Re: Redshift without expansion



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

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx it isnt a
simulation made from your equations. 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.
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. THis would cancel out the redshift in an
modulated source I believe. 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!
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. Which one is your favorite equation? Then we can refer to
that from now on.


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. But
your model cant explain polarization or redshift. So maybe its a good
thing Im proposing something different that can, by treating modulation
and polarization as side effects of one mechanism.
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. 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.
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?
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. 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.
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.
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.

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. 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, 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. 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)

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

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? And GR doesnt explain cosmological expansion. If it does then tell
me how did the singularity appear? What is it made of? Why are there
fewer neutrinoes et etc then expected? How is gravity force exchanged?
I thought nobody knows how to explain gravity. 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. 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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

(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. 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.)

.

Quantcast