Cosmological Redshift and Expansion of Space

Jim Mash,

[I've been inactive for the last few months as my wife and I decided to find a bigger home. We are now hip deep in that swamp - no sign of alligators yet - but I'm beginning to feel the need for a physics fix. Your stated goal of comparing FET and MM sounds interseting, so I will try to join the conversation at least once or twice a week. Sorry I can't spare more time right now.

BTW, I have not read anything about FET, and probably will not have time to do so for quite a while. I hope your attempts to compare/contrast it with MM will give me a few hints. Please keep them short.

I really don't care about FET. UNLESS of course you can show, <u>via the comparison process</u>, that it can answer more questions than MM and make more predictions that have the power to falsify FET if knowledge gained in the future runs against it. In that case I, and probably others, would suddenly find it reasonable to <b>make the time</b> to look at FET. BTW, we get to decide whether or not you have met this goal ... ]

===
If you hope to make an informed comparison between MM and &lt;AnyOtherTheory&gt;, you will need to be careful about how you use certain words.
===

For example, in MM the word substance has a very specific meaning. It is the CONCEPTUAL smallest possible thing. Please note the emphasis on the word conceptual. In MM, substance has conceptual existance rather than physical existance. One consequence of this is that, within MM, the phrase "real substance" is close to being an oxymoron.

All physical things (IOW, things that have physical existance) are comprised of other, smaller, physical things. And those smaller physical things are in turn comosed of other still smaller physical things.

Since this process continues all the way to the infinitessimal (and to the infinitely large in the other direction), MM decided to define the word substance to:
<ul>
1) differentiate it from mass (or matter) which has physical existence - in MM and in most other theories
2) be the logical, conceptual end of a process that has no <b>physical</b> end
</ul>
The word substance has other meanings in other theories, of course, and that brings some problems with it. MM could have just invented a brand new string of characters to serve as the label for this idea, but there are some problems with that approach as well. Sigh.

[TANGENT]
Things that exhibit the property of physical existance are obviously real. But what about things that exhibit the property of conceptual existance? I submit that they are also real, but in a different way. Hince my characterization of "real substance" as <b>close</b> to being an oxymoron, rather than as actually being an oyxmoron.

We can (and should) discuss this at some point, but probably in a different thread. As Tom pointed out a few posts above, these discussions are often poorly organized. A separate thread for discussing infinity in general and the nature of substance within MM in particular might help in that regard.
[/TANGENT]

I've never had any problem groking the concept of infininy, but many do. If you are not comfortable with any of the above, please say so and we can talk about it sooner rather than later. (If anyone else feels the need for that discussion, please say something.)

Regards,
LB

[Tom, please speak up if I say anthing that doesn't sound right to you.]

Larry Burford

Sorry for the long absence but I have been busy with the second book in the series on Fluid Energy Theory.

I have also been busy taking Tom's advice on comparing FET with other theories. I have added many pages to my website, far too long to repeat here. I will though present some of what I have said about substances.

To most people, every one of the elements is a different substance as well as any combination of them. Hence wood, metals, plastics, water, glass, flesh and bones could all be described as different substances.

When it was discovered that all of these substances were made from the same three particles, neutrons, protons and electrons in different amounts, then it was argued that there were only three fundamental substances. This became a little more complicated when it was claimed that protons and neutrons were made from quarks and gluons but in different proportions. Quarks are supposed to exist in six different flavours so does this mean that each of them is made of a different substance?

The definition of a substance that works best for me is " something that occupies space and which, if capable of being subdivided into other components, they can be shown to differ only in density"

The definition needs density because it is possible to have an iron vessel from which everything was sucked out, and then heated so that iron atoms were vapourised and trapped within it. The only difference between the vessel and its contents would then be one of density only.

By my definition of a substances and according to current atomic theory, an atom is not a substance but a mixture of substances. Nor are protons and neutrons substances but they are also mixtures. Then there are photons. These differ from nuclear particles by more than density so we need yet another substance.

Theories that claim there is an aether consisting of particles requires another substance and if it is believed that forces are carried by particles then we need yet another substance. Then there is the Higgs particle and magnetic monopoles and neutrinos, muons etc. Just how many substances are needed in classical atomic theory? And what about energy? Current theories not only fail to define energy but they do not tell us how it is able to take on various forms such as matter, radiation, kinetic, thermal, potential etc.

FET is unlike any other theory ever proposed because it does not require any other substance other than energy. It shows that by giving it the properties of being something real that occupies space and something that is continuous and not particulate it can take on all of the forms described.

FET shows that the basic form of energy is the continuum with the minimum density. FET describes exactly how it can be compressed by the centripetal force into its maximum density creating solid neutrons. These grow to a critical size where the centrifugal force equals the centripetal force and the neutron matures into a proton core of solid energy with an attached region of fluid energy, the electron. Photons are pulses of fluid energy flung off of the spinning core at light speed and can have any density value between that of solid energy and the continuum. Hence there are no photons with an energy greater than that of a proton and none with less energy than the continuum. The difference in density for solid energy and the continuum is 10^39, which explains why the electromagnetic force is this much times stronger than the gravitational force.

All of the known constants can be seen to fit with this theory. The highest frequency of a photon is 10^23 which in FET corresponds to the spin rate. So neutrons spin at 10^23 times per second and when they grow to a diameter of 10^-15m their surface speed equals c. This is why photons move so fast. The region of fluid energy attached to the core of a proton extends to a distance of 10^-10m, which defines the size of an atom.

So FET can explain all of the component parts of an atom and the radiation it emits with just the one substance, energy.
If you have the time and the inclination you will find many more examples of FET versus current theories on my website.

I look forward to seeing what you make of the above

Jim Mash

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br />Larry Burford Photons are pulses of fluid energy flung off of the spinning core at light speed.
...
I look forward to seeing what you make of the above
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The concept of photon is absurd: it is not even a particle in quantum theory (no wave function); when a single photon is refracted, it excites all atoms of a prism, its energy is split.
More fundamentally, in quantum electrodynamics the photon is the energy of a "normal mode" which cannot be defined because electrodynamics obeys Maxwell equations up to X rays, and the definition of normal modes requires a non-linear set of field equations, as in acoustics. It needs the introduction of "radiation reaction", an ad hoc concept required to explain the start up of the lasers.
Classical electrodynamics works always well, provided that the correct electromagnetic field is used, whose energy for a mode is hf/2 at 0K. It is absurd to subtract a field having this energy because the energy is a quadratic function of the field, and the field in a mode is defined by a single, real number.
This problem was detected by Planck, who corrected, in 1903 his 1900 formula, but he recognized that his correction was two times too large, presenting, in a 1916 paper of Nernst, at the academy of Berlin, the correct value: in a mode the exact formula (Planck-Nernst formula) gives for the energy in a mode hf(1/(exp(hf/kT)-1)+1/2).

A theory which uses the photon cannot work well.

The concept of a photon in FET is not absurd

My second book on FET is almost entirely devoted to the interaction of photons with matter.

FET can explain photon absorption, emission, why light apparently slows down in condensed substances, how photons are reflected, refracted, scattered, polarised, and even how one photon can pass simultaneously through two separate slits to cause an interference pattern and why that pattern disappears if you attempt to look at either one of the slits. Fluid energy photons are self sustaining regions of fluid energy that are extremely compressible which is why they can behave as waves whenever they make contact with regions of higher energy density.

It is FET photons that provide all of the kinetic and thermal energy in the universe. Earlier this week I started writing up why the heat capacity of a gas at constant volume is always less than its heat capacity at constant pressure. With FET it was easy to explain in a way that is far easier to visualise than current theory. It even explains why the ratio of the two heat capacities varies with pressure and temperature.

A few months ago I used my FET explanation of how photon absorption is dependent upon the number density of gas molecules and the diameter of these photons to predict how the radiation from the Sun and the Earth are absorbed as heat in the Earth's atmosphere. It predicted that the Sun,s radiation should only be absorbed at altitudes between 10 and 47km and the Earth,s radiation above 83km. It also predicted the correct temperature inversions for the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and even why the Sun's corona is at 2 million degrees. It is at just these heights in the atmosphere that the temperature is inverted and is actually heated. No other theory can predict anywhere near as many things as FET and what is more every explanation can be related to real physical processes.

As I have said many times, there appears to be nothing that FET cannot explain in a totally logical way.

The crisis in cosmology group is convinced that the big bang never happened and yet it appears that its members are not willing to even look at an alternative explanation for the creation of the universe that can explain in a clear way how the universe is in a stable yet dynamic equilibrium state.

Jim Mash

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br />The concept of a photon in FET is not absurd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is not a problem of the chosen theory: "photon" supposes that the EM field may be quantized while the experiments and the theory show the contrary.
The concept of photon is founded:
-either on a quantization of electromagnetic energy, but extremely low intensity light is refracted, refraction being the coherent Rayleigh scattering. This scattering needs a transfer of energy to dress each atoms of the prism (for instance): the energy of the photon cannot be quantized because it may be split infinitely.
-or on the quantization of the energy of the electromagnetic field in a "normal mode". But nobody is able to define the "normal modes" in electromagnetism.

FET shows that a photon can have any energy between limits determined by the density of solid energy and the density of the local continuum, i.e. they form a continuous spectrum and are not quantized. Quantization occurs when photons are absorbed by the electron energy of protons. The wavelengths that are specific to certain atoms arise from how the nucleons are bonded together within the nucleus.

Black body radiation is a good example of how photons can be changed by interacting with matter. If radiation of just one wavelength is shone upon a body then it will be absorbed as kinetic energy causing the atoms doing the absorption to move. Hence their kinetic energy is then called thermal energy and there is no real distinction between the two terms. But if these atoms are constrained by being part of a solid phase, the atoms will be prevented from moving very far and they will have to release that energy. FET describes why and how this energy is released.

Some of the energy is passed directly onto neighbouring atoms through electron bonds but some will be released as new photons with different energies via non-bonding electrons. This process continues until all of the incident photons have been broken apart and rejoined in different combinations until they form a spectrum of energies described by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energies. Thus any form of energy input into a solid will eventually lead to a spectrum typical of a black body.
Jim Mash