1

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 01/06/2021 07:40:33 »

                  My problem with this thread is that OP Bogie_Smiles, is by his own admission, a lay person, with no background in science.  The question is, how is it possible that a person, without knowing the basics of how things work, put forward a postulate for multiple Universes and Multiple points of origin, in the form of multiple Big Bangs. Granted, with the discovery everyday of massive and more massive black holes, such a possibility is not entirely outside the bounds of reason.  But, then again what is the point of raising such suppositions. Even if you have been involved in such imaginings and discussions since the year 2001, if the basics of physics are unknown to you, how can any sort of valid description be given to a theory that encompasses the Universe? 

                     True, a believable story could be written in the form of science fiction. But unless, an explanation is given that starts with the basics of how nature works: The argument is non-existent.  Or the supposition would have to be made that what affects the Universe has no impact on its constituent parts.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 01/06/2021 06:58:51 »

How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?

                  Dave Levy:  As far as I can make out, this argument has evolved over a subject that should not have been questioned at all. You had raised some very pertinent queries on how conflicting arguments about the age and size of the Universe had been voiced with such confidence.  Surely there is nothing wrong in that and for these questions to be answered by ridicule and disparagement makes absolutely no sense. One or two of those who have baited you ( I am specifically referring to Bored Chemist; whose sole reason in life seems to be to inflame and anger posters) don’t have any other response. As to his IQ and personality level think about how he has made 23,000 plus such posts. His brain must be absolutely addled from not being able to follow a clear argument.  But for everyone to have followed the same line of ridiculing the post seems inappropriate. 

                 Another, very pertinent point that you had raised were your comments about the CMBR. How can there be no mention in the CMBR about the present radiation that these unimaginably massive clouds of Hydrogen gas must surely be radiating. After all these massive clouds of hydrogen are very active, our Galaxies planets and stars had their genesis in these clouds. How is it possible that the CMBR has been postulated without taking into consideration the present. How can the CMBR be referred to as very faint relic radiation that permeates the wholel Universe, without taking into consideration the present?
 
                  On the other hand a forum such as Naked Scientists, is the only place where it is possible to discuss such ideas at all or to even get any kind of an answer, even though in the present case the discussion has gone nowhere, because the questions you had raised cannot be answered.  The question can and should, however, be discussed.

                     The main thing with any forum is that most of the regulars, and this includes most of the moderators, are totally committed to a belief in established science, no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is.  With such a philosophy in place what can you expect but entrenched and violent opposition: even if what you were after was just an explanation as to why theories about the Big Bang were so chaotic.

3

New Theories / Re: Is this the new model of the Universe?

« on: 01/06/2021 05:36:32 »

« Reply #18 on: 29/05/2021 11:15:51 » By crazy scientist.

I just wanted to applaud. Unfortunately that option is not available. Still. Well done.

4

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 31/05/2021 16:20:35 »

If "as clearly as possible" means "clearly wrong" then you have a point.

                The three posts in a row you have just made in this thread  go to prove that all the assumptions I have made about you are correct. You are not here for meaningful discussion. In fact you have been indulging in your pointless drivel for so long that you probably don’t know what a meaningful discussion is anymore.

                You are  here to disturb, to heckle, to make pointless posts, to put forward pointless arguments. To obscure and to obfuscate. As far as I am concerned this is the onlly contribution you have made. When invited to state your views. You say copy and paste a theory from some site. Really quite obnoxious to criticize something you don’t know how to defend.   It is very irritating but then, that is what you have set out to do and to be.

5

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 31/05/2021 14:50:45 »

I request that you follow the rules of the site which encourage debate; not soapboxing.

             I requested you to stay away but you couldn’t do it!  There were 42 views when I posted and 226 till the time you posted, meaning that 184 people, all of them interested in science, read or skimmed through my post and were content to think about it.  They are all capable of making up their own minds and certainly do not need your guidance and misdirection.

            Your sole aim seems to be to stop people reading and thinking about what I have written.  In order to advance  a new theory it should be obvious to anyone, except perhaps someone very hard headed and very thick skinned, that the new theory has been put forward because the old theory was found to be unsatisfactory. I have written clearly and concisely, the reasons that I find existing theories unsatisfactory. Instead of accepting that, you try to justify those theories by quoting things that are already common knowledge, and claiming that I find them to be unsatisfactory because I don’t understand what those theories are.  The sole reason that you do these things seems to be to cloud and obscure the subject matter of my post.

Instead of making the claim that I don’t understand what those present theories are, how about giving me your version of how you think a current propagates in a wire. That would be a more productive use of my time and everyone else’s, than the mudslinging you involve in. 

6

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 31/05/2021 05:59:58 »

                 The model for the propagation of an electric current proposed by Gestalt Aether Theory within a wire fits observed phenomena very accurately and precisely, there is no room for error. The theory establishes on a very sound basis that the electromagnetic force both inside and outside the wire is transmitted by photons.

                  Digressing for a moment, both standard theory and quantum mechanics postulate that from the time at which the electromagnetic wave (radiation) originates to the time of detection, that the electromagnetic radiation exists as an abstract mathematical wave function in multiple dimensions.  How can this statement be interpreted? What is an abstract mathematical wave function? Surely, something that is abstract is not real? Again what are multiple dimensions? In the Universe we live in there exist only three dimension, length, breadth and height to this can be added time. But it is almost impossible to think of more dimensions, physicists have been trying for ages without really succeeding. Therefore, these multiple dimensions that light is travelling in within the abstract mathematical wave-function are also not real, they are imaginary.  Think about it a simple tangible physical manifestation is made into such a hugely complicated and convoluted process. Is such a theory justified or even epistemologically correct from the point of view of the study of physics? Most definitely it is not.

                Leaving this observation aside for the moment and returning to the proof of GAT. It is as follows. Consider a wire through which an AC current is flowing, close to the conductor the quality of the EM radiation is different from that further out. Thus it is possible to hold a coil close to a wire carrying an alternating electrical current and draw off a considerable current through means of induction taking place in the coil. Yet further out, at a distance of 50 cms from the conductor there is a qualitative difference and it will be impossible to detect even a small induced current in the coil. According to the wave function of quantum mechanics this difference should not occur, or at the very least if it does occur it should follow the inverse square law for intensity. The fact that it doesn't do so shows that the present quantum mechanics theory for an electric current is faulty and in need of change.

             Gestalt Aether Theory states that electricity is carried neither by electrons nor by an electromagnetic wave but by 'conduction photons' that are emitted by free electrons within the conductor. These ‘conduction’ photons (the designation is introduced here for the first time) are the longest wave-length photon that an electron can emit. It possesses a wave length of  1.2 x 10^-6 m and a frequency of 2.489 THz and an energy of 1.6 x 10 ¹⁹J. The free electrons are only allowed to emit 'conduction photons' if by the conditions of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle   they reabsorb a photon of the same energy within a given time period. In the case of a current being established in a wire it signifies a time of about 10⁻¹⁵s, for the electron in question to reabsorb a photon of the same energy as was emitted. This means that the emitted 'conduction photons' often have to exit the conductor and re-enter it in order to be absorbed by an electron. The emitted 'conduction photons' also having a need to be absorbed by a receptive electron. The exit and re-entry of the 'conduction photons' in the conductor results in the lining up of the 'virtual photons' of the aether around the conductor which in turn are manifested as the lines of force around the wire. The fact that the lines of force around a conductor carrying an electric current are lines of aligned virtual photons forms an important part of Gestalt Aether Theory.  Present day mainstream physics, as in quantum mechanics and standard theory do not offer a compelling explanation for what the lines of force are, how they are formed, or what role they play in the conduction of an electric current, although it is tacitly understood that a large part of the energy in an electrical current is stored in the lines of force surrounding an electrical conductor, no explanation is made as to how or why this is so.

             Take as a practical example a copper conductor in which a current of  1 amp has been established. The concentration of free electrons in a cubic centimetre of copper is approx. 8.05 x 10²². When a current of 1 ampere is established in the wire, it results in innumerable lines of force being formed around the conductor. Each of these lines of force carries 1.6 x 10^-19 J of energy. Quantum mechanics has no explanation as to how many lines of force might form around the electrical conductor, merely stating that they are too numerous to enumerate. With the GAT theory it is possible to estimate the number of lines of force from the current flowing in the conductor.

             The photons emitted by free electrons under such conditions are ‘relatively’ low energy photons and have been named ‘conduction’ photons as opposed to visible or optical photons in the 390 nm to 700 nm range which are emitted and absorbed by bound electrons in the atom and have larger energies.

                  In the near field the ‘conduction’ photons are connected in series and each line of force holds the energy of one ‘conduction’ photon, so that in effect each line of force has an energy of  1.6 x 10^-19J.  This fits in  well with observed data and conforms with the flow of an electric current. Note that here the drift velocity of the electrons plays little part in this process. The ‘conduction’ photons each deliver 1.6 x 10^-19 J. Since 1 coulomb of charge represents 6.24 x 10¹⁸ charge carriers it is possible to see how an electric current is delivered by means of lines of force that are connected in series. In this case 6.24 x 10¹⁸ x 1.6 x 10^-19 = 0.9984 J or 1 ampere of current approx. Delivered at near to the speed of light.

7

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 31/05/2021 03:29:59 »

And the mean free path is not equal to the velocity because one is a distance, and the other is a speed.

So you are still wrong.

And, since you were relying on that false idea as "proof" of something, you can't say for sure that the thing is true, can you

So, stop going on about me, and fix your mistake.

Fine let’s get done with recriminations. The only request I have is for you to reserve any observations for a while; you can come in later and make all the corrections you want. My intention was  to underline the close relationship between the mean free path and the drift velocity.  I think it is common sense and fairly easy to see; that how fast an object is able to travel depends on there being no obstructions in its path.  One can be obtained  from the other:

Drift velocity = 4.3 x 10^-4 m/s ;  Mean free Path = 3.9 x 10^-8m ;  Average time between collisions =

3.9 x 10 ^-8 /4.3 x 10^-4 = =   9.06 x 10^-5 s   and  3.9 x 10^-8 / 9.06 x 10^-5   = 4.3 x 10^-4m/s   and so on.

8

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 30/05/2021 16:57:46 »

Firstly, Bored Chemist is not a moderator AFAIK. Secondly, Bored Chemist is a scientist who has every right to contradict falsehoods and misinformation. If your feelings are hurt go and visit a therapist. This is a science forum where ideas will be challenged.

I could not agree more.  This is a science forum and everyone has a right to question everyone else (just [hopefully] not the same person all the time). The point is, I hope I have raised some valid questions regarding an electric current. My question as to why electromagnetic radiation is not suitable as the mode of electricity transport in a wire is valid. EM waves DO disperse, hence energy is not fixed. I have put forward a valid alternative in the form of photons emitted by free electrons. I have explained how such an interaction can take place.  Consider the advantages of such a theory. The energy involved in an electric current that is mediated by photons is extremely precise and never varies from conduction photon to conduction photon. The amount of energy per conduction photon does not vary.  Look at how energy is conveyed by the sun.  I  have calculated  the energies and wave-lengths of the ‘conduction’ photons mentioned in my theory, and have written an example of how current is conducted using such photons.  If the argument is still made that electrons are the charge carriers.  Think of an AC current instead of a DC current. In an AC current the electrons appear to be frozen in place, there is no drift velocity, the electrons are stationary in one place and therefore the idea that they are the charge carriers can be legitimately questioned.

9

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 30/05/2021 16:40:30 »

Go ahead.
I will prove that you are wrong.

The average distance the electron travels between collisions is called the mean free path l. It is the product of the average speed 〈v〉 and the average time between collisions

10

New Theories / Re: How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 30/05/2021 14:17:47 »

This is purportedly a forum for New Theories, I can understand that some pretty zany ideas are posted but to the best of my knowledge, everything I have posted in my thread is factual and confirmed by science.  Yet, moderators like Bored Chemist don’t seek to evaluate content they just want to push their own views to the forefront. Here is what I have to say to Bored Chemist.
“To Bored Chemist: I don’t know how to say this but to me at least it is by now obvious. You are an internet Troll. Here is the definition:
“an Internet troll — “a person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with…. over extremely trivial issues.” “This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying anger or denigrating their posts.
As far as you are concerned it is taken even further, since your sole purpose seems to be to denigrate and belittle my posts, totally ruining the whole point of posting. For instance: Look at this  quote:

Bored Chemist said:” Please show the counter-example.”

Surely an insensitive post when considerable time and effort has been spent in putting forward the ”counter’  as clearly as possible.

Bored Chemist said: “That can not be true..The units are wrong.

I stopped reading there.

I could easily prove that the distance that an electron can travel, namely the drift velocity is equal to the mean free path, also a distance.

Bored Chemist said: “So, as usual, you are saying things that are wrong.
That probably results from your not having learned what is right.”

Every time I post a thread, Bored Chemist is immediately on the scene, policing the site, flaunting his opinion  and at the same time ruining the effect of my post. . Is this how a new theory thread is moderated. Bored Chemist. I am asking you?  I can understand such an intervention if I had posted my theory in one of the other forums, say 'General Science' or 'Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology' . But that isn't the case. Your sole intention seems to be to prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place. This is wrong. You could for instance wait for someone else to post for a change and then have your say. Just a suggestion.

11

New Theories / Re: Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 30/05/2021 07:56:35 »

Kryptid, if you don't mind, kindly re-read my post. I said: "Surely this means that the distances between Galaxies will increase by the same factor in the same amount of time. "

12

New Theories / How does electricity propagate in a wire?

« on: 30/05/2021 07:41:32 »

I have seen a post on this subject in the Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology Forum but thought I should post my question here since it does involve some rather controversial ideas.  Paul Drude’s  theory of the propagation of electricity in a wire formulated in 1900 was so intuitively compelling that it was being taught as part of the school curriculum for physics well into the 50’s and 60’s.  It is known as the ping pong ball theory and follows the logic that electrons in an electrical conductor resemble a tube filed with ping pong balls when a ball is pushed into the tube at one end another ping pong ball pops out of the other end.   

In actual fact free electrons within an electrical conductor are separated by immense distances and the chances of hitting one electron with another would be the equivalent of trying to hit one billiard with another ball that is 250,000 km distant.  This along with the fact that electrons in a wire in which a current has been established travel at the extremely slow speed of 10^-3 cm/s contribute to demonstrate that the Drude theory on the propagation of electricity is not tenable.

              However, a closer examination of the present day theory of the propagation of an electric current in a wire , shows that the extant theory is also not an accurate description of how an electric current propagate in a wire. Here is the present day theory for the propagation of electricity in a circuit:

The mechanism of energy transport through a medium involves the absorption and re-emission of the wave energy by the atoms of the material. When an electromagnetic wave impinges upon the atoms of a material, the energy of that wave is absorbed. The absorption of energy causes the electrons within the atoms to undergo vibrations. After a short period of vibrational motion, the vibrating electrons create a new electromagnetic wave with the same frequency as the first electromagnetic wave. While these vibrations occur for only a very short time, they delay the motion of the wave through the medium. Once the energy of the electromagnetic wave is re-emitted by an atom, it travels through a small region of space between atoms. Once it reaches the next atom, the electromagnetic wave is absorbed, transformed into electron vibrations and then re-emitted as an electromagnetic wave. While the electromagnetic wave will travel at a speed of c (3×10⁸m/s ) through the vacuum of inter-atomic space, the absorption and re-emission process causes the net speed of the electromagnetic wave to be less than c.

Although it is tempting to believe in such a scenario it does not fit in with facts as they are known. Max Planck had convincingly demonstrated the particle nature of light wherein each particle has a distinctive energy. The energy of a wave is by its very nature dispersive, it is not possible to talk of individual energy levels. Further in every instance (outside an electrical conductor), the photon has been observed to be the mediator of energy for the electron. The electron mediates its energy levels through the absorption and emission of photons. For instance Max Planck in his experiments on Black Body radiation (Heat & light) found that all of the heat and light was mediated by photons.

The present theory of an electric current states that a current flows when individual electrons get excited and start to vibrate and oscillate, as the electrons in the conductor begin to oscillate they generate an electromagnetic wave that is passed on to the next electron in line and this, in simple terms, is how the propagation of an electrical current is described in terms of present day mainstream physics. Together with this effect the electrons also move in a return to the ping pong theory, the idea being that there are so many free electrons in a copper conductor 8.05 x 10²² that the density ensures that the EMF wave is carried to the end of the wire at almost the speed of light. Proof of this is that the mean free path is equal to the drift velocity of the electron. This means that the sheer density of electrons available in the wire ensure the conveying of an electric current by a generated  Electromagnetic Radiation, that travels from electron to electron. Therefore, according to this theory electrons are the charge carriers of an electric current, since they are physically present to convey the current. 
But there are questions, what is the exact frequency and wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation that electrons in the conductor generate. Surely the frequency wavelength and energy of the generated electromagnetic wave, that supposedly carries the electric current would vary widely with each circumstance that the electron encounters in the confines of the conductor. For instance, changes in temperature, obstructions or occlusions in the metal of the conductor or even the distance to other electros might all qualitatively change the kind of electromagnetic wave being generated.  Further, what is to stop the electromagnetic wave that is generated by the electron from merely travelling to the next electron, which in terms of a wave is an infinitesimal distance away, why can’t it travel several feet or yards, giving part of its energy to electrons along the way.  Finally since it is a wave how does this electromagnetic wave deliver the correct energy component since as it can be seen it can vary widely according to circumstance. In short this theory of electricity being conveyed by an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons and being carried from electron to electron is full of inconsistencies. It is an inaccurate model it completely ignores the findings of Max Planck who after all had to account for all kinds of frequencies and wavelength in his theory and subsequent discovery of the Planck constant. In sum the present mainstream or quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of an electric current in a wire falls far short of acceptable standards in physics.
 
The Gestalt Aether Theory of the propagation of an Electric Current

Before an attempt is made to explain the actual mechanism by which an electric current is transmitted, it is necessary to examine the reference to personal theory removed model for the structure of the photon.  The structure of a photon in reference to personal theory removed is based upon looking at facts rather than statistics as is the case with quantum mechanics. This is much the same as the method used by Watson & Crick to find the structure of DNA, examine the properties of the subject and determine which model best fits all criteria.
 Seeing that the electron is a charged particle that has to constantly mediate its energy, a deduction was made that the electron emitted pulses of electric energy. These pulses of energy became polarised, since the initial pulses of energy are stronger than subsequent ones.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

The result of the polarisation was that a solenoid field is formed. The definition of a solenoid field is that there no open loops exist all loops are closed loops. This structure is in fact an electromagnetic dipole.  The gap between the pulses of electric charge emitted by the electron serve as a capacitor type formation enabling the photon, because this is what this structure is, to maintain its energy forever. This structure now in every way possess a completely stable configuration and is as stable as a particle.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

 All the properties of a photon are now met:-
1)   The photon has no mass.
2)   The photon always travels at the speed of light in a vacuum
3)   The photon is electrically neutral.
4)   The photon comes in trillions of wavelengths and frequencies.
5)   The photon maintains its identity (energy) forever.
6)   The photon is both a wave and a particle

As can be seen all the properties of a photon are fulfilled. However, one very big problem remains. No it is not the propagation of light (Read my book :”advertising removed, for a full account) it is a question of size. Radio waves, some with wavelengths of 1,000,000m possess identical properties with those of the photons described above. How can this be. In short, it can’t. (For a more complete explanation of radio-waves and how they are formed read my book) There must therefore be some maximum size limit of a photon that an electron can emit. This size limit is the greatest size of photon that an electron can emit and it is called the ‘conduction’ photon since it is used in the conduction of electricity. Conduction photons are emitted only by free electrons. They are the largest photon that an electron can emit they are also the lowest energy photon that an electron can emit. They are the type of photons that are emitted when one picks up a pencil or moves a conductor through the air.
Traditionally, free electrons are banned from emitting or absorbing photons, because, without the massive nucleus to fall back against and absorb recoil, a free electron cannot emit or absorb photons. It is against the conservation of energy and momentum.  Quantum mechanics often prides itself on its out of the box thinking, yet an examination of its fundamental precepts demonstrates that far from being innovative much of quantum mechanics is definitely tradition bound and tied down by doctrine. Even after Max Planck had conclusively proved that energy is conveyed by photons and not electrons they would not consider photons as being the charge carriers in an electric current.

But think for a moment can a free electron absorb and emit a photon?

The most acceptable explanation is that free electrons are able to emit and absorb photons due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to time and energy:

One consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that we can take seriously the possibility of the existence of energy non-conserving processes—provided the amount by which energy is not conserved, E_violation , exists for a time less than . Thus it is possible for a free electron to emit a photon provided that it immediately reabsorbs that photon in an extremely short time on the order of 10⁻¹⁵ s. Gestalt Aether Theory states that this is how electromagnetic fields are formed, a free electron within the conductor emits a photon, but in order to avoid violation of the laws of energy conservation, the photon has to be reabsorbed by the same electron within the stipulated time of 10⁻¹⁵ s. In the same way photons that are emitted need to be reabsorbed by an electron needing the correct energy level, the nearest source of such electrons are within the conductor, this process also explains the process of induction. Conditions in a wire at room temperature are chaotic, often the electron that originally emitted the photon has already absorbed another photon before the emitted photon can be reabsorbed! If this happens the original photon leaves the conductor and circles back to be absorbed by another electron. This is why the lines of force form around a conductor. When a photon is emitted by a free electron within a conductor it has to be immediately reabsorbed, often the shortest route for the photon to achieve re-absorption by an electron is to exit the conductor and circle back, when this happens the photons of the 'virtual photon' aether which are present throughout the Universe, line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon resulting in the distinctive lines of force seen around a conductor. This model perfectly explains the right hand rule of current in a wire. The emission and absorption of photons by electrons in a wire offers the perfect solution as to how and why an electric current is conveyed through a wire. It is true out of the box thinking.
Looked at on a time line it would be as follows: At t₁, free electron e₁ emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e₁ will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. (c) At some time t₂, less than ( and before the recoil can take place), electron e₁ re-absorbs the photon in such a way that the total energy of the electron e₁ is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. In the second scenario at t₁ electron e₁ emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e₁ will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. At some time t₂, less than ( and before the recoil can take place), the photon exits and re-enters the conductor and is absorbed by electron e₂ which has also emitted a photon, while electron e₁ absorbs a photon emitted by another free electron within the same time period. These transactions take place in such a manner that the total energy of the electron e₁ and electron e₂ is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. Still looking at the time line and applying it to real situations e.g., current in a wire it is found that the time stipulation of 10⁻¹⁵s is well within the limits of the possible.
Thus the theory is advanced herein that the existing explanation of how a current flows in a conductor is unsatisfactory and a suitable explanation for how current propagates in a wire including an explanation for the formation of lines of force is proposed.

13

New Theories / Re: Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 30/05/2021 03:15:14 »

Where did you learn that?

This is my reasoning based on your comments. The expansion of the Universe is the expansion of space itself. I would take this to mean that the Galaxies are not moving through space per se but are part of the expansion process, their position is determined by the expansion of the Universe. Surely this means that the distances between Galaxies will increase by the same factor in the same amount of time.  Therefore the Galaxies are at a fixed and predetermined distance from each other.

14

New Theories / Re: Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 30/05/2021 02:53:38 »

                    Let me state at the outset, that I am quite amenable to listening to and acknowledging  the established majority opinion.  I have no particular motive to favour any particular theory. 

                    However, one has to admit that there are a lot of peculiarities when studying the expansion process of the Big Bang. For instance, when looking at the Hubble Constant, since it applies everywhere in the Universe it should also apply from any point in the Universe. So if from earth a galaxy that is 3.6 billion light years away is viewed, it’s red-shift would measure 7.6 x 10⁴ km/s while the same Galaxy viewed from somewhere that is  9.4 billion light years away from the Galaxy being viewed would see a red shift of 1.98 x 10⁵ km/s.  Two different speeds for the same object viewed from two different distances?  Other strange phenomena also result.

                   Scientists have found that the Galaxies are spaced at definite, measurable distances from each other, a finding that is at least as important as the discovery of the Hubble constant. This finding indicates that the Hubble red shift might have a different cause than the expansion of the Universe, it might indicate the opposite that the Universe is static. A Galaxy's red-shift might be a fundamental property of the Galaxy.  Redshift might be due to the Galaxies rotational speed, changes in red shift related to this have been noted. Temperature could also play a part with Galaxies at a certain temperature emitting red light.

                 “ When celestial bodies become incandescent as the temperature increases, they emit a red glow that we interpret as red shift. “  AND “The amount of radiant energy given off by such celestial bodies varied with temperature and wavelength. Such phenomena isn’t Doppler shift.”  Redshift Riddle

                 Just quoting some of the theories.

15

New Theories / Re: Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 30/05/2021 00:58:19 »

 

The only point I was making is that stars shine white.
That hardly needs "proving" but it seemed to surprise you.

Yes. You are right. You got me! 

16

New Theories / Re: Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 29/05/2021 15:24:39 »

If it is taken for granted that at the earliest stage of the Big Bang expansion no elements heavier than hydrogen existed, then what is the explanation as to why these stars and galaxies involved in the Hubble constant exhibit continuous spectra?

Hot hydrogen gives a continuous spectrum, it is used in UV lamps.
(Deuterium is more efficient so it is often used).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_arc_lamp

Since hydrogen will emit a continuous spectrum, there is nothing "mysterious" to explain.
Sunlight is, of course, also proof of this- though the hydrogen is impure.

Could this be what is seen when the Hubble shift is examined?

No.

The strange thing about this data is that continuous spectrum of galaxy should not exist!

Why not.
A galaxy is made of stars.
Stars emit "white" light, just like the Sun does.

Surely a rather spurious argument since the same kind of absorption spectra can be used to check for the presence of other elemnents and if those don't exist, your point would be proved and it is only hydrogen that is seen.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same?

« on: 29/05/2021 15:12:44 »

All of McQueen’s topics contain serious misunderstandings about the equivalence principle and relativity. You might almost think he has a personal grudge against Einstein 

I would have to admit that my premise has been wrong and the end result is very much a storm in a tea cup.  Newton's equation of F = ma; amply covers the explanation as to why the two are equal even when taken at a very basic level.

18

New Theories / Could the present day interpretation of the Hubble Constant be wrong?

« on: 29/05/2021 14:45:02 »

              Over the past hundred years or so since Hubble made his discovery of an expanding Universe, the Hubble constant has been the subject of intense study and research all of which served to substantiate Hubble’s conclusion that distant Galaxies demonstrated a red-shift that varied linearly with distance. This showed that the further away a galaxy was, the greater was the red-shift that it demonstrated and therefore the greater the speed at which it was moving away.  It is therefore pointless to try to negate Hubble’s findings and to state that the Hubble constant is wrong. There can be little or no doubt cast on the conclusions that Hubble reached, there is just too much evidence available in support of the Hubble constant to suppose that Hubble was wrong.  What is interesting is that Hubble’s constant points an unwavering finger at the fact that the Universe probably originated from a single point or singularity as postulated by Lemaitre.
   The picture of the Universe that emerges from Hubble’s observations is a strange one. It depicts a Universe in which each star and galaxy is expanding rapidly away from a central event in every direction. This is surely one of the strangest phenomena to be encountered in the Universe.  Yet it might be advantageous to examine the conclusions that have been drawn from Hubble’s constant in a little more depth in order to decide whether this view of the Universe really has any standing or not.  Looking into the Universe in our immediate locality it is possible to see that the Andromeda Galaxy is the galaxy that is closest to us. It is located at a distance of 26.5 million light years away. This is the only galaxy that can be seen with the naked eye and even through a powerful telescope individual stars are detected only with difficulty. To the naked eye the Andromeda galaxy can be seen as a patch of luminous sky that occupies about the diameter of the full moon as seen from earth.  If this fact is extrapolated into the vast distances of the Universe, it can be understood that merely to distinguish an individual galaxy is difficult and to identify individual stars within that galaxy is all but impossible.
         Hubble used line spectrometry and the resulting red-shift for his calculations of the Hubble constant. The factors, that appear to have been omitted when calculating the Hubble Constant is that two types of spectra exist, these are line spectra and continuous spectra. Continuous spectra, consists of the familiar rainbow coloured spectra resulting from the dispersion of light into its constituent colours; line spectra are the lines characteristic of the presence of certain elements.  Line spectrometry is based on radiation and absorption spectrometry in which individual lines depicting different elements can be identified.
              If it is taken for granted that at the earliest stage of the Big Bang expansion no elements heavier than hydrogen existed, then what is the explanation as to why these stars and galaxies involved in the Hubble constant exhibit continuous spectra? If the effects of a normal explosion, are examined, what is seen is the initial shock wave racing outward at speed from the epicenter and the rest of the mass of which the explosion is made settling into a cloud after the shock wave has passed. Could this be what is seen when the Hubble shift is examined? The Hubble shift being indicative of the initial expansion of the Big Bang travelling at speed. This initial expansion must have carried huge masses of energy with it, which after the shock wave had passed gradually coalesced into matter, into stars and Galaxies etc.,
            Using credible data from the cepheid variables and the Hubble red shift,  it is found that the data indicates that the Universe is expanding away from every other point at the rate of the Hubble constant (i.e., about 72 km/s ) per mega parsec. But again could be this true? Yes and No. Yes in the sense that the distance when corroborated by cepheid variables makes the speed of the galaxy or star calculated by the Hubble constant true, no in the sense that  there is a huge discrepancy between the data that has been collected and the conclusions that have been drawn. When calculating the redshift of distant galaxy, the main criteria that is used to determine how fast a star or galaxy is moving away is the emission spectrum of hydrogen. This is because heavier elements would not have formed at this early stage of the Universe. For instance for the element iron to emerge takes a minimum of several billion years, which is the time taken for all the hydrogen and helium in a star to undergo fusion leaving iron, which does not undergo fusion.  Astronomers have noted that all of the stars and galaxies used in the search for the Hubble constant, exhibit a continuous spectrum and the line spectrum of hydrogen used for calculation of the Hubble constant, is derived from this continuous spectrum.  Look at the image below:



             This information gives rise to the possibility that we are living in a Universe at rest, a Universe that is no longer expanding in every direction for as far as the eye can see. Instead what we find is a Universe at rest, where every star seen in the time period close to the expansion process, has now, in our time reached zero expansion speeds and is instead moving at speeds solely governed by gravitational forces. A view of the Universe emerges with proof of its origin running through it like a tell tale thread, supported by data from the cepheid variables and the Hubble constant. Side by side with this can be seen stars and galaxies that formed either concurrently or a little after the expansion process was over. It is a filled in picture of the Universe that illustrates in great detail and verisimilitude the fact of a three dimensional Universe. 
              What is the end result?  The result of such a calculation is incredible. It shows data that supports in an undeniable fashion, the theory that sustains the original expansion theory of the Big Bang. Also, that the expansion of the Universe although it travelled a great distance, lasted in any sector of the Universe for only a short time.  What this means is that when we look out at the Universe it is found that not only did the Universe expand at an incredible rate after the Big Bang and that it continued to expand until relatively recently but that all along that time line, from the moment of the Big Bang to the end of the expansion phase can be seen to exist innumerable stars and Galaxies that formed after the expansion period was over in that particular area. This gives an incredible three dimensional view of the Universe.  Running through it there is the incredible discovery of the Hubble constant and the expansion of the Universe; but even more incredible is that running beside these events can be seen stars and galaxies that evolved concurrently or just after the expansion process was over. 

         

19

New Theories / What are radio waves, how are they formed ?

« on: 24/05/2021 05:52:39 »

          Radio-waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation. The explanation for how radio waves are formed is that radio waves are radiated by charged particles when they are accelerated.  The peculiar property of radio-waves is that they possess identical properties to that of optical frequency photons (Wavelength of 1nm to 10,000nm). They are electrically neutral, they possess no charge. They always travel with the speed of light, they preserve their energy intact over enormous distances. They exhibit Doppler shift. They are mass less. They are never still but always travel at the speed of light.

     But there are also differences. While optical photons and photons possessing higher frequencies possess wave-lengths on the order of 500 nm, radio waves can be massive. A 60 Hz signal (super low frequency on the frequency chart) can possess a wavelength of 5,000,000 m. How can an electron with a classical radius of  about 3 x 10 ^-15 m possibly radiate strongly enough to produce a wavelength that is 5,000,000 m long.  If one is perfectly sincere, an electron with such infinitesimal size, can’t possibly produce such gigantic wave-lengths, even if it is accelerated; it is an impossibility. Further, still thinking logically, how is it possible to have two explanations for the same phenomenon? Optical photons in the range of  10nm to 10,000nm are emitted directly by the electron due to excitation of the electron but radio-waves are radiated by accelerated electrons.

          The differences can get even more evident: radio-waves  are created due to synchronised,  periodic change of electric or magnetic field. Depending on how this periodic change occurs and the power generated, different wavelengths of electromagnetic spectrum are produced. In a vacuum, electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, commonly denoted c. In homogeneous, isotropic media, the oscillations of the two fields are perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation, forming a transverse wave. Fine but where do photons come into all this?

                 In quantum mechanics, an alternate way of viewing EMR is that it consists of photons, uncharged elementary particles with zero rest mass which are the quanta of the electromagnetic field, responsible for all electromagnetic interactions.  Quantum electrodynamics is the theory of how EMR interacts with matter on an atomic level.  How can a 5,000,000 m (5 x 10 ⁶ wave interact with an atom having a radius of  5 x 10^-10 m ?

           One possible conclusion is that botyh quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are wrong.

20

New Theories / Re: Does the CMBR really exist?

« on: 24/05/2021 03:17:42 »

Energy that is too low to interact with matter, at as many energy levels; cool energy, such as microwaves, will avoid most of the matter based time adjustment. It essentially sees the equivalent of matter that is not plugged in. The net affect is we will not see any large scale red shift in the CMBR, as a function of distance=time, as we do with hot galaxies.

             The CMBR is often characterised as being faint background  radiation,  that it is relic radiation . In the 1960’s and 70’s anyone who owned a radio or television was familiar with the CMBR radiation that everyone thought of as ‘static’. It was not faint, it was loud enough to have to turn the volume down and when no channel was broadcasting the snow and noise on the TV set was so compelling that one could almost expect to see messages and images emerge out of the noise. Today noise cancelling techniques in the interest of better reception has resulted in the CMBR hardly ever being heard.