0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ok well - to alternatively analogise this proposed alternate interpretation of the red shift distance correlation:Let's look at how a Doppler effect may be achieved 'without' motion...Let us place a light emitter at a distance of 100 metres away from our stationary observation point.We note that the frequency of the emitted light is the same frequency as it was when we checked up close before placing the emitter 100 yards away.Now let us play with some time dilations...Stating the light source emitter as emitting light at waves per standard second, and remembering that we are measuring the events of any change in frequency via a standard second...We are going to increase the length of a second by 10% every 10 metres from the location of the light emitter that is 100 yards away.In the first 10 metres the light travels it will take 10% longer for the light to travel that distance.In the second 10 metres the light travels it will take 20% longer for the light to travel that distanceIn the third 10 metres it will take the light 30% longer to travel that distance, etc..Over the distance of 100 metres, light travelling under this remit will have taken x amount metre/c = a time value longer to travel.(This is my model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation)Travelling within a 'uniform' time frame throughout, if the light source had moved x amount metres further away from the observation point within the time one would expect the speed of light to travel x amount extra metres as per the standard second being used to measure events with - the calculation would be x amount metre/c = a time value, where x amount meters/time value = speed that light source is moving away.(This is Hubble's interpretation of the redshift distance correlation)To reinterpret Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - is it then possible to calculate: speed/x amount metres = time value?(ie: frequency/wavelength = time value?)
Once a wave is created it does not change its frequency. Main stream allows you to think that by suggesting light increases momentum down a gravity hole. This is not the case. The detector cell expands down a gravity well to measure the light created up the gravity well as blue shifted. Main stream does not follow the postulate of c being constant. They cannot pick and choose the consistency of light. The photon speed is constant even in dilated space but it has further to go through space. Red and blue shifted light are the same speed in the open vacuum of space. m and M are of very little consequence once in the open vacuum of space.
Your fighting relativity not just my ideas. My ideas just put mechanics behind the postulates. If you use relativity numbers that are observed as a starting point and then deviate from relativity you have to explain why. Math is just a tool theories must follow to be valid. Mathematics does not prove a theory correct. The observations of all relativity tests have followed relativity mathematics. This is statistical proof but not a real proof that relativity is correct.If you had a light bulb traveling through space the forward light is blue shifted and the rear moving light is red shifted in SR. What is the mechanics of your theory to show contraction in the universe? The word contra is just a word not a real physical explanation of cause.
speed of c = 299 792 458 metres per standard secondFrequency of light = waves per standard secondEnergy of light = joules per standard second squared.Quote from: timey on 04/02/2017 03:13:42Ok well - to alternatively analogise this proposed alternate interpretation of the red shift distance correlation:Let's look at how a Doppler effect may be achieved 'without' motion...Let us place a light emitter at a distance of 100 metres away from our stationary observation point.We note that the frequency of the emitted light is the same frequency as it was when we checked up close before placing the emitter 100 yards away.Now let us play with some time dilations...Stating the light source emitter as emitting light at waves per standard second, and remembering that we are measuring the events of any change in frequency via a standard second...We are going to increase the length of a second by 10% every 10 metres from the location of the light emitter that is 100 yards away.In the first 10 metres the light travels it will take 10% longer for the light to travel that distance.In the second 10 metres the light travels it will take 20% longer for the light to travel that distanceIn the third 10 metres it will take the light 30% longer to travel that distance, etc..Over the distance of 100 metres, light travelling under this remit will have taken x amount metre/c = a time value longer to travel.(This is my model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation)Travelling within a 'uniform' time frame throughout, if the light source had moved x amount metres further away from the observation point within the time one would expect the speed of light to travel x amount extra metres as per the standard second being used to measure events with - the calculation would be x amount metre/c = a time value, where x amount meters/time value = speed that light source is moving away.(This is Hubble's interpretation of the redshift distance correlation)To reinterpret Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - is it then possible to calculate: speed/x amount metres = time value?(ie: frequency/wavelength = time value?)Maybe I 'could' clarify the above post into a more tangible context:(I am looking at and understanding the architecture of geometry and shapes here. Maths doesn't come so easy)Let's now 'say' that the light is travelling at 10 metres per standard second, (for convenience).The light source emitter, placed 100 metres away, is emitting light waves at 10 waves per standard second, and the light is initially travelling at 10 metres per standard second.After 10 metres the light waves are now travelling at 10 metres per second that is 10% slower, and during that slower second, the light waves will still number 10 at 1 metre long, but according to the maths of a standard second, the light will make 9 waves that are 1.1 metres long.After the second 10 metres travelled, the light will make 8 waves that are 1.25 metres long.7 waves at 1.42m6 waves at 1.66m5 waves at 2m4 waves at 2.5m3 waves at 3.33m2 waves at 5m1 wave at 10mAccording to the reference frame of 10 metres distance from light source emitter, the light is making 10 waves that are 1 metre long.It is only because we are calculating this reference frame from the time period of a standard second that we arrive at the maths of 9 waves that are 1.1 metres long.Over the distance of 100 metres, the light wave will become 10 metres long at a frequency of 1 wave per standard second.By adding up the increased lengths of wavelength per 10 metres of the journey, I arrive at a figure of 29.26*10 metres = 292.60-100m (true distance) = 192.6 metres192.6 metres is the amount by which the light waves have been stretched over the slower times within the 100 metres, when taking into account the speed of 10 metre per standard second.If one was not aware of the slower times stretching these wavelengths when measured via a standard second, then one might assume that the stretching was due to the light source emitter itself moving at away from the 100 metre distance at a speed that could be calculated as:192.6 metres/10mp standard second = 19.26 standard seconds.By the remit of my model and its interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, the red shifted light in my thought experiment above has travelled 19.26 standard seconds in addition to the 10 standard seconds light would normally travel 100 metres in at the (slothish) speed of 10 metres per standard second.The light source emitter is not moving.By the remit of Hubble's red shift distance correlation this extra 19.26 standard seconds is attributed to a speed that the light source is moving away from the 100 metre distance from observation point, where:Speed of light (slothish 10mp standard second)*19.26 standard second = 192.6 metres/19.26 standard seconds = 10mp standard second......and Hubble interprets the light source as moving away from the 100 metre distance from observation point at 10mp standard second...So by the remit of my model - to reinterpret Hubble's red shift velocities, would it be possible to calculate:Observed redshift = 10mp standard second (recessional speed)*19.26 standard seconds = 192.6m/speed of the light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 19.26 standard seconds?Or could we simply take the redshift observed at observation point 10 metres long at the frequency 1 wave per standard second:10m/rate of 1 = 10 standard seconds+19.26 standard seconds = 29. 26 standard seconds.Speed of light(slothish 10mp standard seconds)*29.26 standard seconds= 292.6m/speed of light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 29.26 standard seconds - (100m/speed of light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 10 standard seconds) = 19.26 standard seconds extra time, that over the 100 metres distance, as stipulated by the thought experiment, the rate of time has been slowed by.Can anyone tell me if this remit will work with proper light speed, as per red shift distance correlation, and result in the observed data values for this given alternate reason?(Remembering that my model's addition of this contra directional gravitational time dilation renders relativistic mass as redundant, where light is only affected by the contra directional time dilation, and is not subject to gravity potential energy like m is. This actually splits the value of G and g into attractive and accelerative forces, which changes the remit for m in relation to M, but to say so, the new remit remains proportional to current math, but for alternate reasons)
Please read why Maxwell could not explain gravity...http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htmIn particular this:Quote: Maxwell"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress."...and I have been able to imagine a physical cause for such a state of stress.
Quote from: timey on 31/01/2017 21:45:59Please read why Maxwell could not explain gravity...http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htmIn particular this:Quote: Maxwell"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress."...and I have been able to imagine a physical cause for such a state of stress.The cause that escaped Maxwell is spacetime dilation. If you are mathematically inclined, you can prove this to yourself by injecting the Lorentz transform into Maxwell's wave equations. You will find that the equations are the same in both reference frames - the stationary one (unprimed) and the one that is moving with uniform velocity (primed.) For example:d^2E/dt'^2-c^2d^2E/dx'^2=d^2E/dt^2-c^2d^2E/dx^2x'=(x-vt)*gammat'=(t-xv/c^2)*gammagamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)E=Eo*exp(2*pi*i*(x-ct)/wavelength)