Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I guess I need to know your definition (how you use) evolution, development, emergence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I've found that using the ordinary dictionary definitions works best (unless a specific replacement definition is needed and stated). These are:
<font color="yellow">evolution:</font id="yellow"> "the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form"
<font color="yellow">development:</font id="yellow"> "the process of growth, change, or elaboration"
<font color="yellow">emergence:</font id="yellow"> "the act or process of coming out, appearing, or coming about"

I would describe the universe as changing. None of the above words apply to the universe as a whole, but only to particular forms at particular times.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If the field of astronomy were not presently over-invested in the expanding universe paradigm, it is clear that modern observations would now compel us to adopt a static universe model as the basis of any sound cosmological theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">why static? Why not stable?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here, "static" meant only that there are no forces causing expansion. So "static" was used to mean nothing more than "non-expanding". It was not intended to suggest "frozen".

"Stable" can also carry the connotation of "non-moving" or "frozen". But it is usually used in the mathematical sense of being able to persist indefinitely, as for example "that orbit is stable". We have no basis for assuming that meaning applies to cosmology.

In my papers on gravitation, I describe fields as "static" in the sense of a flowing waterfall, always looking roughly the same even though each water drop is continually being replaced by another from behind. This is contrasted with "static" in the sense of a frozen waterfall, where there are no moving parts. The same distinction seems applicable to cosmology.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Besides they like to play that change the name and say it is ours game a lot, we can do the same thing, but cite prior research honestly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am not in favor of any usages that might confuse or mislead. That is why I try to stick to established meanings for words already in use, and provide clear definitions when I coin a new word. For example, I used "elysium" when I needed a concept that was like aether in some ways and quite different in other ways. I explained that I chose this word because it was phonetically similar to "LCM", the initials for "light-carrying medium"; and because "Elysium" is associated with "fields" in Greek mythology. That makes it easy to remember, yet not easily confused with aether. In my usage, "elysium" is equivalent to the local gravitational potential field.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is red shift a correct determinate of distance? Does this pose any problems for a stable Universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No to the latter question. Redshift is definitely not caused by velocity, IMO. It is a distance indicator for some types of galaxies, but not for other types or for most quasars.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">why not just throw the whole Big Bang Theory away and not even try to compete with it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), Plasma Cosmology (PC), Variable Mass cosmology (VM), and the Meta Model (MM) did just that. The theories that try to compete with the original standard BB are variants such as inflation, hot or cold or mixed dark matter, and many others.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why not simply take the observations, and show how a stable Universe would produce them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is inductive reasoning, and is how BB, QSSC, PC, and VM came about. It is a form of educated guessing, and can never be a unique process. There is a better way: deductive reasoning, as employed by MM. That is what my book is all about -- not just MM (the first five chapters), but about the amazingly different view of nearly everything that emerges when one chooses deductive reasoning over inductive. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
(Tom)I used "elysium" when I needed a concept that was like aether in some ways and quite different in other ways. I explained that I chose this word because it was phonetically similar to "LCM", the initials for "light-carrying medium"; and because "Elysium" is associated with "fields" in Greek mythology. That makes it easy to remember, yet not easily confused with aether. In my usage, "elysium" is equivalent to the local gravitational potential field.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Very interesting... Let's see.. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Elysium. In Greek mythology, the abode of the blessed, paradise. Situated at the end of the world it is here that those chosen by the gods are sent to. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's interesting too...

I think that Elysium is, well I guess I should be asking you what Elysium is instead of me telling you what it is. I don't know what the local gravitational potential field is.

But what did the Greeks think it was? They say the end of the world, and that is where we go. I wonder, if we look at this myth as a metaphor, does it resonate with what we find today? I can see how the end of the world might be construed as the limits of the physical world, and that is where we go. But at the same time, and this is in the literature too, it is also right here right now.

And as a philosopher, I can point out to the scientist, that when we place a label on something, we create in the minds of others what the label means to them. So when we say that this something has this attribute, and thus we place a label of that attribute on the something, the casual observer reads it, and assumes that the label is all of it. Zero Point Energy is an attribute of (what?). Well, I read that when dealing with EM fields, it is the ZPE that is used. But then there is the Dirac Sea, and that deals with particles. And there is Qauntum Foam, Quantum vacumm, and now false vacumm. I think they are all the same thing, from different perspectives, using different instruments, observing different aspects. Dark Energy? Dark Matter? How many different names/attibutes are we going to come up with? Fifth dimension, hyperspace, it goes on and on.

I think of it all as the INSIDE of space. Because the INSIDE of space is not limited to just this or that attibute, it is the ground of ALL attibutes. It is the source of an atom's ground state (Puthoff 1987)and it is the source of all EM fields (Maxwell was correct in principle) and it is the source of the photon's energy. It is Elysium and it is LCM. It is all these things, because all things are grounded in it. I label it Pure Energy, and define that as energy not doing anything. So what we are seeing in various ways, is this Pure Energy doing something in particular. That's all. Any of the particular manifestations are not all of them...

Having said that, I really am interested in Elysium because I would like to know what light is. So I know there is an INSIDE, and it doesn't take much to figure that light moves through the INSIDE, therefore if we want to observe this particular aspect, we can call the INSIDE Asylium.

Now, I read at Thomas's web site that he doesn't think the photon is a mechanical thing. Rather that we are treating the photon as a mechanical thing when it is not.

So we have a non-mechanical photon moving in a non-mechanical Asylium.

Which looks like a brick wall to me, how can we say a non-mechanical when all we have is mechanical models? How can we describe a thing when it is not a thing? When all we have to describe with are things?

I wonder if this same question wasn't asked by the first quantum mechancians, because QM is not about things either. It is about relationships, right?

So, to get past the Wall, we can talk in terms of interactionings.

Light is an interaction of A and B. What is A and B? To start A might be the mechanical Universe and B might be the non-mechanical Universe. Or A might be the outside observable Universe, and B might be the INSIDE unobservable Universe. So light first of all is an interaction between a physical and a non-physical Alysium.

Now why does it move? And why does it move in only one way? Can we see light from the side? We can't see a lazer beam from the side. Why does light do that? Why does it move through the Asylium? Forever... Spectral light is a bunch of light, and not light itself, right? So when we see red shift, we aren't seeing light shift, we are seeing the bunch of light shift, right? We are seeing the mechanical aspect of the light shift due to mechanical effects in the mechanical Universe.

I guess I am saying that light as a color, as a frequency, is a complex system of photons. Does a single photon have color? A wavelength?

I still don't know how light works. I wonder if there is light at all if there is nothing for it to shine on? Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the Asylium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I should be asking you what Elysium is instead of me telling you what it is. I don't know what the local gravitational potential field is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravity has two manifestations, force and potential. Mathematically, the potential field is GM/R, and its gradient is gravitational force: -GM/R^2. Physically, the potential field has all the same properties as the light-carrying medium. In particular, it is shaped by gravitational force (becomes denser near masses), and it bends and slows and redshifts light near masses through refraction. So atomic clocks are slowed by potential even when there is no force, for example, inside a uniform spherical shell.

Because the gravitational potential field and the light-carrying medium both have identical properties and functions, it is one of the features of the Meta Model to notice that both these concepts are one and the same physical entity, which I called "elysium". (Note small "e", unlike its Greek counterpart.) The idea was to choose a word easily associated with the concept (the Greeks often spoke of the "Elysium Fields" as the afterlife), yet not confused with its accepted meaning in Greek mythology.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Zero Point Energy is an attribute of (what?). Well, I read that when dealing with EM fields, it is the ZPE that is used. But then there is the Dirac Sea, and that deals with particles. And there is Qauntum Foam, Quantum vacumm, and now false vacumm. I think they are all the same thing, from different perspectives, using different instruments, observing different aspects. Dark Energy? Dark Matter? How many different names/attibutes are we going to come up with? Fifth dimension, hyperspace, it goes on and on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Unlike aether and the local gravitational potential field, which have the same properties and can be unified, most of these concepts on your list have different physical properties (some of them being mythical, not real), and therefore cannot be unified.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think of it all as the INSIDE of space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't find that useful. It provides me with no useful physical concept, and challenges us to wonder: What is the outside of space?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Because the INSIDE of space is not limited to just this or that attibute, it is the ground of ALL attibutes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This presumes a smallest possible entity, which raises too many logical paradoxes to be possible.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I really am interested in Elysium because I would like to know what light is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Light is known to possess all particle properties: wavelength, frequency, intensity, amplitude, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions, radiation pressure, transverse/longitudinal vibration, sameness of properties for each discrete wave, propagation speed unaffected by speed of source, wavefronts always perpendicular to direction of propagation, medium entities oscillate in place instead of propagating with wave. When propagating, light never behaves like a particle, but does exhibit all wave properties. Light also exhibits two particle properties when it interacts with matter, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. But because these also have possible wave interpretations (the wave strike can eject electrons), it seems more reasonable to conclude that light is a pure wave phenomenon than to conclude that it is some kind of mathematical “dual entity”, lacking a physical description. Light never exhibits properties unique to particles, such as the ability to collide with another of its own kind, the lack of need for a transmitting medium, and a ballistic speed that depends (initially) on the speed of its source.

In MM, there is no ambiguity. Light is a pure wave in the elysium sea that pervades all space visible to us.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does a single photon have color? A wavelength?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you start thinking of it as a single wavefront, the mystery vanishes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wonder if there is light at all if there is nothing for it to shine on?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are lightwaves in the elysium sea just as there are sound waves in air when a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the elysium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Philosophers drive themselves ... and everyone else ... crazy. [] Non-mathematical, classical physics is the way back from this madness. -|Tom|-

It is simple to explain the'red shift' without invoking that it is due to a Doppler recession. Most know that spark emission spectroscopy of elements shift their usual emission lines when compared to that from atoms excited at lower temperatures. So the red shift idea to me even back in the 60's was simply that all stars have their own intrinsic temperatures and thus emission frequencies. No big deal. And certianly there is no evidence that such differences are due to recession. Where is the control data when a star is stopped in its tracks so that a control emission spectrum can be taken when it is not 'receding'? Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Tom

this last comment of ours is to harsh. for me the idea of Philosophy is to open ones mind to other possibilites. and to understand that ideas,opinions,concepts can change and/or should be changed. and true sometimes philiosophy can drive some to madness and/or confusion, and this can happen for a few reasons; 1)Time, too much or little of 2) the lack of or to much information, which is tided in with time. 3) to step outside what you know and be critical, from a objective point of view which means an absense of ego and emotion(can be very difficult to do).

another point is this, PHD. means a Doctor in Philosophy not a doctorate in absolutitism. which i have found alot of Science is now based. the PHD. acronym has caused many to FORGET what PHD. stands for. this why i have liked the way Hannes Alfven puts it "Natural Philosophy" rather than PHD. it reminds us that our ideas,concepts etc. are exactly that a "Natural Philosophy" nothing more nothing less.

in your "Philosophy" you have concluded that deduction is a better way to come to an understanding of the ways of the universe. fair enough but your deduction did not lead you to the anaylysis of the Aurora Boriealis which what Hannes Alfven did,by induction, which then lead to Cosmic Plasmas. it is inductive reasoning and this form of reasoning lead to Cosmic Plasmas.

i would think that a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning would be in order. with the degrees for each being a variable depending on the circumstances. or show that inductive reasoning alone will lead to the understanding of all things

Thomas has his theory which is based on what is known about Cosmic plasmas and then Thomas takes this another direction, i would think that his thinking is worth looking into by you for this something in which you are not familar. why not familiarize yourself with his ideas?


that is what Philosophy is all about to me. keeping an open mind and investigating other ideas but with a critical attitude. and not forgetting that we in the end are all Human and make mistakes in our understandings and sometimes we don't make mistakes even if it is hard for some to wrap there head around the idea(s).

Philosophy is terrific because like i said it keeps you open(flexible mind) to new ideas but also it also shows you how to be critical.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
I still don't know how light works. I wonder if there is light at all if there is nothing for it to shine on? Can light be detected when there is no detector? Because maybe light doesn't exist by itself, maybe it only exists as an interaction between this and that. Maybe light doesn't travel through the outside Universe, maybe light is really traveling through the INSIDE, through the Asylium, and popping up when and only if something pop up in its way...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> The idea that light is a separate physical entity has the same justification as the one of 'fields' in the description of static electromagnetic or gravitational interactions for instance. It is merely introduced in order to avoid having a kind of 'action at a distance' interaction. In principle this should be only a purely formal thing without any relevance for the physics involved, but physicists have mistakenly interpreted this formalism in the sense that in either case material particles would be responsible for the interaction (as indicated on my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm ). In a certain sense you could therefore indeed say that light does not exist by itself, as in principle all there is are certain processes occurring in one atom leading to certain processes in other atoms after some time. The crucial point is that this time depends only on the optical distance between the two atoms but not their relative velocity and one can't therefore (contrary to Einstein's assumption) assume that light propagates as an independent entity in the same sense as any other material object (see my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm ).

However, these aspects do not affect the 'Redshift' issue at all because even with the conceptually correct immaterial interpretation of light, a redshift would occur if galaxies are receding. The point is that an overall expansion of the universe is logically impossible because it contradicts the concept of a 'universe' as an all-containing entity. A quantization of the redshift (whether really existent or not) is strictly speaking therefore irrelevant for the Big-Bang issue as well, because the latter can already be ruled out through basic conceptual arguments, and anyway, I am sure that Big-Bang cosmologists would rather modify their models such as to explain the quantization than to give up their naive idea of a universe limited in time and space.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk