Register to reply

Non-Mainstream Theories

by 81+
Tags: nonmainstream, theories
Share this thread:
MiltMeyers
#19
Jun16-08, 07:34 PM
P: 32
No, no post to this thread but I posted to 4 other threads and shut them down so I felt that it was due to posting my own theorys. Maybe I should find a good book on beginning cosmology but the problem with that is when I disagree there is no one to talk to. This group sounds very well educated and maybe I'm just not in their league but if I just post one post a day and keep it simple could someone take the time to educate me or point out the error of my ways? Maybe I should try another forum.
Chronos
#20
Jun17-08, 12:55 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,437
Championing Reginald Cahill's views will not get you much traction here.
lonestone
#21
Jun17-08, 10:20 AM
P: 15
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
Championing Reginald Cahill's views will not get you much traction here.
Cristo, please note that I have made no reference whatever to a "Reginald Cahill" and I have no idea why you made that assumption.
lonestone
#22
Jun17-08, 10:31 AM
P: 15
Quote Quote by Wallace View Post
Any interaction between photons and any thing else show up observationally through a variety of mechanisms. Therefore if cosmological redshift was caused by such a mechanism it would be immediately obvious. It would be 'the' theory. The absence of any such observational evidence makes this a bad model.
I appreciate your expression of your opinion, Wallace, but you have missed the obvious, namely that the excess redshift observed in extragalactic spectra may well be caused by a subtle interaction between photons (an electromagnetic wave) and the electromagnetic fields of intergalactic space during the extended travel time. I find this interpretation of the cause far more credible than the popluar "expansion" theory.
Garth
#23
Jun17-08, 11:11 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by lonestone View Post
I appreciate your expression of your opinion, Wallace, but you have missed the obvious, namely that the excess redshift observed in extragalactic spectra may well be caused by a subtle interaction between photons (an electromagnetic wave) and the electromagnetic fields of intergalactic space during the extended travel time. I find this interpretation of the cause far more credible than the popluar "expansion" theory.
In a non-expanding universe explain the primordial relative abundance of hydrogen, helium and deuterium and the CMB.

Garth
lonestone
#24
Jun17-08, 02:00 PM
P: 15
Quote Quote by Garth View Post
In a non-expanding universe explain the primordial relative abundance of hydrogen, helium and deuterium and the CMB.Garth
I doubt that my explanation will satisfy anyone who has their mind already made up, however, it is quite simple. The simplest elements are naturally those which formed first in the very early evolution of the universe from a cold background of nonrelativistic neutrinos.
The CMB is the accumulation of the extremely transit redshifted photons from the very remote regions of the universe. The longest wavelengths tend to accumulate because they are the least interactive (i.e. they redshift less)and more interactive wavelengths redshift toward these CMB wavelengths. The CMB is strong evidence in support of a view of the universe which is indefinitely (if not infinitely) vast in its dimensions.
Garth
#25
Jun17-08, 02:18 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Garth's Avatar
P: 3,273
Quote Quote by lonestone View Post
I doubt that my explanation will satisfy anyone who has their mind already made up,
My mind is not already made up, but you cannot ignore evidence.
however, it is quite simple. The simplest elements are naturally those which formed first in the very early evolution of the universe from a cold background of nonrelativistic neutrinos.
But how do you get a relative abundance by mass of ~3/4 H and ~1/4 He? BBN explains this very nicely.
The CMB is the accumulation of the extremely transit redshifted photons from the very remote regions of the universe. The longest wavelengths tend to accumulate because they are the least interactive (i.e. they redshift less)and more interactive wavelengths redshift toward these CMB wavelengths. The CMB is strong evidence in support of a view of the universe which is indefinitely (if not infinitely) vast in its dimensions.
But where is the background radiation from the 'intermediate' red-shifted photons?

Garth
lonestone
#26
Jun17-08, 04:01 PM
P: 15
No, Garth, we can not ignore the evidence! Why do you think I hold the opinions that I hold? Give my comments some time to sink in and you will (hopefully) be able to answer your questions based upon what I already said in my last response. Keep in mind that the interactivity of any photon is a function of its frequency with the lowest frequencies being the least interactive. The relative abundance of any element is obviously a function of the abundance of the element from which it is derived but abundance is also influenced by several other factors including relative stability of the element, its predecessor, and the products of fission of the heavier elements.
MiltMeyers
#27
Jun17-08, 04:23 PM
P: 32
Here is my one post a day. Lonestone, I agree with you and I also think neutrinos had a hand in normal matter. I also think Gravity was cancelled by mater antimater mix and spread into flat space or faster than light is now in "Normal" space. I feel however that the CMB is from a finite space and time and since it is visible(Microwave) there is no horizon till that point but there could be on the way to the singularity.

Garth---That went over my head I'm afraid.Photons are invisable in normal space arn't they? We may find protogalaxies at below light frequencies.

Sorry to be jumping in the middle of these posts and the above is the way I've figured it out so please straighten me out.
Wallace
#28
Jun17-08, 06:41 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Lonestone, what you are advocating is a 'tired light' theory. That is, the idea that for whatever reason, photons lose energy as they travel, causing redshift.

As a class of theories, tired light has been thoroughly ruled out by a variety of observations, the clearest being the redshift - light curve width relationship of supernovae type 1A. This is consistent with the normal interpretation of redshift which is effectively a time dilation between the frames of emission and observation. Tired light cannot explain this relationship.

That is before we get into any discussion of the fact that this supposed process hasn't been observed in the laboratory.
lonestone
#29
Jun17-08, 07:05 PM
P: 15
Wallace brought up the notion of "tired light" theories and asserts that they have been thoroughly discounted, however, I do not think it is reasonable to assert that any such subtle long term effects (as I suggest) of electromagnetic fields on the photon could ever be discounted by a laboratory experiment.
I am not sure what he means by "redshift - light curve width relationship". Also "the normal interpretation of redshift" generally limits its cause to "relative radial velocity" although perhaps in some branches of SM theory it may include "gravitational redshift". However, there is much laboratory evidence of the impact of significant electric and magnetic fields upon light. Recall the "Zeeman effect, the faraday effect, etc. etc."
Wallace
#30
Jun17-08, 08:10 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by lonestone View Post
Wallace brought up the notion of "tired light" theories and asserts that they have been thoroughly discounted, however, I do not think it is reasonable to assert that any such subtle long term effects (as I suggest) of electromagnetic fields on the photon could ever be discounted by a laboratory experiment.
I'm not asserting that tired light has been thoroughly discussed, do a quick search on ADS and you will find more papers to read than you have rainy days to read them. People have done a lot better than having a gut feeling about how such effects might manifest themselves.

Quote Quote by lonestone View Post
I am not sure what he means by "redshift - light curve width relationship".
SN1

Also "the normal interpretation of redshift" generally limits its cause to "relative radial velocity" although perhaps in some branches of SM theory it may include "gravitational redshift". However, there is much laboratory evidence of the impact of significant electric and magnetic fields upon light. Recall the "Zeeman effect, the faraday effect, etc. etc."[/QUOTE]
Wallace
#31
Jun17-08, 08:54 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Ooops sorry, submitted accidentally before I had finished my post, then timed out for edit (and lost the edits I made, GRRRR).

Anyway, the concise version of what I said is this:

SN1A have a light curve of a common width. That is to say, all SN1A are observed to last for the same amount of time (roughly 2 weeks I think). In the relativistic interpretation of redshift it can be understood to be a time dilation, so if the frequency of light is observed to be halved by redshift then we see that there is a time dilation factor of 2 between the frames of emission and reception. We would then expect that the light curve would also be increased by this factor, i.e. 4 weeks instead of 2. This is precisely what is observed. The width of the light curve increases in lockstep with redshift precisely as predicted by this theory. Tired light can only explain the redshift, not why the light curves increase with it.

Also "the normal interpretation of redshift" generally limits its cause to "relative radial velocity" although perhaps in some branches of SM theory it may include "gravitational redshift".
This is simply wrong. Gravitational redshift is an important and significant contribution to the observed redshift of distant galaxies. They are not simply modeled as Doppler shifts, the GR equations include the effects of gravitational redshift already.

However, there is much laboratory evidence of the impact of significant electric and magnetic fields upon light. Recall the "Zeeman effect, the faraday effect, etc. etc."
The Zeeman effect relates to the way magnetic fields alter the energy levels of electrons in atoms. You see that difference in energy levels via the light emitted but this is not due to the fields acting on the photons. Faraday rotation in the Inter Stellar Medium is an important probe of the properties of this medium. However Faraday rotation alters the polarisation of light, it doesn't induce redshift. Also realise that at the photon level, Faraday rotation is caused by scattering from electrons. We can measure the optical depth to the CMB and know the amount of scattering that has occurred and this is consistent with known physical phenomenon. The effect you are talking about bears absolutely no resemblance to any known phenomenon.
Chronos
#32
Jun18-08, 01:24 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,437
I disagree, you definitely advocated Cahill. Denying it now is evasive.
lonestone
#33
Jun18-08, 11:06 AM
P: 15
Chronos, please don't insult me... I made reference to Cahall, author of "Integrated Field Theory". I have no idea who the R. Cahill is that you keep mentioning.
cristo
#34
Jun18-08, 11:22 AM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,316
Quote Quote by lonestone View Post
Chronos, please don't insult me... I made reference to Cahall, author of "Integrated Field Theory". I have no idea who the R. Cahill is that you keep mentioning.
Give a reference to this paper/article (if it is a published, peer-reviewed article), otherwise stop talking about it. I've asked you more than once for this reference; this is the final time.
lonestone
#35
Jun18-08, 11:40 AM
P: 15
Wallace, I appreciate your response which shows that you have a firm grasp on the SM interpretations of these phenomena, however, my perspective is also based upon years of study not merely a hunch and the bottom line is that I do not believe that there is any rational basis for "assuming that the photon is not redshifted" during (due to)extended travel through the EM fields of intergalactic space.... and this is a forum for discussing non-mainstream cosmology. As you know HEP is driven by the need to try to find a reasonable explanation as to a cause for the theoretical expansion and my studys have led me to believe quite fervently that HEP is a "house-of-cards" ...and if you read "God Particle" you will note that even Leon Lederman has serious concerns about the viability of SM theory.
"Pause, to Question, & Discover" (a pet phrase of author Cahall)
lonestone
#36
Jun18-08, 11:48 AM
P: 15
Cristo, It is a book, not a periodical. What more do you want? Remember that I am new to this forum. The only reason I mentioned it again today is because Chronos keeps insisting that I am referring to a different author whom I know nothing about.
Have a good day!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Review of Mainstream Cosmology Cosmology 126
Mainstream media General Discussion 6
Is there an Age Problem in the Mainstream Model? Cosmology 22
Alternative Splicing Goes Mainstream Biology 4