PDA

View Full Version : An explanation for cosmological redshift due to EM flux dens



DStahl
2002-Jan-09, 04:17 AM
In a paper available online at http://www.71010.net/CRS2.htm an argument is made for a redshifting of light by the cumulative effect of passing through electromagnetic flux fields over cosmological distances. I've heard some exception taken to the physics used in the paper and I'm curious if anyone on the BABB cares to comment.

Note that last time I visited the site the equations were not rendering properly on the browser, though they were OK a week or so ago. I hope it's a temporary glitch.

--Don

2002-Jan-09, 01:21 PM
On 2002-01-08 23:17, DStahl wrote: To? 2-1-09 6:49 A.M.PST
In a paper available online at http://www.71010.net/CRS2.htm an argument is made for a redshifting of light by the cumulative effect of passing through electromagnetic flux fields over cosmological distances. I've heard some exception taken to the physics used in the paper and I'm curious if anyone on the BABB cares to comment.

Note that last time I visited the site the equations were not rendering properly on the browser, though they were OK a week or so ago. I hope it's a temporary glitch.
..........|===============================
--Don.....|Looking up http://www.71010.net.
..|Sarasota FL
..........|11 March 1998
..........|{well I got thru but no ='sions}?

DStahl
2002-Jan-09, 07:55 PM
Aw crud. Without the maths it
doesn't make much sense. I'll
see if I can email the webmaster
and get it fixed.

--Don

Whoops, I should mention that I
have no connection to either the
website or the author of the
paper and I would just be passing
along a gripe as a reader! Not my
paper! Not my hypothesis! Not my
website! *grin*

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-01-09 14:57 ]</font>

Wiley
2002-Jan-09, 11:42 PM
I briefly glanced at the paper; the equations did not show up so I won't claim they got those wrong.

They propose that the permittivity and permeability of a vacuum differ from place to place. In other words, a vacuum is fundamentally different near Alpha Centuari than near Vega which is different from here. The implications of this, I think, is that redshift would be the least noticable effect.

But let's suppose there hypothesis is true. In order for the redshift to be proportional to distance, the permittivity and permeability would have to vary proportionally with the distance from the Earth. I don't buy it, but then again I'm not a geocentrist.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-10, 04:05 PM
His explanation of why there should not be a redshift strikes me as the fundamental problem with his idea. He seems to think that the stretching of space is uniform, so any stretching far away is exactly counteracted by a stretching here. That's not correct, and is a bad interpretation of the expansion of space and a misuse of General Relativity.

Like most alternative theories, it seems to me that he makes a big mistake very early on, in his initial assumptions, then builds a very detailed house on that flawed foundation.

Emperor
2002-Jan-10, 05:34 PM
I find it all very difficult to accept because a big bang having supposedly caused what science interprets today as an expanding universe fails to answer why a measuring rod can stretch and a clock can stop at light speed yet light itself is not affected or gains mass for that matter .

Light and I shall not mention where I have read this , but light loses energy passing through matter and if the particles are ionised then it is quite true that the energy lost can quite easily be the energy found in space today which then would go far to explain the microwave back ground radiation .
Space itself stretching leaves me amazed to think this can be possible or even implemented by intelligent scientists , suppose then that I am knocking einstein but I am only pointing out what I have read and feel in agreement with the author that space has no material existence or can ever be proven or made to warp .
Our present interpretation of the universe definately needs some new answers .

DStahl
2002-Jan-10, 09:14 PM
I agree with both Wiley and with the BA. I think that the author, Robert Hannon, mentioned in a post on physicsforums.com that he is using an interpretaton of GR expansion posited by Eddington (which would make it an idea published in the 1920s-1930s). But as he couldn't give a citation and no longer had the book, perhaps he has misremembered the material. Certainly Eddington made some blunders in his science as well as contributing some remarkable insights, though.

Even if one gives his hypothesis a near-uniform value of permitivity in intragalactic space that is different from what we observe here, and giving him a universal and unobservable expansion, doesn't his mechanism result in a redshift scaled the same as Zwicky's tired light hypothesis? (ie, the redshift scales as i proportional to (1 + z)<sup>-2</sup> rather than the observed i proportional to (1 + z)<sup>-4</sup>, which is the expected scaling produced by the expanding-space redshift mechanism.) And of course supernova time dilation is left unexplained as well.

Thanks for the input, guys!

--Don