Re: Redshift without expansion


"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1153323044.745134.10340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


George Dishman wrote:
And what I have pointed out is that Maxwell's
Equations do NOT treat it literally and nor
does anyone else, it is only you who is trying
to create a strawman by taking it literally.

Ill take your point that maxwell doesnt seem to have any equations that
I assumed he had regarding EM.

Ah, excellent, you have had a look then. OK, try
to find out about each equation independently.
What does each one tell you. When you understand
what the first equation is saying, then you should
easily realise what effect changing it would have.
For example, if one of the equations relates to
conservation of charge, then changing it would
probably mean that there would be conditions under
which charge would not be conserved. Then you won't
need to ask people here why your suggested change
might conflict with experimental physics.

However there seem to be wave
equations that derive from his model.

There are an infinite number of models that can be
derived. Every antenna design or waveguide or
form of propagation with any arbitrary boundary is
dealt with by the equations. That is precisely why
they are so useful.

My reference books say his model
is the one with the mag and flux vectors propogating through space so
why he gets credit for showing EM as being two fields that oscillate at
c through space when it wasnt his idea , I do find a bit confusing.

Others guessed, he provided the maths that allows us
engineers to predict the behaviour of any arbitrary
antenna design or the radiation from a pcb track or
whatever. That is the purpose of physics, without
his equations, electronics would be an art, not a
science.

However it is a bit irrelevent as to who`s authorsip it is as
ultimately its the model itself ,whowever thought of it, which I
question. So maybe from now on Ill call it `your` model.

No, forget models, the collected set of equations were
first published by Maxwell and he gets the credit. Note
that doen't mean he can up with all of them, he built on
the work of others as is always the case.

Really, please can I have a copy of this "3-d computor
simulation" including your model, I don't believe it
exists and since you haven't even looked at the
equations so haven't produced your alternatives, it is
impossible that you have included the modified equation
in any simulation. AFAICS, this is a pack of lies, sorry.

Ill send it to you (*again*) by the way. It doesnt get through your
email filter it seems. I use geo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If you are looking on Google, it only shows the first
three characters before the '@' as a crude anti-spam
technique. You should know my name by now ;-)

Though it isnt a
simulation made from your equations.

In that case it isn't really a simulation, rather an
illustration. You have written something that shows
what you already think would happen. By using the
actual equations, the computer will tell you what
will happen and if you are lucky it is different from
what you expected and you learn something.

More to the point, you said
I also noticed that my model ,when put through a 3-d computor
simulation, gives an extra additional blue shifting to any modulated
source that is moving away from the observor.

which means to me that you made a simulation using the
normal Maxwell Equations to get a travelling wave and
then modified the equations to your version and found
they produced a blue shift.

It is a simulation of an
oscillating field propogating through space at a constant speed.
Looling at it and others made me realize that GR wouldnt work if light
propagated at c as if you move the source in one direction rather than
have it remain static it `pulls` along the outward spreading wave EM.

Well you would ahve to include the relativistic shift
of the source due to 'time dilation' if you simulate
using Euclidean space equations but you should then
just get the normal relativistic Doppler equation. If
not the math of your sim is wrong.

And this does 2 things . Firstly in modulated sources (only)it adds a
redshift, but more importantly it also forces the peak of each
oscillation past the viewer in the opposite direction which means the
peaks go past the observor in the blue shifted direction at as fast as
the source moves away.

I don't follow your description at all. The peaks must
still pass the observer in the same direction at the
same speed as for the static source by definition if
it is 'propagated at c' as you said.

THis would cancel out the redshift in an
modulated source I believe.

If you emit a modulated signal the whole waveform just
gets stretched. Draw a wiggly line on a rubber band and
then pull.

And with the pioneer data as its a 2v
calculation one multiplies the recession of pioneer 2 times to
calculate this additional blue shifting. And thats the exact numbers
one gets if one multiplies this out it confirms this
theory...anomaly*c=2*(pioneer recession velocity)=25!

The speed is 12km/s, the anomaly is an acceleration of
8.74*10^-10 m/s^2. They don't even have the same units
so your claim is obviously wrong.

You seem to contradict yourself. First you say there are no equations
with speed and frequency. Now,above, you suggest there are. Ive looked
online at lots of different wave and string-wave , packet, etc
equations.

This is a simple place to begin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation#General_case

The differential form is what I was referring to when I talked
of the 2-D array of people doing a mexican wave.

Which one is your favorite equation? Then we can refer to
that from now on.

If you want to choose one, the differential form of
Gauss's Law. It should be one of the easiest for you
to understand and then see the implications of a change.

Modulation and polarisation are entirely different
effects, you words are meaningless. Maybe you should
find a web site on installing TV aerials, it might
help.

Modulation and polarization are different in your model maybe.

No, they are different phenomena in the real world.

They are both of course describable as aspects of
EM propagation.

But
your model cant explain polarization or redshift.

Of course it can, you have just never learned how
Maxwell's Equations work.

So maybe its a good
thing Im proposing something different that can, by treating modulation
and polarization as side effects of one mechanism.

They already are, but they are different effects.

You forget the whole point of this thread is to suggest a model that is
different from yours in that it can account for cosmological redshift
without expansion.

No what you claimed it that it is possible to modify
Maxwell's Equations such that a propagating wave in
free space will reduce in frequency as it travels.
We aren't at the point of modelling anything using
those equations because you haven't posted them.

So intregral to the model I propose is the treatment
of mag and flux fields as one. By doing that I show how this single
`field` can also account for the effects of polarization. Thats why I
make the analogy of the wave as a oscillating dipole rather than your
two fields at right angles.
I say above that they are different `effects` of the same field. I can
show this by treating the wave as an oscillating dipole. The apparent
flux you think is different from the magnetic field is the same thing
as the magnetic field in my model. And the apparent polarization you
think is due to an imaginary flux and magnetic field not being
reflected is due to the oscillating dipole axis being reflected. In
essence instead of your imagined two vectors, I just have one. Instead
of the your imagined frequency that remains unchanged over distance, I
have it decrease over distance.

Fine, show me how that is a result of your new and improved
equations.

And this takes me to answer your point on conservation being broken.
If I have a 200nm EM source stretch over distance to 400nm doesnt the
equation E=hv consider the two to have the same energy?

h = 6.626068 * 10^-34

wavelength 200nm, frequency v = 1.5*10^15 Hz, E = 9.94*10^-19 J

wavelength 400nm, frequency v = 7.5*10^14 Hz, E = 4.97*10^-19 J

Since h is a constant, if v changes then E changes but
remember that is for a single photon.

For instance if we were able to somehow only emit 1 wavelength of 200nm
EMR and then observe that 1 wavelngth at a distance when it had
stretched to 400nm in my model. Wouldnt that 400nm wavelength now
contain the same amount of energy as the 200nm wavelength but just
stretched over 400nm instead of 200nmn? Thats the way I read the
equation.

No, it only applies to individual photons, it tells you
how much energy it carries. Read this (you should already
be familiar) but now consider if some of those wiggly red
lines are from a nearby static red lamp and others are a
from a blue lamp that is receding such that the Doppler
shift makes them the same colour as those from the red
lamp. The surface doesn't know which they came from and
responds identically.

In the equation v is frequency and h is the constant. So if
lets say h was 1 and v started out at a frequency of 200 and ended up
1/2 that at 100. Then E at source would be 200 and at observor 100.
But as source and observor data were both taken using the same time
exposure then technically v at the observor only measured 1/2 the
streteched wavelength not the full length. Therefore the actuall energy
of one wavelength at 400nm is equivelent to the energy of one
wavelength at 200nm.

No, that would mean a photon emited at high energy
could dislodge an electron in the photo-electric
effect regardless of the frequency at the plate.

So to recap yes if you are comparing 2 frequencies of EMR from the sun
or the same source then e=hv and the lower frequency has less energy.

You just said the energy was equivalent, not less.

But where you want to find out what the energy of a wavelength x is
where it is now stretched to 2x then one has to use e=h2v to calculate
the stretched version of the wavelength.

Nope, it is E=hv regardles of the emitted frequency
and stretching.

But we never see any modulation other than that
which was transmitted. We see receiver noise of
course but that is an additional signal, not
modulation. Jan is right, if the antenna produced
modulation on its own by whatever means, we should
see a combination of both.

You havent read my explanation obviously. I said that suns EM did not
have a variable flux and was unmodulated ,.way back.

And I have pointed out that you just need to listen
on a receiver to hear the hiss, by observation
therefore it is modulated, but you go on ....

If I remember
correctly it sort of went like this....You disagreed and said that
observations contradicted this as an unmodulated sun EM showed flux
variation when observed,... I then said that this was because the
reciever `added` the flux variation by only recieving one angle of the
360 degree homogenous sun EM. An analogy would be the suns EM as a
dipole rotaing 360 degrees but the recieving atom only accepting it
when its at 90 degrees. Inbetween the flux drops out and this happens
every nanaosecond depending on the wavelength(s) The result is that we
see only part of the suns EM and it appears modulated. ..Then Jan said
something like ,.. this doesnt work because that means that all
antennaes would have to be at a special angle to recieve a polarized
broadcast,.. And I said no,

There's something wrong there, antennas DO need to be
at a special angle to receive polarised signals.

Because in each aerial all the atoms are
randomly arranged . Which means that each atom recieves a random angle
of polarization from the broadcast. It follows that some of these
randomly arranged atom `angles` will be recieving at the right angle to
the broadcast polarization. Hence a signal that is polarized will be
recieved.

But that's the wrong way round. If you use a vertically
polarised antenna, you don't receive a horizontally
polarised signal. That's why it is useful, if you are
in a region served by two transmitters, one vertical
and one horizontal, you use install the antenna so that
the weaker signal isn't received so doesn't cause
interference.

Not by all atioms but by a specific perecentage. (In my model
dont forget Im trying to show how my model accounts for different
situation so its no good saying my model has to follow yours)

As long as your equations allow engineers to design
antennas that work to their specification nothing
else matters.

Look at my previous responses, didn't I point out
that is untrue? The theory is nothing more than
a set of equations and an analogy is nothing more
than a tool for teaching which is NEVER to be taken
literally.

In that case tell me how your model is able to account for
polarization. But this time I want a literal explanation.

I gave you it, the electric field is a vector, not
a scalar. The field at any FIXED location points
in some direction, that of increasing potential.
The conductive paper is literal, you can put a
voltmeter probe onto the paper and measure the
voltage at any point. The field is the slope of
the map of voltage.

I did that a couple of posts back using the ***
of conductive paper.
The electric and magnetic vectors at any point in
free space are vectors. Those vectors are transverse
to the direction of propagation. The (2D) vector on
the *** of conductive paper was perpendicular to
the wires creating the field, but the paper doesn't
move.
Right and the basic nature is that the electric
and magnetic fields are vectors which point in
a particular direction just as displacement of
the string points in a direction, but that
doesn't mean the field moves. That's why it is
only an analogy.
Read your definition again noting "a similarity"
and "a resemblance", the key word being "a". The
two are similar in some ways and different in
others, that is the key to an analogy.
The DC picture is like a snapshot of the AC at
some instant. You can only tell if it varies
by looking for an extended time. However, the
DC picture illustrates my point, that there is
a direction defined as "from negative to positive"
which is not associated with any movement of the
conductive paper.

I cant do the experiment here so I cant check but lets say its assumed
that the `field` flips back and forth with ac ? Is that what you
suggest?

It would have a sine wave shape versus time so flips
twice per cycle.

So if you had little magnets instead on the *** with ac they would be
flipping back and forth 180 degrees 220 times a second?

Magnets are different from voltage but it would be
close, image all the magnets were glued on the ***
so they couldn't move. Now think that each magnet
has some strength that varies like this:

N *
| * * *
+-*-----*-----*-
| * *
S *

It starts unmagnetised, then one end becomes more north
until it reaches a maximum, then it decreases to zero
and then becomes south and so on. It doesn't physically
rotate but the magnetism changes polarity twice per
cycle.

I still dont
see how this equates to an EM wave or polarization in the sense that
you are explaining what happens in your model.

Imagine the magnets are glued perpendicluar to the paper
and the graph above is that end. That is the magnetic
field component. The electric field is provided by the
battery and runs through the paper. Do you see how the
fields are perpendicular? Nothing moves, only field
strengths change.

I can only assume that you are suggesting that the modulated EM wave is
a field that flips back and forth as it propogates at c through space.
This doesnt show that the field is made up of two oscillating vectors.
In fact the better analogy is just as I describe it. As a dipole
oscillating at a frequency travelling at a constant speed through
space. Where do you observe two vectors in your experiment? I see only
one `field` in the sense that the indicators be they semolina or
dipoles only point one direction.

Different designs of antennas receive different
fields. We have to test all our equipment for
both magnetic field emissions and electric field
emissions to pass the regulations.

It doesn't explain how to boil an egg either,
so what? GR does explain cosmological expansion
and theothers are the province of QM and QED
respectively.

None of the above explain what the vacuum is. Whats dark matter made
of?

I repeat "It doesn't explain how to boil an egg either"

And GR doesnt explain cosmological expansion.

Yes it does, it provides several models. Here
is a summary:

http://www.cosmologymodels.com/index2.html

If it does then tell
me how did the singularity appear?

GR explains how the cosmos expands, not the start.

What is it made of? Why are there
fewer neutrinoes et etc then expected? How is gravity force exchanged?

I repeat "It doesn't explain how to boil an egg either".
You keep asking questions that have nothing to do with GR.

{aside: 'fewer neutrinoes' is because they
have mass and change between types the early
detectors couldn't see, nothing to do with GR}

I thought nobody knows how to explain gravity.

No, nobody knows how to merge GR with QM in
when both fields are strong. GR explains
gravity, QM explains particles, but the don't
work together.

Theres a huge list of
unknowns about our universe that no theory explains let alone the 3
above.

None of them ever disappear, there is an 'x' in each
row and if you draw a line along the 'x's there is
an x everywhere the line crosses a row. The same is
true for 'y' and 'z'. It was your earlier diagrams
that had asterisks disappearing when you called them
'peaks', remember?
My letters replaced your hyphens one-for-one so any
criticism you apply to mine also applies to your
diagram equally, I just labelled your hyphens so we
could follow them from row to row.

My graphs have the basic minimum unit as 1 digit across.
Ie/.. 010 is three time units across.
Your marks skip time units and then reappear two or three later.

OK, I see what you mean. That is simply because there
isn't an observer between B and C and so on. The marks
are in transit between observers at those times. Suppose
the observers are two light years apart but your time
units are one year, the result should be obvious.

Mine
always go up each level of distance with one time unit across.
So for instance ..
000A00000*00000*
00A00*00*00*00*00*
If the minimum time unit is one across then the line always has to
continue at the next time unit across but obviously one distance unit
up . Look at the A`s It appears farther away one level up which is 1
distance unit but it does so in a continuum of time so it has to appear
at the next level up only one digit across. Hence it wouldnt work like
this..
0000A0000*00000*
00A00*00*00*00*00*
Because the A skips one time unit and disappears! thats why yours dont
work. Not because they disappear but because they reappear later. All
mine are consistent because if they disappear they dont reappear later.
And when they are visible its always one unit across one unit up.

Here is yours:

000A00000*00000*
00A00*00*00*00*00*

You say theya ll trvel at the same speed so mark
another as C:

000A00000C00000*
00A00*00C00*00*00*

What about the one in between, say B:

000A00000C00000*
00A00B00C00*00*00*

It should apear on the line above but vanishes.

So publish your version of Maxwell's Equations that
achieve this remarkable feat.

It seems Im wrong and the relevent wave equations came after maxwell.

They are a solution to his equations just as
Kepler's orbits are solutions to Newton's
inverse square force.

But I cant see any restrictions in any of the wvae equations Ive seen
that prevent a variable from being added to the frequency. THere are so
many wave equations . Which one do you wnat me to revise? Il do it for
you if you specify this.

Gauss's Law. I'll be generous and say if you don't like
that choice pick any one of the four differential forms
you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation#General_case

Then show that a wave with decreasing frequency is a
solution to your revised version.

It is an unfounded claim which, by my understanding
of the laws of mathematics, is not possible, but I
will be happy to be shown to be wrong if you can
demonstrate otherwise.

There is no law of mathematics that prevents me from postulating either
in formula or in theory
a decreasing frequency. Unless you refer to the conservation law. And
as I show in this post there is no energy lost when a wavelength
stretches in my model.

What I am saying is that I don't think you can
modify the set of equations in differential
form and produce a set that has all the same
solutions over short ranges (so that they still
model antennas etc.) but which produces a
decreasing frequency for a plane wave propagating
over cosmological distances.

No, a single object will look like just one line.
An EM signal is more like a long series of objects.
If you place a single receiver at some location,
you don't see just one cycle of a signal, you see a
series.

Thats a vague statement .."a single object will look like just one
line..." Meaningless.

A single object has a single location at a single
time. You show multiple '-' or '*' or '1' symbols
at the same time but different locations, hence you
are representing multiple objects, such as wave peaks.

And in my graphs you see repeating cycles just as in EMR.
If there are no repeating cycles in my graphs then what is this...
01001001001001001001001001 ?
If thats not a repeating cycle of 1/3 then Einstein is my uncle.

I see 9 symbols of '1', wave peaks perhaps?

Or maybe Ill should say...then Dalton isnt my great-great grandfather.
(because he is , same birthday as mine too)

No, they show a series of objects travelling at
different speeds. Maybe you need to think more
carefully about what your axes mean since I
understand the latest to have distance along the
bottom and time up the side, there are multiple
hyphens on a row hence multiple objects.

Youve got it completely wrong as usual.

I did that time, sorry.

If you are right then you are saying its impossible for an object to
oscilllate at a decreasing rate (like a propellor rotating ) and travel
at a constant speed at the same time.
Dont take an airflight in a propeller plane because it looks like its
physically impossible according to you! Fortunately you are wrong. A
prop plane can change its prop rotation frequency while at the same
time taxiing forward along the runway at a constant speed. And thats
exactly what my graphs show.
010010001000010000001000000010000000010

You don't have any speed shown at all, speed
is rate of change of distance versus time so
you need two axes.
Every numeral is an equal distance travelled at an equal time.
So .. 01001 is 5 meters in 5 seconds.. 01001000 is 8 meters in 8
seconds.
That means that the object in question travels 1 meter a second in the
above line each numeral across. But oscillates at 1 time in 3 seconds
to start with and decreases to one time in 9 seconds at the end.

OK, I see what you are doing, but I can produce that
with a variable frequecy oscillator. Plot it on time
versus frequency for a propagating wave and you'll
find you only have a variable frequency source. It's
not obvious from your drawing.

Then label the axes or I will naturally assume
they are distance versus time since the topic
is speed.

I thought I had clarified what each graph showed..

D 00000*00000000000A00000000000*0000000000
C 0000*00000000000*00000000000*00000000000*
B 000*00000*00000*00000*00000*00000*00000*
A 00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*00*
O-source
This graph for instance is time across and distance down

OK so the first diagonal line moves at c, one
distance unit up for each time unit across. So
does the one ending with "A". The three in
between pass oberver A, observer B only sees
the middle one and all have vanished before
reaching observer C.

(if you get the simulation in email heres the explanation.. There are
2versions above one another. Both are the same but the lower one has a
slight perspective angle to show it better. Essentially Ive generated a
oscillated dipole and shown that here by illuminating its N and S poles
with red markers. This then spins like a proppelor and moves across
space at right angles to the spin axis. Importantly,.. the spin
decreases in frequency using an algorithm supplied in the software from
about 5 degrees per frame to 0. At the same time as the oscillating
dipole spins and decreases its frequency to 0 it moves across space in
equal distance units per frame. So that its speed can be deemed
constant. As you can see it is possible for this to happen without any
dropped cycles etc as you incorrectly claim.

The diagram above shows dropped cycles, a propellor
would not. The problem is that a propellor is only
at one place while a signal is spread out. You need
to do something like plotting the height of a row of
propellor tips on a 3D chart against time and location
to represent that propagating.

Note how all that happens
is the apparent wavelength stretches the farther from source. But this
is allowed to happen because each complete wavelength just occurs a
little farther from source each oscillation.)

Sure, that's easy to draw, it even represents the
conventional GR solution in a way. Now tell me how
you propose to modify Maxwell's Equations to make
that a solution. Then lab experiments can be done
to test for your change.

George


.

Quantcast