[humanbydefault]

It's been a while since my last article / thread. This time I bring to you one of the most intriguing aspects of Einstein's theories and one that I should confront with all my respect.

the site of the original article is:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/physic...html#post40897

I invite everyone to take a close look at my thoughts and send me a comment to this thread in case you have any thing to add.

To all my good old friends and new ones "HAPPY HOLIDAYS"


Yours

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[PoPpAScience]

I just spent 3 days on the road driving, and spent the majority of that time thinking about 'red shift'. I have always had a hard time with the concept of measuring electro-magnetic waves that are from a source so far away. I feel that your thoughts on 'red shift' being only for sound waves very plausible. I have at least two other reasons to question the use of 'red shift' as a proof of an expanding Universe. To me there are more questions then answers to the 'red shift' measurements.

[humanbydefault]

I'm sorry I couldn't find time to sit in front of a computer and respond to your comments about the subject.

Thank you for your opinion and I'll give you another reason why I believe Einstein's General Relativity is based on a wrong approach:

Is there a book or a serious scientific document holding the last word on the EXACT MEASUREMENT OF "c"...?

NON! It's is obvious from my point of view... Think about it for a second.

Einstein thought that the Speed of Light was a constant across the entire universe. I disagree with his argument 100%. I personally believe [with all due respect for his genius] that the only constant in the entire universe is the SHIFT BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED "ELECTRICAL FIELD" AND "MAGNETIC FIELD" OF ANY ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Now! It may sound that I'm contradicting myself once again but I'm not. Assuming that the "SPATIAL SHIFT" (I'd preferred to call it this way) is exactly the same NO MATTER THE FREQUENCY -or what's the same to say- or its "WAVELENGTH"...

... Would be the 3 dimensional SPACE [in the macroworld] the same when the length of the wave changes?

You must visualize the picture in your mind and be honest with yourself. The answwer would definitely be: NO!

The higher the frequency, the shorter its wavelength and THEREFORE... THE SHORTER THE SPACE COVERED by the same wave at a given TIME (!)

THAT'S THE REASON EVERY SCIENTIFIC TEAM TRYING TO MEASURE THE EXACT [precise] SPEED OF LIGHT WILL COME WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS EVERY TIME.

I'll add another tip to those interested in knowing what I'm trying to deliver here:

IF indeed "c" [the so-called speed of light] were always the same -no matter the frequency or wavelength of a given wave of electromagnetic energy- ATOMS COULDN'T BOND TO EACH OTHER AND MATTER [THE WAY WE KNOW IT] WOULDN'T EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE.

Think about this for a second! Some atoms are bigger than others and therefore the "inter-atomic distance" needed to be covered by the outer "electrons" would be different in every case... however we observe the combination of molecules and atoms of all kind of sizes [water is a perfect example] withour any inconsistency in the integrity of its physical existence.

Chemical bonds are as stable as the reality we observe every single moment and this is due to a phenomenon of sinchronism during the "RESONANCE" OF THE ENERGY WAVES BETWEEN DIMENSIONS making the "SHIFT" (between the electrical field and the magnetic field) ALWAYS CONSTANT ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

ALL WE KNOW ... OR MUST OF WHAT WE ASSUME WE KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN BASED ON A WRONG ASSUMPTION ALL THIS TIME... of course, that is just my humble opinion about this subject.


WHAT'S YOURS?

HBD

[humanbydefault]

To make you SEE much better the reason I believe GENERAL RELATIVITY has been seen as "almost unattainable to most people to understand" all these years -since its proposal- I prepared a short work brought here from wikipedia... follow me on its details:

"One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation; thus for instance the light emitted from a rapidly moving light source would travel at the same speed as the light coming from a stationary light source (although the color, frequency, energy, and momentum of the light will be shifted, which is called the relativistic Doppler effect). If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light. Because of this fact, one can view c as a fundamental physical constant. This logic is the basis of the theory of special relativity.[3]
Observers traveling at large velocities will find that distances and times are distorted in accordance with the Lorentz transforms; however, the transformations distort times and distances in such a way that the speed of light remains constant. A light sensor traveling near the speed of light would also find that colours of lights ahead were shifted toward the violet end of the spectrum and of those behind were redshifted, so that the Lorentz transformations and classical explanations of frequency shifting are in harmony..." [wikipedia 2008].

Don't worry! I didn't change the text a bit... I only change the appearance of the parts I'm interesting you to see and interpret.

First they say that no matter the "relativistic speed" (they love to use complicated words to make it hard to understand it... anyway!) ...of the light source, "c" will not change (!)

Ohhh! But later on they affirm that certain conditions [like gravitational pulls, etc] may introduce changes in the color of the light-wave... bla,bla,bla...etc.

They even gave it the name of "RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT". I can imagine that such unexplainable contradiction in terms is what brought to physics so much troubles until today.

Think about it as an intelligent being:

IF we haven't (ever) observed "a priori" the color change effect in our experiments with light... who could have PREDICTED that this... "Doppler Effect" WOULD HAVE HAPPENED... AS IT DID?

The concept of a CONSTANT SPEED OF CHANGE was logical and obvious from the time of Maxwell, no credits to Einstein about this (read history if you have any doubts) so... we had to explain -or at least find an explanation- to bring both contradicting observation together... Can you see it?

I'm giving you the tool to understand why both obviously opposing "TRUTHS" can be one TRUTH... If was not "c" what's CONSTANT in the universe, but the "SHIFT between the electrical and magnetic field of the wave" JUST AS MAXWELL PROPOSED IN HIS DAYS!

MAXWELL WAS RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGININGS!

The ONLY CONSTANT IN THIS UNIVERSE WAS THE "SHIFT" not the human-made-measurement of "c". (!)

Allow me to illustrate this idea in a little bit more simplistic manner:

Imagine that light was a bunch of horses ready to start the race. The fastest horse (the longer wavelength of the components of the given light) will brake from the rest and will go ahead in the race. Obviously the larger wavelength of all [component of what we know as light] will be the INFRARED.

If we placed light sensors at a certain distance from the light-source...

ISN'T IT LOGICAL TO THINK (AND PREDICT TOO) THAT IT WOULD BE THE INFRARED LIGHT [LOWEST FREQUENCY COMPONENT] THE FIRST HITTING THE SENSOR?

YOU TELL ME...!

I don't blame those who from the very beginings found Einstein's ideas incomprehensibles from the human stand point... I have and I don't feel ashame about it either.

Since the actual dimensions between the different wavelength of the component of lights are so tiny... scientist will find themselves in a very difficult position trying to determine which wavelength of light must "dictate" the exact number defining "c."

Since the INFRARED will be the "winner" of the "race" -as it should be always- I can imagine that all this time we have been considering that component when it comes to define the speed of light between large distances...

We have been wrong the very moment we FIXED "c" with a final set of numbers.

I believe that if we used special sensors for each and every wavelength of the components of light the answer will be different for every frequency.

What do you think about all this?

Let me know even if you disagree totally with my thoughts... especially so.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

The special theory of relativity stated by Einstein in 1905 disregarded the existence of an eather as the medium needed to justify the way light -or what's the same E-M waves- can move at a constant speed of approx. 300,000 km/sec.

I say that if there was indeed nothing like it... space and/or time wouldn't exist either. I know it may sound absurd at a first glance but it doesn't make sense to imagine the universe without it. In fact I dared to say that it is precisely the "invisible" eather the fabric of what we call "space-time."

Is the eather's density the same across the cosmos? NEVER. It changes constantly as the result of the same process occuring in the nucleus of stars. Just as it happens inside the nucleus of atoms, the process that holds the energy together inside atoms, stars and galaxies are the one responsible for the existence of SPACE and therefore also TIME.

The "bending of light when crossing near a star" -remember the experiment that help to prove Einstein's theories correct?

He said that GRAVITY caused the pull necessary for the "miracle" and I say that he should have said that "the different density of the eather close to the star" was the one causing the change in the path of the light.

Then the "RELATIVISTIC REDSHIFT" also the title of this thread. It was another LUCKY SHOT that made him almost unbeatable in front of opposing theories.
He proposed that the actual energy of light suffered a decrease as the source was moving away from the observer. I don't see other explanation for the fact that instead of receiving a full range of frequencies any star is capable of emitting, we only get the infrared instead.

We know that energy can't simply disappear into nothing and specially when it comes to light -an E-M energy wave- even Einstein admited that light travels (moves) across space without any RESISTANCE. I hope you too agree on this point.

SO... (Help me on this would you) IF NO RESISTANCE OF ANY KIND IS CAPABLE OF SLOWING DOWN THE PATH OF ANY E-M WAVE [LIGHT] COULD HE (EINSTEIN) EXPLAINED THE "REDSHIFT" USING A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT OTHER THAN A SORT OF "RELATIVISTIC DOPLER EFFECT" TO JUSTIFY IT?

That's what he did. But Einstein see himself in a greater problem since he himself said in his special theory of relativity that the speed of light is invariant with respect to reference frames of observation.

Unless stars were moving away from us at the speed of light [which I doubt very much] how could a moving star as a source of a light could manage to decrease the actual energy of its light-emission just by getting farther from us?

WOULDN'T BE MUCH MORE LOGICAL TO SAY THAT THOSE STARS ARE SO FAR FROM US THAT WE ARE RECEIVING THE FIRST EMISSIONS THAT CORRESPOND WITH THE LONGEST WAVELENGTH [THE INFRARED] AND THE OTHERS ARE STILL ON THEIR WAY TO US IN ABOUT... OHHH! LET'S SAY IN OTHER MILLION YEARS FROM NOW?

Instead of prophesing an expanding universe altogether... WHY not considering other hypothesis with much more common sense and sense of logic?

The answer is simple... because we would have to rewrite a bunch of concepts already awarded with a NOBLE PRIZE... and that would be a catastrophe!

NO EATHER MEANS NO SPACE-TIME WHICH ALSO MEANS NO REALITY AS WE KNOW IT... WHAT AM I REFERRING HERE?

BLACK HOLES!

YES! A BLACK HOLE IS PRECISELY THE ABSENCE OF SPACE,TIME AND REALITY ALTOGETHER! The absence of the MEDIUM needed for e-m waves to move through!

It is not because light can't scape from black holes... light can't exist inside black holes at all! It has no way of moving across since there is no SPACE and therefore no TIME the way we perceive it in our reality-universe.

I wrote this ideas in my book "WARNING SCIENTIFIC DISCRETION ADVISED" I dedicated an entire chapter to black holes and I compared them to common hurricanes in the middle of the cosmos. The interaction between galaxies could be the main reason for black holes to occur.

If you read about blck holes in official and orthodox sites, you'll find that they try to explain them as the concentration of the mass of a star so big that gravity sucks everything around it, even light.

I say the exact opposing statement:

Black Holes are the absence of mass, the absence of eather and therefore the absence of space-time or reality... a place where the laws of physics do not exist the way we know them. They must exist and they are the natural consequence of the co-existence of different galactic systems across the known universe.

You may ask yourselves now...

How come you dare to say that Black Holes are the absence of SPACE ... even a child knows that a Black Hole has 3 dimensional spatial coordinates, not to mention that they exist inside our TIME-DIMENSION too (the so-called fourth dimension)!

Yes! That's correct! Black Holes are regions of space (cosmos) we may call VOIDS. The literally absence of THINGS the missing of PHYSICALLY EXISTENT ENTITIES ALTOGETHER. It is a region no human being could even imagine in esence. Not me and not you could imagine something that isn't there even when it occupies a 3 dimensional place in our reality... think about it.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault The higher the frequency, the shorter its wavelength and THEREFORE... THE SHORTER THE SPACE COVERED by the same wave at a given TIME (!)

I don't understand the THEREFORE .... Higher frequencies do mean shorter wavelengths but more of them travel in the same space ??

25000Hz or 50000Hz per second means that the wave alters its amplitude either 25000 times per second .... Long waves ... or 50000 times per second ... shorter waves. But the wave, at whatever frequency still travels the same distance in one 1 second ...

Otherwise FM radio would not work ... different frequency shifts (FM = Frequency Modulation) would cause garbage on your receiver ??

Originally Posted by humanbydefault He (Einstein) said that GRAVITY caused the pull necessary for the "miracle" and I say that he should have said that "the different density of the eather close to the star" was the one causing the change in the path of the light.

Actually, I think this is what he did say, that it caused an easier path through spacetime. Analgous to your thinner aether.

Originally Posted by humanbydefault I don't see other explanation for the fact that instead of receiving a full range of frequencies any star is capable of emitting, we only get the infrared instead.

I may not be correct here, but we do receive the FULL range of frequencies. The colours we interpret are simply frequencies. Longer wavelengths we interpret as Red. Shorter as Blue.

We don't receive ONLY infrared, but as all the frequencies are 'stretched' the same as in the receding Doppler shift for sound waves, then they appear to us as 'more Red-ish' than they would to someone from whom the distant source is not receding. But they are still the same waves!!

If you are in a really super-fast car, something capable of pulling close to 'c', then as you approach a 'red' light it will, from your view, appear green (doppler shift towards blue).

You will lose your case in court for speeding, but you will win your case for stating that the light was green. If we are ever to legally drive vehicles near 'c' speed ... all the traffic lights will have to be replaced with lights of longer (infra-infra-red ) wavelengths in order to account for the doppler shift. LOL


my thoughts only, you did invite input

cool bananas ... greg

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault Einstein thought that the Speed of Light was a constant across the entire universe. I disagree with his argument 100%. I personally believe [with all due respect for his genius] that the only constant in the entire universe is the SHIFT BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED "ELECTRICAL FIELD" AND "MAGNETIC FIELD" OF ANY ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE IN THE UNIVERSE.

So what about hbar and G, the other fundamental constants? Are these constants? Can you define your new supposed constant more clearly please (i.e. mathematically).

IF indeed "c" [the so-called speed of light] were always the same -no matter the frequency or wavelength of a given wave of electromagnetic energy- ATOMS COULDN'T BOND TO EACH OTHER AND MATTER [THE WAY WE KNOW IT] WOULDN'T EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE. Think about this for a second! Some atoms are bigger than others and therefore the "inter-atomic distance" needed to be covered by the outer "electrons" would be different in every case... however we observe the combination of molecules and atoms of all kind of sizes [water is a perfect example] withour any inconsistency in the integrity of its physical existence.

Now, I'm normally willing to let things go on here, but can you please give me proof of this? It seems like you still think of the model of an atom as electrons orbitting a nucleus, which is a shame for someone who is questioning the fundamentals of quantum mechanics!

[humanbydefault]

"Now, I'm normally willing to let things go on here, but can you please give me proof of this? It seems like you still think of the model of an atom as electrons orbitting a nucleus, which is a shame for someone who is questioning the fundamentals of quantum mechanics!" [quote]

I used the concept of 'electrons orbiting a nucleus' to make it simpler. If you take a brief look at my page www.theory-of-bonding-harmonics.com you'll see what I call 'electrons'.

I'm simply saying that "c" is never a constant since we refer to the speed of light in a Newtonian fashion:

the distance covered by 'something' [object and waves alike] in the lapsus of a given time measuring unit>>>> wrong!

HBD

[humanbydefault]

"I don't understand the THEREFORE .... Higher frequencies do mean shorter wavelengths but more of them travel in the same space ??" [quote]

25000Hz or 50000Hz per second means that the wave alters its amplitude either 25000 times per second .... Long waves ... or 50000 times per second ... shorter waves. But the wave, at whatever frequency still travels the same distance in one 1 second ...

Otherwise FM radio would not work ... different frequency shifts (FM = Frequency Modulation) would cause garbage on your receiver ??..." [quote]


Your example is good.

The interpretation of how energy moves inside the CARRIER is NOT!

In light, for example, there is a carrier that's being MODulATED in the form of HARMONICS along the wavelength. THE CARRIER STILL RESONATES IN SINCHRONISM WITH THE REST OF OTHER CARRIERS.

ALL ATOMIC ORBITS PERFORM THE SPIN IN SINCH TOO... JuST AS I EXPLAINED IN THE PAST.

THE CARRIER OF THOSE HARMONICS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN EVERY ATOM. THOSE HARMONICS ARE BEING CONFuSED WITH "ELECTRONS." Bohr's model of the atom asigned a given wave function to a given number of electrons... wrong too.


As in the case of Light, COLORS are the result of the interpretation of those harmonics.

IN FACT, THOSE HARMONICS MOVING INSIDE THE CARRIER BECOME INDEPENDENT AS WAVES AFTER A PROCESS CALLED DECOMPOSITION OF LIGHT. Seen by Neuton a century ago.

HBD

"ELECTRONS" ARE SIMPLY A PHENOMENON THAT TAKES PLACE WHEN A CHEMICAL BOND OCCuR. NO BONDING MEANS ONLY HARMONICS SPINNING ALONG THE "CARRIER" [ATOMIC ORBIT].

I CAN SEE IT COuD BE CONFuSING FOR SOME MEMBERS WHO HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED SOME DISCONFORMITY WITH MY VIEWS...

Try to understand what I'm saying first and then confront it Later. pLease.

[N0B0DY]

I'm unsure about Greg's correlation between AM and FM. Does it mean that a change in amplitude will produce a change in frequency?

Also, were you referring to the spatial measurement of the wavelength instead of the Hz, HBD?