00-00-00-00- C
0x0y0z0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0- B
A M A A

They are continuous, none of the news broadcasts
got lost, but the lines are not parallel and they move
at different speeds.
Constant speed and decreasin frequency means lost
cycles, the problem i your drawings don't make the
continuity clear hence I have to keep relabelling them
to show up the problem.

Yes one could say that they are different speeds if
you randomly join any * . But these lines you create arent
made of consectutive` beats`as the Xs lines are.

Sorry, you need to check the diagram. I didn't label
them randomly, the first '-' in each line is x, the
second y and the third z so they are in fact composed
of 'consecutive beats'.

For instance the z you use on observor C level to make a line
actually belongs to the line below it at M.

No, it is the third '-' on that line just as I
used z for the third '-' for observers B and D
and E.

I could draw
lines through any peak to make any line. But lets see you
draw a line through any consecutive peaks

That is exactly what I did, check back on your own
drawing if you doubt it.

and
youll find the resulting lines are only the one speed
You calculate a lost cycle to account
for the stretching of the wavelength. In fact what happens
is no cycles are lost and the stretching is accomadated
by the `peaks` occuring at longer intervals in space from the
source. I cant believe you still cant accept this concept.

Ifind it hard to believe you would say I didn't
label them consecutively without first checking
to see if I did.

Especially considering you seem to have tacitly accepted
its possible with my mex wave analogy.?
Take the above graphs and look at them like this..
0*0000000000000000*000 Observor 5
0*000000000000000*0000
0*00000000000000*00000
0*0000000000000*000000
0*000000000000*0000000observor 4
0*00000000000*00000000
0*0000000000*000000000
0*000000000*0000000000
0*00000000*00000000000observor 3
0*0000000*000000000000
0*000000*0000000000000
0*00000*00000000000000
0*0000*000000000000000observor 2
0*000*0000000000000000
0*00*00000000000000000
0*0*000000000000000000
0**0000000000000000000observor 1
source
I cant do a good log scale in this graph like the others so
this progresion is linear. But here I show the wavelength
increasing as the distance increases upwards on the graph.

What you have shown is the first column of '*' moving
at infinite speed and the second at finite speed. I
really don't know what you are trying to show.

According to you there shouldnt be any inbetween wavelengths
and some would be dropped. Not here.

You show an increasing wavelength but at the expense of
having two different speeds.

The fact is if you
tried doing a mock up yourself you would see your expected
drop outs just dont occur.
Try doing a quick one. Take a source frequency and move it
across space slowly at a constant speed. Now slow its frequency
down incrementaly and observed what it is at various points
on its outward path. You get no compound sine waves, no dropped
cycles etc. Yet you still get a duplication of whats observed in
all cosmological redshift.

Yes, I an quite happy that you have illustrated what
happens as a result of GR. Consider this drawing

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#MSTD

and add a second red line starting marginally to the
left of th first at the bottom row of light cones and
progressing by the same rule. Consider those lines to
be the paths through spacetime of two consecutive peaks
of a sine wave.

Exactly.!!! You understand what Im saying now. The EM
wave has two components. It is an oscilatting field
as described by maxwell that also travels through space
at a constant speed. The only difference I suggest is
that one adds 1 small variable x(^-y) to the frequency
of the oscillating mag field. Where -y is a very small
amount that only halves the frequency over billions of years.

That is simply a description of the observation, the problem
is how to change the equations to do that. Perhaps you
should look at Maxwell Equations before trying.

Im not a mathematician but I dont see whyI cant propose this added
variable?

Those two statements are closely related ;-)

Consider my analogy of 3D mexicans. Their behaviour is
determined by a rule that only accepts the height and
speed of the hands of adjacent mexicans to determine
the speed that each should move their hands. How would
you modify that rule to get the frequency of a wave to
change as it moves through the volume? You really need
to look very carefully at Maxwell's Equations before
you try to answer that because frequency doesn't exist
in them.

Its a simple theoretical premise.
What observations would it
not be consistent with should be the issue I would have thought

It wouldn't be inconsistent with any if you could
do it, but the end result will be the same as the
combination of GR and EM. It has to be since they
together already produce the result you are looking
for.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Redshift without expansion
    ... that's what the word "analogy" means. ... later as a *literal* explanation to explain polarization. ... wave as a dipole that travels at c. ... the dipole is always oriented perpendicular to ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Circular polarization... does it have to be synchronous??
    ... That said, mixed polarization, is also largely the case of HF waves ... There is only one E field associated with a wave and, if linearly polarized, it has only one orientation or polarization. ... at the carrier frequency when analyzed by a linear polarizer. ... When you receive a circularly polarized wave on a linearly polarized antenna, you're seeing only the component of the wave that's linearly polarized in the orientation of the antenna. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Redshift without expansion
    ... of the string represents the voltage in an EM wave. ... You mentioned the sine waves at each observor became compund somehow. ... suggesting different speeds. ... as proof that he isnt travelling at constant speeds ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: That Minkowski time intervals cannot be current in both frames.
    ... I think of a wave as anything periodic. ... things which a lot of physics students take a long ... How much difference in speed would it take in the star to get the effect ... where v and u are speeds relative to the AIR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Circular polarization... does it have to be synchronous??
    ... Conventionally electromagnetic wave 'polarization' refers to the relative physical spatial orientation of the electric field vector of an electromagnetic wave. ... For example most common linear amateur antennas produce and/or respond to waves of linear polarization, and these antennas produce either either horizonally or vertically polarized waves depending upon the orientation of the antenna with respect to the earth's surface. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)