Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
PHOTONS SLOWED DOWN BY VACUUM
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 19, 2012, 11:23:06 AM5/19/12
to
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html
"In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"...space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays travel through space."
http://bourabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/evolution.htm
"At present it is ascertained that vacuum is not an "empty space" - rather, it is a certain material continuum with quite definite although still unknown properties. This has been confirmed by observation of vacuum effects such as "zero-oscillations", vacuum polarization, particle generation by electromagnetic interactions. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that physical vacuum could have internal friction due to its own small but real viscosity, which in the end produces redshift. (...) ...the differential equation for the speed of light dc/dt=-Ho*c(t)"
HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into "virtual particles" or "tiny grains" and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.
On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:
f' = f(exp(-kt))
where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:
f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L
where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
"In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
"...space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays travel through space."
http://bourabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/evolution.htm
"At present it is ascertained that vacuum is not an "empty space" - rather, it is a certain material continuum with quite definite although still unknown properties. This has been confirmed by observation of vacuum effects such as "zero-oscillations", vacuum polarization, particle generation by electromagnetic interactions. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that physical vacuum could have internal friction due to its own small but real viscosity, which in the end produces redshift. (...) ...the differential equation for the speed of light dc/dt=-Ho*c(t)"
HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into "virtual particles" or "tiny grains" and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.
On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:
f' = f(exp(-kt))
where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:
f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L
where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
May 21, 2012, 6:31:34 AM5/21/12
to
Photons slowed down by the gravitational field of the emitter:
http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138
"In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen's Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away. As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away. The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar's redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause. This validates Halton Arp's theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin. (...) One likely cause of the quasar's nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-einstein-relativity/
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."
Both Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light predict that, as light is escaping a gravitational field, it loses SPEED. That is, the redshifted light referred to is one having a speed lower than c. However if researchers are careless enough to interpret the redshift in terms of decreased speed of light, neither Nature nor any other "respectable" journal would publish the heresy. The speed of light is invariable, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, even though Divine Albert's Divine Theory says the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. And if some cosmologists are so naïve as to hint at the analogy between the gravitational redshift they measure and Halton Arp's "intrinsic" redshift, they might even become unpersons, like Halton Arp:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138
"In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen's Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away. As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away. The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar's redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause. This validates Halton Arp's theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin. (...) One likely cause of the quasar's nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-einstein-relativity/
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."
Both Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light predict that, as light is escaping a gravitational field, it loses SPEED. That is, the redshifted light referred to is one having a speed lower than c. However if researchers are careless enough to interpret the redshift in terms of decreased speed of light, neither Nature nor any other "respectable" journal would publish the heresy. The speed of light is invariable, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, even though Divine Albert's Divine Theory says the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. And if some cosmologists are so naïve as to hint at the analogy between the gravitational redshift they measure and Halton Arp's "intrinsic" redshift, they might even become unpersons, like Halton Arp:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
May 21, 2012, 11:34:01 AM5/21/12
to
Julian Barbour defines the greatest need in cosmology:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211021v2.pdf
Julian Barbour: "The greatest need is for an EXPLANATION OF THE HUBBLE RED SHIFT THAT DOES NOT RELY ON EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE."
What are you talking about, Julian Barbour? How about the billions wasted on dark cosmology? "Billions wasted" means "cosmology forever dark":
http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0211/0211021v2.pdf
Julian Barbour: "The greatest need is for an EXPLANATION OF THE HUBBLE RED SHIFT THAT DOES NOT RELY ON EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE."
What are you talking about, Julian Barbour? How about the billions wasted on dark cosmology? "Billions wasted" means "cosmology forever dark":
http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
May 21, 2012, 12:42:24 PM5/21/12
to
The point in a fact is when a definitely Hubble first put
His head to the eyepiece the number of these galaxies
Were known was exactly one otherwise the milky way
Everything else was thought to be either part of milky way
Just itself or one of many distant peripheral puffs of gas
Hubble quickly demonstrated how wrong that belief was
As over next decade Hubble tackled two most fundamental
Question of universe which is how old is it and how big
As to answer both is necessary to know two things as how
Far away galaxies are and how fast they are flying away
Something known as a recessional velocity as the red shift
Gives the speed at which galaxies are retiring but does not
Tell how far away they are to begin with as was needed
Just what are a definitely known candles stars as standard
Whose brightness a definitely can be reliably calculated
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Pentcho Valev" kirjoitti
viestiss�:75037cf9-ee20-4a88...@googlegroups.com...
His head to the eyepiece the number of these galaxies
Were known was exactly one otherwise the milky way
Everything else was thought to be either part of milky way
Just itself or one of many distant peripheral puffs of gas
Hubble quickly demonstrated how wrong that belief was
As over next decade Hubble tackled two most fundamental
Question of universe which is how old is it and how big
As to answer both is necessary to know two things as how
Far away galaxies are and how fast they are flying away
Something known as a recessional velocity as the red shift
Gives the speed at which galaxies are retiring but does not
Tell how far away they are to begin with as was needed
Just what are a definitely known candles stars as standard
Whose brightness a definitely can be reliably calculated
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Pentcho Valev" kirjoitti
viestiss�:75037cf9-ee20-4a88...@googlegroups.com...
0 new messages