 |
micromike.com |
 |
| ...dedicated to the philosophical analysis of scientific thought! | ||
Graduate School Application Menu Contents Philosophy Papers Cosmology Letters Menu Personal Information Menu Martian Chronicle MarsLife MarsMeteorite MarsRock LogSpaceShip GravionCentral Micromike's Sites Overview Common Links Home Aaron's Memorial Pages |
Proposed explanations for the red shift
|
The Aether Identified.
J. Wright 12/23/00 Abstract.
The stars of a galaxy pump a continuous stream of material and
energy mass into space. These
masses do not escape the gravity of the galaxy.
Instead, the gaseous-mass forms a tenuous plasma around the
star of origin, and the energy-mass forms a vast atmosphere around the
galaxy, known as The Dark Mass. This
Dark Mass extends into intergalactic space to join with the Dark
Masses of adjacent galaxies and forms the substance of what has been
known as The Aether. Introduction.
The aether is
believed to permeate all space, from the interstices of the atom to
the intergalactic regions. This being so, any search for the aether should range from
Earth to the Galaxies, with the results of the search being reasonably
extendable to Infinity. Creationism,
or any variant of it, must be ruled out, as must many of the fantasies
currently in vogue. Only
that which is connected to the evidence should be given credence. If
we rule out Creation, and its opposite, Annihilation, we are left with
a Universe that cannot have had a beginning.
It is Eternal. And,
ruling out Curved Space as mathematical fiction, we may as reasonably
assume that the Universe is Infinite.
Finally, in order for the Universe to be Eternal, there must be
a Cosmic Cycle, wherein all material and energy mass, lost in the
fusion fires of the stars of the galaxies, is re-assembled into new
galaxies. This
describes the Universe within which we live and with which we must
contend in our search for the truth of things. The
Solar System. We
start with the Earth and the Planets and Moons of the Solar System,
and, more specifically, with their magnetic fields, and suppose that
these fields are the result of simple electro-magnetism.
By using observed magnetic field-strengths, positions of
magnetic North, rates-of-rotation, etc., the electrical charge
necessary to generate those magnetic fields is calculated.
It turns out that in every instance a massive positive
charge is found, and that the charge so found is proportional to the
size of the planet or moon. Extending
this study a bit further, we observe that a planet may be considered
as one plate of a spherical electrical capacitor (the other being
space) and, having calculated the value of that capacitor consider it
to be charged as found above in order to determine the voltage
necessary to produce that charge.
The voltages found were extremely high, of course, and were
electrically positive, but, more surprising, they were all of the
same magnitude! The
assumption is that all are being charged by the Solar Wind, and this
pointed to the Sun as the source of that charge.
Applying the same electro-magnet technique to calculations for
the Sun, it turns out that, if the Sun=s
rate of rotation were 8 hours, it would produce a similar electrical
potential. The source of
such a positive charge? The
only answer found is that it arises from the fusion activity of the
Sun. For this to be true
we must suppose that negative charge is, quite literally, being
carried away by the energy being produced in the e = mc^2 conversion.
Bizarre? Yes, but
it may be that there is more to energy than an electro-magnetic field
in an aether-less void. [The
e = mc^2 equation should be re-written as e = m/(ue), using c = 1/(ue)^2,
with u and e being the permeability and permittivity of space,
respectively. Both u and e are tangible characteristics of space.] The
Dark Mass.
The Dark Mass (prematurely and erroneously called the Dark
Matter) is reported to surround all galaxies like a mighty halo,
having an actual mass some ten times greater than that of it=s
galactic host. It
reportedly has a density gradient which is a function of the inverse
of the square of its radial distance from the galactic core,
presumably out to where it meets the Dark Mass of adjacent galaxies. Here, again, some simple calculations are preformed.
Using the Galactic Constant (of mass being converted into
energy, each second), and dividing this mass by the mass of the Dark
Mass, a ratio of about 2.23 x 10^-18 gr./gr./second is found.
The
Cosmological Redshift.
Digressing, for a moment, this redshift in frequency (as
measured in light, per second of travel time), is given as 2.268 x
10^-18 hz/hz/sec. A coincidence? That
is unlikely. If one were
to assume that the density of all of space were being increased at the
gr/gr/sec rate found in the Galactic Constant/Dark Mass calculations,
precisely the redshift observed would be produced.
Note particularly that the increase would be at a constant rate
for every galaxy and this
rate of increase would be the same whether near the galactic core or
in the intergalactic regions.
(This redshift is the result of a constant increase in the
number of waves in transit, caused by the constant increase in the
permittivity of the Dark Mass. I.e.,
F_out = F_in - dF/sec.) The
Dark Mass (Cont=d).
The characteristics of the Dark Mass, aside from mass, must
include some form of self-repulsion, otherwise it would all be drawn
into the galactic center. This
force of self-repulsion would increase in response to gravitational
compression until the forces were equal.
Such a counter-force would result in the density gradient noted
above, where an extremely compressed Dark Mass would inhabit the
galactic core, as suggested earlier, with the opposite occurring in
the intergalactic regions. If
the Dark Mass were negative, not as in being charged but intrinsically
so, we would have that self-repulsion. Electro-Magnetic
Waves. Scientists
have looked for a medium that could support e.m. waves for thousands
of years. A Dark Mass
(let=s
call it an Aether) which displays a
negative aspect, even though not negatively charged, per se, is
an ideal candidate for such a medium.
The reaction of such a negative mass to compression/rarefaction
waves would be to move at right angles to the direction of e.m. wave
travel, i.e., display a Atransverse@
motion. The
Aether. The
Dark Mass is proposed as direct evidence of an Aether, which is
further identified as a form of negative energy, real in every sense,
in which the e.m. wave is but a propagating vibration. The
Effects of the Aether on Earth. The
Earth, and indeed all of Existence, is permeated by the Aether, from
the interstices of the atom to the intergalactic regions and beyond. This being so, the Earth in its= solar orbit may be seen as plowing through the Aether, creating a
bow-wave and aethereal compression on its leading side.
An Observer on the Earth=s
surface would be carried through this compressed region once every 24
hours. As the Moon orbits
the Earth it would generate tides in the ocean and in the atmosphere
but would also generate a tide in the Aether, which would be felt as a
28 day Aaethereal
wave@
sweeping around the globe. Finally,
in that the Earth=s
orbit around the Sun is on a plane parallel to the galactic plane, the
Earth will travel through the galactic density gradient and experience
an annual variation in the density of the Aether in which it is
immersed. So, we can
expect a 24 hr., a 28 day, and a 365 day cycle in any phenomena
responsive to changes in density of the Aether.
Are there any such phenomena? The
answer is, Yes. A recently
published paper by the 21st Century Science and Technology
magazine reports on a Russian bio-physicist, S. E. Shnoll, who has been
monitoring radio-active decay for many years. This man has recorded a daily, monthly and yearly variation
in the rate of decay of a number of different radio-active elements, a
red/blue shift, so to speak, which, from the
preliminary reports seems to follow the more-dense/less-dense
variations in the Aethereal density.
It is also believed that atomic clocks show a similar variation,
e.g., a slowing down during
exposure to a dense Aether and a speeding up when the aether is less
dense. The
Effect of the Aether in the Cosmos.
Halton Arp has spent
decades observing Quasars and has proven, to the satisfaction of all but
the die-hards, that the Quasars are periodically ejected in pairs from
the heart of Seyfert galaxy=s.
These newly formed quasars have redshifts, called Intrinsic
Redshifts, that are much greater than that of their parent galaxy, even
though at the same distance from Earth. This excess redshift appears to diminish as the Quasar moves
away from its parent, eventually becoming about equal to that of other
galaxies in the neighborhood. It
is suggested that, as the Aether is extremely compressed in the core of
the Seyfert, the atoms responsible for the expected radiations are Aloaded@
by the Aether and actually radiate their e.m. energy at a lower
frequency. In that the
ejected Quasar is comprised of material drawn
from the core of the Seyfert it should be expected to display this
excess redshift when first ejected.
The newly formed Quasar would be constituted of highly compressed
material and, as it travels away from its parent, can be expected to
expand, thereby lessening its redshift.
The label AIntrinsic
Redshift@
is inadvertently quite apt. Conclusion.
A number of other
effects at the atomic level could well be caused by the presence of the
Aether, one of which is the one second/year slowing of atomic clocks.
As noted the Dark Mass is constantly receiving mass and growing
in density, so there is a logical cause.
The effects on various clocks having to do with the Global
Positioning System could also be traced to the fact that the satellites
involved are moving at high speeds and at varying directions with
respect to the Aether. Also,
it is probable that the Aether embedded in the Earth moves with the
Earth in its rotation, and is also swept along by the atmosphere, but to
a lessening extent at the higher elevations.
This effect could be responsible for the seeming differences in
air travel for an East to West trip vs a West to East one. James
B. Wright 400 Hiram Page Rd., # 55
Email: jimdon@thegrid.net Yreka, CA 96097
S theaether.wpd
micromike:
I
appreciate your appreciation of the poem and its posting on your
Website. But, as it is, I question, first, whether it would
work as verse in a melody, and, second, whether the hysterical
masses out there (I mean the majority of our lobotomized
youngsters, and perhaps as many oldsters) would have a clue as to what
was being said. Or, even be slightly interested. I appreciate you
appreciating my appreciation of your poem.
I know that a lot of our youth and most adults seem lobotomized,
but in an infinite cosmos, I have infinite faith in the youth of this
world. After spending the three months at the UFO Museum, I got to
see lots of kids and I believe they are the hope of this world. All
of the new ideas I received came from the children.
All children learn by watching the adults around them.
If the adults are not aware, then the children are likely to be
the same. I've called the
phenomenon "the least model that works."
If we look at all of nature, we find species that have found
simple models of reality that work for them.
As long as the model works, there is no need to progress beyond
it. Many people do the same
thing. They accept the
first model of reality that seems to work, and always the most simple
they can get by with. If
the model is shown to have flaws, then maybe they will reassess the
situation and make a new model. As far as them
appreciating the poem or song, well, that is up to me to teach them to
appreciate the finer things in life.
If they are taught these kind of things from the very beginning,
then they will grow up to appreciate them.
Most of the gravionic model has been developed with the youth in
mind. I bet I'll find someone that can set the poem to music and if
its done right, the youth will love it.
You wait and see. Some day I'll have a nice song out of your poem and we'll be
singing it to the world. J
I
have a question for you, and for those others whose models of the cause
of the Cosmological Red shift is a simple lengthening of the transmitted
wave-energy, e.g., by means of "Ejectons", "Tired
Light", Etc. (Of course, the Big Bang driven Expanding
Universe is pure fantasy.) First of
all, I'm not one of those that believe a simple lengthening of the wave
energy causes the red shift or that the red shift means that objects
with red shift are necessarily moving away from us.
But, since I doubt that any of those that believe these things
would answer your question, I'll be glad to apply the gravionic model to
your insights and see how things look under a gravionic light.
So don't put me in the class of those who believe in a single
expanding universe. I
think a single big bang, single expanding universe would imply a finite
cosmos and I just can't accept that there is any limit to the number of
stars that are in the heavens. Those
that believe in the single big bang, with its apparent edge, will never
be able to answer what lies beyond that edge.
In an infinite cosmos, there is just more stars.
Many people have told me that they can't imagine the stars going
on forever, but I can't imagine an edge, with nothing beyond it.
Consider a grossly simplified model of the Universe: A radiating source of energy at F_s at some distant location; a black box representing the intervening space; and a radio receiver in your back yard measuring the frequency F_o of the signal received from that source. At a distance of 10 BLY's F_o will be about half that of F_s. What is happening to the other half?
In
radio engineering we can change the observed frequency from an
oscillator by several means, such as Doppler if the Tx or Rx are
moving, combining a second source with that of the oscillator in
a mixer to produce sum and difference frequencies (and a host of
others), passing the oscillator's output through a klystron (a device
where the fixed incoming frequency wave is alternately
accelerated and decelerated to produce FM, passing the wave
through a variable capacitor which is cycled from max to min thereby
accomplishing what the klystron does but by directly varying the delay
of the path the wave travels. Perhaps there are others, but what
they all have in common is that there is a specific cause for the change
in frequency. (An Expanding Universe would be an ideal cause,
except that an EU just doesn't make sense, especially in an infinite
universe.) The
only thing I would disagree with is the use of the words "an
infinite universe." Under
the gravionic model, I have defined a universe as those physical systems
that share common connections of gravity.
Any universe must be finite.
The collection of all the universes is the cosmos, or everything
that exists. The cosmos is infinite, but every viewpoint is always finite,
even the viewpoint of a universe. We
live in an infinite cosmos, but we can only be aware of a finite part of
this creation.
The variable capacitor, in the above litany, suggests a similar method which might be invoked on a grand scale. Note that as the capacitor is rotated it's capacity increases and decreases in a sinusoidal manner and that the path delay also changes sinusoidally. Now, let's re-configure the capacitor so that it's capacity increases and decreases linearly, i.e., in a saw-tooth wave fashion. And, then, let's set the saw-tooth wave at (say) one cycle/minute. In this instance, instead of having a sinusoidal shift in the oscillator's frequency as it passed through the device, the frequency change would be a step function. For the 30 seconds that the delay was increasing (at a constant rate) the output frequency would be constant at some frequency below the original oscillator frequency, and, of course, for the second 30 seconds there would be a specific increase in frequency, also constant.
This describes precisely what I hypothesize: The aether in space is constantly becoming more dense and produces a constantly increasing delay in the travel time of the light from a distant quasar (e.g.), and a shift in the observed light frequency. By passing this light through a great number of increments of space, where the aether is also becoming more dense at a constant rate, a compounding of the effect is attained and the formula which I employed becomes valid.
F_o = F_s x e^Rt.
Where e is 2.7182818..., (the base of the natural logarithm system), R is the rate of change (2.268 x 10^-18 hz/hz/sec), and t is the time of travel (i.e., in distant increment's of 3 x 10^8 meters). R, as defined, is found by two separate methods, one, by taking the 70 km/megaparsec/sec. from the Expanding Universe folk and reducing it to m/m/s, and, two, by comparing the mass lost to energy by a galaxy/sec., to the mass of the Dark Mass surrounding that galaxy. This last directly supports my idea of a universe of constantly increasing density. [How this increase is offset in the overall Universe (and it certainly must be offset) is discussed elsewhere.]
Now, how does E = Gmc^2 account for the change in frequency? I understand that the photons (?) lose mass (but not speed) and therefore have less energy. Does their wave alter-ego then simply appear at a lower frequency? And what if you're an old-time microwave man whose life has been spent in shaping and directing micro waves? Nary a photon to be seen (or needed).
Jim
Wright To
answer your question, "How does E=gmc^2 account for the change in
frequency?" I must first answer a question you asked in an earlier
paragraph, "What is happening to the other half of the
energy?" And to answer it, I must first digress to a short discussion
of the gravionic model and its implications. Under
GMOPS, all space (or the aether as you call it) is made from the
connections of gravity. These
connections spring from each mass.
There is no "square space" out there waiting to be bent
by gravity. Gravions define all space with giant looping structures,
called advertising gravions. You
have seen these when you look at iron filings showing a magnetic field
of force. Under GMOPS, this
force must travel through connections of gravity, so you are seeing
where the gravions are, because of the energy that they carry.
I don't
consider light (or microwave energy) to be real, by itself. It is part of a system.
One can't have energy just "flying" through space.
There must be an aether (gravions, or specific connections of
gravity) that carries the energy. To
view the system properly, one must recognize that there is a mass at
each end of the gravion, the gravionic connection itself, and the
energies that travel down this system.
Thus E=gmc^2 is the proper equation to show the energy of any
real physical system. Under
E=mc^2, there is no place for the energy to go.
Even though I don't believe that a photon has mass, let's take
your example above and see what we can see.
You say that you understand that the photons lose mass and thus
energy. So where does the
energy go? Under GMOPS, the
energy goes from the mass to the gravitational system.
With gravity in the equation, there is a place in all real
reactions for the energy to move between the mass and the gravity.
Under Einstein's model, there is no variable in the equation to
handle this, or any, movement of energy.
We all know by simple observations that mass and gravity are
proportional. I have simply
preserved that important relationship. If we
were to look at all of space, under a gravionic light, we would see that
space is much more dense in the regions around black holes at the center
of galaxies and of galaxy clusters, which probably represent the largest
universes in our cosmos. When
new particles come into existence, they have most of their energy in the
mass and very little in the space (gravions) they make.
But as each particle goes through its existence, it tends to
become involved in ever more complex systems, with more and more
connections of gravity. Thus
I have proposed that the main driving force of all nature is the
movement of energy from the mass into the gravitational connections.
A black hole represents mass that has given up almost all of its
energy, so that it can cooperate with other particles in defining the
immense space radiating outward from the black holes.
So you are very right in your assumption that space would be
denser in some areas than in others.
As
"light" passes from one gravitation system through the next
and so on, it must loose some energy at each "intersection."
I have proposed that the loss occurs as light moves between these
different gravitational systems as a possible cause of the red shift.
Under GMOPS, for an event to be real, there must be a connection
of gravity between at least two masses and a subsequent passage of
energy through the system. Thus,
anywhere we see energy being used, I would intuit a connection of
gravity must exist. Now after hearing your explanation for the red shift, I think
I like your explanation better than mine.
As a philosopher, I have said that any explanation for the red
shift other than the currently accepted explanation means that there is
NO evidence of a single expanding universe, since the whole concept
revolves around the assumption that the red shift means that everything
is moving away from us. If
that assumption is incorrect, then all of their logic falls like a house
built of playing cards. I really
like people who have learned electronics.
Electronics teaches people to think for themselves and gives them
confidence that they understand reality, because they can experiment and
can "know" a priori if something is going to work or not.
Also, they are more aware of their assumptions than most people,
because you can't be a good technician if you aren't aware of your
assumptions. And electronic
people are logical, since all of electronics requires a logical
approach. Also, electronics
really shows one how the cosmos works.
Probably everything we see in the heavens can be reproduced by
electronics. So I can say
with great certainty, that each universe (around massive black holes)
would be much more dense than space created halfway between two of these
large systems. If light passes "through" several of these systems,
by your model, it would lose some of its energy going through each
system, since the "light" would have to move from less density
to more density with each transit. The
photons don't have mass, but they do represent energy. Their
energy comes from the mass (the star that generated the light) and
passes to the gravitation system as this light traverses the many
different universes of our infinite cosmos. As far
as the problem concerning no photons in microwave, I don't see a
problem. In both cases we
have energy, the "scientists" have just named the energy of
light with the name photon. That
is one thing I don't like about current science, especially quantum
mechanics: they just name something as being a whole, which is really
not a whole thing in nature. It
is part of a system and it can't exist by itself.
Light and microwave are just different forms of energies moving
through the gravitational system. I think
your formulae is valid and represents a much more plausible explanation
for the red shift than the currently accepted model.
We need to think of an experiment that would prove your
hypothesis. Probably one
has already been done, but they just don't know how to interpret what
they have seen. I can certainly "see" how a black hole could act
like a giant electronic circuit and provide the shift in energy we have
witnessed. It would be
defining a massive space and it would be spinning, in relationship to
those things around it. What
more could you want for a giant capacitor?
Talk about a universal capacitor. J On a
related subject, I've long thought about the SETI project. Two things worry me. First,
if the speed of gravity is C^2, then why would any aliens communicate at
the speed of light (which is only C)? And second, are we grounded in relation to their
transmitters? Your
friend, micromike
Original Message ----- From: micromike
To:
Jim
Wright Sent:
Saturday, January 20, 2001 6:12 AM Subject:
Re: Dear Jim, I've posted both your papers on www.micromike.com. The poem is under my personal section, then under poetry. I like it very much. One of my goals is to write songs like your poem, that teach the youngsters about an infinite cosmos and the wonders of space and time. If you think of a melody to go with this poem, please tell me. Your other paper has been posted under my philosophy menu in a new category that I've made. I've proposed the infinite cosmos model to replace the current single big bang model. The only evidence for a single big bang is the red shift and the assumption that it means that everything is moving away from us. If there are any other explanations for the red shift, then it means that things are not moving away from us, they are actually moving in every direction. I have proposed a mechanism for the red shift. However, you and several other people (including a guy on Dr. Sky's radio show) have proposed different explanations. I want to begin posting all of these alternate explanations. Also, if you have read my work, then you know that I don't accept E=mc^2 as being valid. E=gmc^2 is the correct equation and provides a variable in the equation to represent the energies of which you speak in your paper. When I get time, I will write a section under you paper that describes how my model would view your viewpoint. Your friend, micromike -----
Original Message ----- From: Jim
Wright To:
micromike
Sent:
Sunday, January 14, 2001 1:20 PM Subject:
Re: micromike:
Yes, you may post the material.
I am particularly interested in detailed criticism of the steps that I'm proposing for the Cosmological Red shift, including the positive charge on the Solar System (and the Stars), and the equality of the mass-to-energy loss by the galaxies to the Dark Mass surrounding that galaxy vs the rate-of-change per/sec^2 of the Red shift. I.e., 2.2 x 10^-18 parts/part/per second, for each (approximately)?
Jim
Wright Since I haven't believed in an expanding universe model, I've really
never put too much in the experiments surrounding the red shift.
They are measuring light from different universes under the
gravionic model, so it makes no logical sense, if they are assuming
the expanding universe model. But
they have measured something, and maybe you have hit upon a solution
for what it really means. I
encourage you to keep on thinking about this issue. Your friend, micromike
|
|
Dear
Robert, First,
I would like to thank you for taking the time to write me and allowing me
the time to answer. Your work
adds another dimension to my work and I consider it very valuable. During this same period, I have been having a conversation
with another gentleman about the redshift.
I have chosen to answer both letters at the same time, because I
think the answers are related and may help each of you see your particular
problem from a new viewpoint. Therefore,
I've included your last letter, which I will answer below.
In addition, I've included a letter to Jim Wright and given my
answer to his letter. I'll
also be interested in any comments you might have to make and with your
permission; I'll post this discussion on my web site. If
you are to understand my viewpoint, I must first describe the basics of my
philosophy on space and time. All
of science is about the process of making of models and I would suggest
that many current models have gaping flaws, especially the single big
bang/single expanding universe/finite cosmos model currently popular.
This model is based on a series of false assumptions and thus I
would suggest it is not even a possible model of cosmology.
Some of these false assumptions include the assumption that space
is square and that gravity bends this square space (Where did this
straight space come from anyway?), the assumption that gravity is infinite
in speed and abilities (common experiences tell us otherwise), and the
assumption that any scientific model can say that "something"
comes from nothing, and the assumption that a big bang would make matter
and space expand. In some
ways, academia has taken over the role of the Catholic Church in holding
back new ideas and allowing a free flow of thoughts. They apparently assign their assumption as the students leave
and then never again examine them. The
single big bang model is just mankind's latest attempt to put himself at
the center of the cosmos. In
an infinite cosmos, there is no center and thus we can't be there. The
gravionic model of physical systems that I have proposed shows that all
space is created by the connections of gravity and that each of these
connections arise from the mass at the speed of C2. Some of these connections make up all of the various bonds
between masses while others loop out and create the traditional
gravitational space. The sum
total of all these connections define all space that we know and the
connections of gravity represent nature's coordinate system.
All space that we perceive is created by these distinct connections
of gravity (called gravions) and these connections all arise from mass.
This is the very reason that "things" are relative.
The very coordinate system of nature is made from each mass outward
and there is no square space out there waiting to be bent by gravity. Space is created bent to start with. As physical systems get
larger, they define an ever-larger space.
The density of any space would be proportional to the size of the
mass creating that space. So
in my imagination, if I were to visualize the light coming from a distant
galaxy, here is what I would see. First
the galaxy of creation would be defining its own space, outward from the
black holes at the center of the galaxy.
The largest structures in space that are gravitationally connected
appear to be galaxy clusters to me. Thus,
the largest that any "universe" could be is the size of the
largest structures that share a common center.
So as I would imagine the light coming from a distant galaxy, this
light would move through the gravitational connections, outward from the
galaxy. But as it continued,
it would pass outside the influence of the first galaxy or universe and
eventually move into the influence of other galaxies and galaxy clusters. Thus it would make a transit from dense to less dense back to
dense and then back to less dense as it passed this second universe.
This process would be repeated x times until the light got to us
where it would be under the influence of the Milky Way and its associated
galaxies. If
light is traversing this system, why and where would it lose energy?
Under GMOPS, the electromagnetic force is not an entity of its own.
It is part of a system. To
have this radiation travel through space, there must be a mass at one end,
a gravitational connection through which the energy can pass, and a mass
at the other end. Thus it is
no longer a stand-alone force under the gravionic model, but simply a
physical system that is transferring energy via light to equalize the two
connected physical systems. My
biggest complaint about quantum mechanics is its oblivion to the
assumption that it can call what it wants to be a quanta or one of
something. Science just can't
take something, isolate it and call it complete, especially if nature has
different rules. In
this most simple of systems, what would I expect to happen to the energy?
I would expect the energy in the most simple system to pass from
the first mass to the second without loss of energy.
This would be a theoretical systems composed of just the two
masses, the connecting gravion and the energy flow.
But what if the light has to make a number of "hops"
between gravitational systems, each with its own mass and its own space of
varying density? Then I would
expect the light to give up some energy at each junction or passage
between or through the systems. Each
gravitational universe extracts a "toll" for all light that
passes through its "highway" system.
Interesting enough but beside the point, I have defined time as the
changing of gravions, so the light in the primitive system would not
experience time, since no connections of gravity would be changing.
However, as the light made transport between systems, time would
pass if changes in connections are realized in its transit. Now
with this short overview, let's advance to the first letter. Dear Micromike, First,
I don't accept the principle that I must provide mathematics for anything
I do. That is one of the
reasons I decided on Philosophy as a study; there is no math in
philosophy. J I think I have provided the only real equation ever written
E=gmc2, or at least the only equation that represents the
energy of a real physical system.
To represent the real world, each equation must have all of the
parts contained within this basic formulae.
It must show energy, some of which is in the gravitational system
and which transports at the speed of C2.
Some of the energy must be in the mass and must transport at C or
less. All other equations to
date, have only represented part of the real physical system.
So I will be glad to let others do the math, since my job is to
provide the overview of the situation.
All math is a model attempting to represent reality.
The model is never the reality. Next,
I don't believe the Hubble constant is real, at least real in the sense of
measuring an expanding universe. If
there is any other reason for the red shift, then the only evidence of an
expanding cosmos vanishes. I
don't think there is a single expanding universe, but rather an infinite
number of universes that are moving in every direction.
So again, we must imagine what is happening to the light reaching
us from distant galaxies. What
are they trying to measure with the Hubble Constant?
Apparently they are trying to measure this imaginary single
expanding universe. But if
they are looking at the light from other universes, how can they apply a
model of a single expanding universe?
The Hubble constant may have some meaning, but not as a measure of
an imaginary expanding universe. Let's
look at this expanding universe model and see where the flaws might lie.
The first assumption is that something could come from nothing.
No other scientific model could make this claim without being
laughed out of the room. The
next is that gravity has some kind of infinite affect in both speed and
dimension. Look at what the
model says. If there is
enough mass, the universe would be closed and would come back together.
But the assumption is that gravity could somehow know of all the
mass in the cosmos at one time. This
means it would have no limits. If
there is any limit in speed, then there would be an overall limit on how
much any gravitational system could know about the rest of the cosmos.
I believe that gravity is fast, but not infinite in speed or
affect. Take
a small asteroid moving from another solar system towards our own.
Would the gravity in your own body know about this rock before it
ever enters our solar system? I
think not. Would the Earth know about its gravity before it entered our
solar system? I think not.
What would happen in reality?
The object would not be known to the Earth until they came close
enough to come into the gravitational field of each body.
Then they would form connections of gravity and would measure each
other's strength and then, and only then, would they know of each other.
As long as the single big bang model is not possible, then it makes
no sense to study an imaginary expansion.
You are right when you say that the interpretation of the Hubble
constant is what has led everyone astray.
I personally don't yet know how to interpret it, or if it should be
interpreted at all as valid science. Now
to your conclusions from your papers: 1.
"This causes a redshift of the emission up to the point at which the
residual radiation becomes the cosmic background." I'd
never thought of this prospect, but I can't find anything wrong with your
argument. Although I've spent
an enormous amount of time trying to understand the red shift and it's
implications, it has never seemed important to have a definitive
explanation for the background radiation.
It seems to me, that in an infinite cosmos, any number of causes
could be attributed to creating the background radiation.
One possibility that I've considered is the introduction of
"new" mass into an existing gravitational structure.
As mass comes back into existence after a big bang event, it seems
to me that there would be a large difference in energy between new
particles and "established" particles already contributing to
the gravitational systems. This
interaction would surely give rise to some kind of radiation, but whether
it would become cosmic radiation is unknown. But
let's examine your statement under a gravionic light. Let us imagine that we have an infinite number of the systems
as I described above. Each
physical system (black hole or galaxy clusters) takes a small amount of
energy in payment for the transport across it's structure.
If we go through this process enough times, wouldn't all the energy
be used? Probably.
If all the energy has been lost, then we would not even
"see" this system and not know about its energy.
Anything less than this could easily show as background radiation.
Background radiation could very easily be the end result of a great
many transits across different gravitational systems. 2.
"This leads to a static universe where the dark matter is a
phenomenon caused by the redshift energy losses." First
of all, I don't agree that "the" universe is static.
I think things are moving in every direction.
Second, I don't think the redshift causes dark matter.
I think dark matter causes the red shift. If
we examine the concept of dark matter, philosophically it is an oxy moron.
I believe there is dark matter.
When we examine the heavens and produce our 3D maps, we find great
regions that appear to have no matter.
These large "holes" are places where big bang events have
occurred in the "recent" past.
Thus all the mass that once made gigantic black holes is now
disassociated into individual masses.
Before the Event, the mass was all working together to define an
immense amount of space. After
the Event, each mass has its own gravity, but is no longer contributing to
the overall gravitational structure. Each is alone and thus represents dark matter: matter that
exists, but is not a part of our gravitational structure. But
what of the dark matter that has been measured in so many galaxies?
These galaxies are rotating at a speed that is faster than the
visible mass would allow. Where
is this unseen mass? It has
already gone "down the drain" of the black hole(s) at the center
of each galaxy. For this mass
to register in the gravitational system, it must be a part of the
gravitational system and must be contributing to the formation of the
space created by these large structures.
Proof of this comes from gravitational lens experiments which map
the gravity of galaxy clusters. (See
my cosmology page for an
example.) We find that all
the missing gravity appears in very sharp peaks, indicating to me that it
is already in the black hole and is not missing at all.
Of course, in an infinite cosmos, it really doesn't matter how
densely things are packed, because there is no chance of an open or closed
"universe" as predicted under the present model.
If there is no expansion, then it makes no sense to talk of open or
closed universes, since they would just be a figment of someone's
imagination. The Hubble
Constant is unreal. The
cosmos is not static, it is constantly moving. It is just not expanding
from some imganiary single black hole. Now
on to the next letter. .
Mike:
My Cosmological Redshift hypothesis is based on the assumption that there is a medium between any distant light source and our telescopes and that as a result of a continual increase in the density of that medium the observed redshift is manufactured. If the medium were of a constant density, no matter how great, there'd be no redshift.
Let's take a light source of 6 x 10^14 Hz which is redshifted to 3 x 10^14 Hz. (This would occur over about a 9.7 billion light-year path.) The formula for energy at a given frequency is hf, with h being Planck's Constant of 6.63 x 10^-27 ergs/sec. and f being in hertz. The calculation gives us:
Source Freq.(F_s) ~ 6 x 10^14 x 6.63 x 10^-27 = 4 x 10^-12 ergs/sec., transmitted.
Observed F. (F_o) ~ 3 " x " = 2 " received.
The model I used for the logic of my argument was to place a "black box" between the Source and the Observer, and note if the medium in the box were unchanging there would be a given number (n) of waves in transit between the Source and the Observer. However, as the medium slowly (and constantly) increases in density the wavelength gradually shortens and n increases at a constant rate, d(n)/sec. Therefore, F_o = F_s - d(n)/sec., i.e., F_o is redshifted with respect to F_s. Notice, at this point, that no waves are lost! All that were transmitted are still in transit, even though we are seeing fewer emerge/sec. from the black box than enter it/sec. So, supposing that the Source burns for 20 billion light-years and pumps its 6 x 10^14 hz/sec. into the box over that period. If F_o is half F_s, the Observer will receive 3 x 10^16 hz/sec. for 40 billion light-years! (No waves were lost, remember.)
Now, let's calculate the total energy transmitted vs the total energy received:
Source: 4 x 10^-12 ergs/sec. x 2 x 10^10 (years) x 3.15 x 10^7 (secs./yr.) = 2.52 x 10^5 ergs.
Observer: 2 x " x 4 " x " = 2.52 x 10^5 ergs.
In both calculations the total number of waves is the same. It simply takes twice as long to observe them than it takes to transmit them. This says that even though we received the lower frequency at the lower energy level we received it for twice the time. No energy was lost!
Am I wrong?
Jim Wright I
agree with the first paragraph. The
medium of transport is the connections of gravity that define the space
between the objects. In the
real world, there wouldn't be just a single gravitational system with
increasing density, there would be any number of such systems, each
representing increased gravity near their centers and decreasing gravity
as one travels "past" the system.
The concept of no changing density, no redshift seems correct to me
at this point in space and time. The
first problem comes when we get to your "black box" that exists
between the source and the destination.
All mathematics is an attempt to model reality.
In this case, I think your logic is good, but reality is not
exactly like the problem you state. For
transport across 9.7 billion light years, many gravitational systems would
have to be crossed and so the single black box concept would not be
totally accurate, yet it is good enough to help us understand what might
be happening. I
don't think the light energy is delayed, as you say. I think it is used by the gravitational systems that give it
transport and define the space that it uses.
In the end, there is no loss of energy in an infinite cosmos.
But from the viewpoint of the receiver of the energy, some loss has
occurred. The energy went
into the gravitational systems that it passed and each system increased
slightly in energy. Thus from
the viewpoint of any universe, energy is lost.
From a cosmic perspective, the energy is just lost in relation to
certain universes, but not in relation to the entire cosmos.
So I think you are mostly right, but wrong on your last point. It
seems to me that we now have adequate evidence of alternate red shift
explanations to eliminate once and for all the single big bang model,
which in my mind, is just mankind's latest attempt to make himself the
center of the cosmos. One
never hears of a cosmologist claiming that the edge of the cosmos is 13
billion light years in one direction, but 15 in another.
The number is always the same, apparently because they assume we
are at the "center" of the "explosion." The
last point I would like to make is that I don't think there is any
evidence that a big bang event makes anything expand.
It looks to me as if the energy involved in the disassociation of a
black hole, remains in the vicinity of the Event and doesn't cause these
particles to move away from the Event.
What does happen is that angular momentum is changed to
straight-line momentum for all materials orbiting the black hole that are
outside the Event horizon. I
think this is what happened to the Milky Way and why it is moving so
quickly in relationship to other galaxies outside our cluster.
Our galaxy cluster was orbiting a large black hole that went
critical and resulted in a big bang Event.
It is just like the little boy swinging a rock on a string around
his head. Once the string is
cut, the rock flies off in a straight line.
This is the same process we see happening in the heavens, only
galaxies and galaxy clusters are being manipulated, not little rocks. Your
friend, µmike
|
Copyright 1998,1999, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved worldwide. |
A license to use pictures and text can be purchased for a nominal fee at: thegravitystore |
Contents Philosophy Papers Principles Summary Cosmology Letters Menu Personal Information Menu Martian Chronicle MarsLife MarsMeteorite MarsRock LogSpaceShip GravionCentral Micromike's sites Overview Common Links Home Aaron's Memorial Pages
NASA contact page |
Questions or comments? contacts: Aaron@micromike.com web pages mike@micromike.com. content |
