Redshift vs Gravitational field

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
User avatar
chelle
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:31 am

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Just what are the qualities of the aether that you work with? Seems to have a density, but I don't wish to put words into your mouth.
That's a good question, and something that has kept scientists busy during the 19th century and that's also why General Relativity was widely applauded.

I think because there hasn't been found an answer during that period, that The Aether is multiple layered and dynamic. My intuition says that it looks a bit like mist; in mist you have tiny water droplets that are suspended in air, if you wave a little bit in the mist, you get some turbulences, at the level where there is no 'gravity' and only density-limitations the movement of turbulences. A group of mist droplets (turbulences) can start to go in cyclic loops and take on the form of something more tight (solid). If you zoom-out, you'll see a new sort of mist made out of these groups, btw if you would zoom-in to the original mist you might see the same thing. It would be a bit like the Mandelbrot set where new levels of 'activity' appear. That's why I believe that string theory is correct, each 'string' describes such a group, and during particle collisions you'll always find smaller and smaller parts that make up groups.

Related to the stuff on my blog, I think there might be 3 basic infinitly looping groups (knots-strings):
- Basic circle -> O
- Twisted circle -> 8
- Trefoil-knot -> T

----
- The 'O' could spiral at a constant speed through the Aether -> Electron
- The '8' would also just spiral through the Aether, but it would have a screw like property and applying downwards pressure -> Gravity
- The 'T' has a more complex shape and cannot spiral as fluent through the Aether and would have a more stationary property -> Proton
----

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:There is a fairly interesting construction at my website:
http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html
that could be meaningful to you...
I have taken a look but it doesn't ring a bell.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:23 pm

So I've been investigating this a bit more.
Wikepedia has the following section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_re ... ency_shift

which is inverted from your argument. I'm not thinking clearly on the red shift/blue shift argument and am instead back at questioning space curvature for the moment.

There are other places where I believe people have confused red shifting. There are numerous cosmological papers considering the red shift as energy loss. This is a misnomer, and the energy is still out there in space. It is just retarded in time; delayed. There was even a Scientific American article some months ago reviewing this stuff in a flawed context.

I really wish they would do away with the stupid emoticons on this interface.

- Tim

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Kasuha » Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:34 pm

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:There are numerous cosmological papers considering the red shift as energy loss. This is a misnomer, and the energy is still out there in space. It is just retarded in time; delayed.
Don't forget light consists of photons. Every single photon is red-shifted. And there is not more of these photons, it's exactly the same number which left the source at the start.

The point is, the reference frame in which they started their travel is different from the reference frame in which you are detecting them now.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:25 pm

Kasuha wrote:Don't forget light consists of photons. Every single photon is red-shifted. And there is not more of these photons, it's exactly the same number which left the source at the start.

The point is, the reference frame in which they started their travel is different from the reference frame in which you are detecting them now.
When you consider a medium (Aether) it all would become logical. Just like you described in your principle of 'falling space' which has some similarities with the emitted 'screw' particle that applies pressure. The more particles in one space-volume, the more space there is compressed and the more 'space' is 'falling'.

If you have a massive object that changes the path of a light particle, such as the Sun, or a second slit (in the double-slit experiment) that generates a periodical distortion, than those two events are basic representations of a shift in pressure of the medium through which a light particle moves.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Kasuha » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:31 pm

Any Aether that matches physical reality is indistinguishable from vacuum. And it's pointless to give vacuum new names or properties it doesn't have.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:45 pm

Kasuha wrote:Any Aether that matches physical reality is indistinguishable from vacuum. And it's pointless to give vacuum new names or properties it doesn't have.
From the Dictionary: Vacuum - a space entirely devoid of matter

I don't see what sense your comment has.

How would Einstein's contemporaries have reacted when things such as Neutrino's, Particle / Anti-particles showing up, Dark Matter and the Higgs Field were mentioned? Wouldn't they question the meaning of Vacuum?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Post Reply