Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 100 (357727)
10-20-2006 12:16 PM


The red shift that we associate with the Big Bang is not caused by the motion of receding galaxies. That notion was extrapolated from regarding that red shift as a doppler effect. If that were truly the case, those distant peripheral galaxies would eventually fall off the edge of your universe to be followed by more galaxies until eventually, ours would be the only one left.
Doesn’t that remind you of the flat earth theory. That was ridiculous and, so is this one. There are other reasons for a red shift in the light of those far flung galaxies. Tired light??? No! How about--
How about the cause being just the result of that galaxy's relative mass which is related to the fact of it’s very great distance from us. How about having a good look at this possibility.
As I sit here, my body’s mass of ugly fat has a 209 pound interaction with this immense ball of matter we call the earth. I can tell that because my chair is sitting on a scale in a very long elevator. I’m on this elevator because wiser men than I tell me that if I rise above the earth, my weight will change. Sure enough, when I press the up button, my weight changes because it’s center of mass is now located further from the center of mass of the earth and that this increase in distance is important in the gravity equation (thanks to those wiser men again).. Now comes, the surprise (to me, if not to those wiser men). When I push the down button so that I start dropping below the surface of the earth, my weight also starts dropping. I’m amazed at this because now, I’m now closer to the center of mass of the earth and this shortened distance should have increased my weight. What has changed. The gravity formula couldn’t have changed. What’s changed is that the center of mass of the earth relative to my new position has changed. Since I’m now immersed within the earth, some of it’s mass is now above me and, some of it is on the side of me. Because of this, it’s mass relative to me seems to have changed. Since mass does not ever change, what has happened is that and it’s distance from me has changed and my weight has changed accordingly.
Let’s get my chair and me back to the surface where I can breath better.
Here, when I look around, I realize that I am an integral part of the earth’s mass. As part of the earth’s mass, our gravitational relationship can be associated to that of our solar system. Strangely, the earth interacts with all the parts of the solar system but, not as individual bodies. It
cannot. There is no such thing as a gravity shield so, no body can gravitationally interact only with one or more bodies, it can only gravitationally interact with all other bodies in it’s interactive universe. Since the earth’s solar system neighbors are so close and their gravitational attraction so strong, they apparently disregard the weaker interactions with the rest of their universe. Woops, there goes the multiple body problem. There is never anything but a two-body problem.
A little while ago, I mentioned that the value of a body’s mass never changes. Weight really does not either. It seems to because it moves around and, it’s gravitational relationship to the center-of-mass of the earth can vary. Mass cannot vary because it represents the value of that body’s gravitational relationship to it’s entire interactive universe. All bodies in the universe are attracting that body. This attraction holds that body in one place and provides it with what we call inertia. The value of this inertia is identical to the value of the mass of the body.
Getting back to the earth’s relationship to the solar system, we find that the earth revolves around the center-of-mass of the solar system. This center-of-mass is not fixed at the exact center of the sun. Since the bodies revolving around the sun are not fixed and are of difference masses which are in different orbits, the center of mass of the solar system is always on the move. This is a complex motion which rotates around the center of the sun and does not tend to be perfectly circular. It’s somewhat spiky because of difference orbits and varying locations of the planets. The sun itself also revolves around this center of mass and, because of it’s great mass, it cannot follow these spiky motions. For this reason it tends to regulate the motions of the planets This has a significant affect on the orbits of all members of the solar system. These affect are left to better minds to interpret.
The solar system itself is buried within a galaxy of solar systems. It must also revolve around the center-of-mass of the galaxy.
Getting back to the subject, we live in a universe where our location in it allows us to interact with other objects depending on their relative mass from our point of view. Our local part of our universe can only interact (receive radiation) from remote objects until their relative mass approaches a point where that mass approaches the point where no radiation is allowed to leave it for other locations (us).
As we have learned, gravitational interactions occur between the centers of mass of systems. For instance, the earth's center of mass interacts with not solely with the sun but, with the entire center of mass of the entire solar system. Our solar system's center of mass interacts with our entire galaxy's center of mass. Electromagnetic interactions which have some relation to mass are also sensitive to these relative masses differences. For example, the center of mass of our galaxy and the center of mass of a close galaxy both interact with the center of mass of their interactive universes which nearly occupy the same space. As we compare our galaxy to further and further galaxies, their respective interactive universes start diverging more and more. The greater the divergence, the more the further galaxies center of mass are encompassing parts of the universe with which our galaxy cannot interact.
The parts of the universe with which our galaxy cannot interact with, add apparent mass to the further galaxies. The greater their apparent mass, the greater the red shift caused by this apparent increase in mass. When the relative mass gets too great, no more radiation can be transmitted in our direction.
This red shift is the same in every direction we look in--so I've been told. This fact tells us that there is no apparent end to our universe. It just seems to go on and on.
If there is no doppler affect red shift but instead, we have a relativistic cause to the red shift, then, it's apparent to me that we did not have a Big Bang. Those far-off galaxies are not falling off the edge of our universe. They are just lying there as lazy as ours is.
So, where did everything come from or has it always been there?
We do know that matter particles are able to pop out of nowhere in pairs (particle and it’s anti-particle). This can be happening everywhere in the universe all the time. It could have been happening since-forever. This type of creation could be likened to a gentle whisper relative to that Big Bang. Besides, it does not need any fancy explanation, we already know it happens. We also know that particle pairs ( a particle, such as an electron, and it’s antiparticle, the positron) can also annihilate each other and, they do. Could this mean that we have a universe which is recycling itself?
Before we start recycling, we’d better get the creation part done.
Popping out of nowhere is not the way it happens. There is no such thing as ”nowhere’. What we think of as ”nowhere’ is a realm, a somewhere where energy exists. In this realm there are no dimensions or time. When some of this energy is converted to a pair of particles, the forces associated with these particles are also created, the spacial dimensions associated with these particles and the time also associated with the particles.
In this gentle whisper of creation or the SOFT BANG, a pin point source is not assumed because the energy released by came from an infinite source. In that case, matter would start to be transformed from energy at all point in the physical universe. Also, this transformation would still be going on because the source is also timeless or eternal. This would mean that the beginning is not over but will continue forever. Then, time would continue to flow (if flow is what time does) and space would continue to expand to make room for the newly transformed energy to matter. This would entirely make sense in an equation-if you change anything on one side of an equation, the other side has to change to compensate. Isn’t time still flowing? Are we still detecting red shifts in far away galaxies which seem to indicate that space is expanding?
A little bit of Occam’s Razor can help reduce the utterly complex to a more understandable simpler solution.
We should all try to remember that all these posits are theories. Whose right or whose wrong will be contested for a long time to come. Does it really make any great difference to you and I?
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Edited to continue posted message.
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : To add more data.
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : No reason given.
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Asked for by Administrator & to improve readability
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Had to find some sort of closure to this initial thread that has wound up into an entire spool. Reading all of these responses has and is providing me with much worthwhile rocking time down here at the foot of the Rockies.

baloneydetector#zero

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 10:36 AM baloneydetector#zero has replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 1:07 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 3:24 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 100 (358757)
10-25-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
10-25-2006 10:36 AM


Will do

baloneydetector#zero

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 10:36 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 3:35 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 100 (358980)
10-26-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
10-25-2006 3:35 PM


Response to Admin's message
Hi Percy. Your right that I wasn't done editing. I've never done this before and I guess i didn't have all my ducks in order when I started.
I hope you realize that expanding something is much easier that abridging it. Shortening something requires me to guess what information is not required for the majority of the readers to understand. Guessing is not my forte.
I will try to add a summary paragraph to explain the first part of the "thread proposal" --No Big Bang-- and leave the second part (Just gentle whisper) till later.
As to trying to find a solution to a non-existant problem--I've got the problem and it sticks in my craw and I've got to assume that others (since I'm not the swiftest fish in the ocean) have too.
Next, I don't think that you understood me either because of your statement:
"and your proposal doesn't apply because the mass of distant galaxies on one side of us is balanced by the mass of distant galaxies on the opposite side of us. Your proposal requires a massive asymmetry in the distribution of matter in the universe, for which there is no evidence"
The mass of the galaxies on the opposite side of us do not enter into the problem. We are talking of an interaction that is strictly between us and a specific far distant galaxy. We are at the almost-extreme edge of that galaxy's interactive universe. It cannot sense the opposing galaxies since we are at the limit of their interacitve range. There could be assymetry but, if there is, it would only mean that we have no way of knowing how far a re-shifted galaxy is from us. It sould be a varyable depending on any mass assymetry.
Thank you for taking the time to read and judge the value of my "thread" (whatever that is).....Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 3:35 PM Admin has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 100 (359086)
10-26-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
10-26-2006 1:07 PM


Answer for PaulK
Hi PaulK. Thank you for the message.
First, I didn't say that the red shift is just due to distance. Red shift can be caused by the doppler effect when a light source is moving away from you. Another reason for the red shift is relativistic and was proposed by Einstein. Like you mentioned in 2.
The shift of light within distant or nearby galaxies mentioned in 3, do show a shift but not by the closest, core or furthest parts of the galaxy but in the left and right parts that are rotating towards or away from us. Of course this is a doppler effect.
Did I miss anything Paul? If I did, please let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 1:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 4:37 PM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 100 (359089)
10-26-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2006 3:24 PM


Reply to Dr Adequate
Hi Dr. Adequate
Thank you for the message.
I'm having a hard time determining what you want me to explain that is ridiculous. Is it the "Flat Earth Theory"? Is it the idea that the red shift of extrememly distant galaxies are caused by a dopper effect of receding galaxies? Is it Einsteins's theory that massive objects cause radiation to be red shifted. Or, is it my explanation of why light from far distant galaxies are red shifted.
Please clarify my mis-interpretation of your message....Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 3:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 5:55 PM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 6:32 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 100 (359281)
10-27-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
10-27-2006 4:51 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
Hi Percy. I'm trying to put together an apology for Dr. Adequate. It's taking me a little longer than I thought. I also want to respond to your messages--coherently. Right now it's more doctors visits. When you reach 76 that's where most of one's time is used for.
Nice to speak to a man from New Hampshire (where)--came from Maine Westbrook) myself....Bob
P.S. Do you involve yourself with all responses to messages?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 4:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 10:26 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 100 (359335)
10-27-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2006 6:32 PM


Apology to Dr Adequate
I hope that you didn’t take me wrong. I didn’t mean to offend you. I was just trying to define what I should try to respond to. The term “ridiculous” might be too harsh. All my life, I’ve been faced with what are to me false truths. Humans can and do swallow anything. For instance, it won’t be too long before there are as many religions as there are people. Some might even try to swallow a hippopotamus. So, “baloney” might be a less offensive term. What the heck, it’s part of my handle, isn’t it.
When I am faced with two choices, I’ve always leaned towards the simplest one. It’s an Occam’s razor thing.
For me, there are things that seem to stretch my imagination to the breaking point. That does not mean that they are not true. All of these things we are discussing are theories, not proven facts. It just so happens that I’ve reached the age where tomorrow is merely a possibility. If I don’t talk now, my ideas may never be aired and possibly, that’s where they belong-in a vacuum.
So, I think the red shift, not matter why it happens, does indicate an apparent limit to our universe at the point where the red shift indicates an apparent recession speed (assuming a doppler reason) of the speed of light. There can’t be an argument there, can there?
I also don’t believe that I’m necessarily right. If I was right, someone else that has a larger oar in the water than I do, would have come up with it before.......Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 6:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 5:00 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 100 (359797)
10-30-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
10-27-2006 5:00 PM


Response to Percy
Percy, your last two responses caused me to start doubting my baloney detector and I had to go back & check on things. Now that I've got myself back together, I've got to organized the jumbled thoughts inot some coherent response. Get back to you in a few days.....Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 5:00 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 11:02 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 100 (359822)
10-30-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero
10-30-2006 9:14 AM


Back to the drawing board
Percy, I have taken another peek at the latest in modern cosmology and find that nothing much has changed. All advances are still only theories most of which are based on variations on the Big Bang theory. If my baloney detector is even close to correct, and the Big Bang didn’t happen, then all of the advances in modern cosmology belong in the toilet.
I think that we can actually prove that the Big Bang didn’t happen and, to do this we must go back to basics. In my original article, it seems that I didn’t expand on the basics enough to be understood.
Like Dr. adequate cited, the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the distance between them. For any object in this universe, gravity is acting on it by all other objects in the universe. Like I mentioned in my original message, this action from all masses from all sides has the affect of holding and securing the original object in one place-at the center of the universe. This universal force provides inertia to the object which has a value we call mass.
Keeping this thought in mind and reviewing the idea that universe would be expanding if the Big Bang had happened, then why isn’t the mass of the object changing in response to the change in the distances of an expanding universe. Has the mass of any object been checked over time to ascertain this? Don’t think so.
Another thing, if the mass of the object is fixed, unchanging and, has a reasonable value (not infinite) then, it’s universe is not infinite or, if it is, gravitational attractions have a distance limit. What is great about this, is that we are able to move about our universe. This freedom of motion is another indication of the kind of universe we live in. The smaller the object, the greater freedom it has to move. Atomic and subatomic particles enjoy the most freedom.
There are some other thoughts floating around in there somewhere but, they seem to be out of lasso range. Maybe next time.
By the way Percy, I don’t live in Maine any longer. My company moved me to El Paso, Texas where I retired. Can’t afford Maine on retirement pay.........Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-30-2006 9:14 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2006 11:54 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 10-30-2006 12:32 PM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-30-2006 2:20 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2006 10:01 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 100 (360084)
10-31-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
10-30-2006 2:20 PM


Mathematics and the Universe
Sorry guys, it’s all my fault.
I started to think that there was something wrong, because, we didn’t seem to be understanding each other. I’d put one of my old ideas on this forum thinking that most of you that were reading material in this particular forum would be a cut above the average Joe. Don’t get me wrong, you are. It was me all the time. There I was, thinking that for some reason we seemed to be arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
What was wrong, is that I didn’t inform you about things that I’d flung in Archie’s ”turlet’ a long time ago. In fact I’d completely forgotten them. After thinking about it a while, after reading and re-reading your messages, I came to the conclusion that I had to forage around in that ”turlet’ to see what I’d forgotten to mention to you.
Most of us regard certain people almost like Gods. We believe almost everything they say and do. I was the same. One day, I realized that mathematicians like Einstein are not Gods and that some of the things they say are colored by the type of people they are. Mathematicians think in formulae and numbers. They look at the universe and develop formulas that define certain aspects of it like gravity. Formulas are nice things but, they are only tools. You can take certain particulars at a certain time and crank them in a formula and voila-an answer. Formulas such as ”field formulas’, take all possibilities in consideration. That’s why you can crank any set of factors in them for a particular time and get a comprehensive answer for that set of factors.
Mathematicians have gone a little further. They have inverted the formulas that they developed and have turned around and used them to re-engineer the universe. A mathematical construct like a gravitational field formula suddenly became a space-time gravitational warp. We can’t take a mathematical construct that contains all possible states of time and space and apply it to a universe where only the present is happening. The past is gone and the future is not here yet and so, the gravitational field cannot define the present.
I don’t think we’ll ever really ever understand each other. People can’t discard ways of thinking overnight. I know I can’t. It takes me a long time.
Thank y’all for the messages and have a good life..........Bob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 10-30-2006 2:20 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2006 10:09 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-31-2006 10:30 AM baloneydetector#zero has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 100 (362414)
11-07-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nwr
11-06-2006 11:01 PM


A very coherent response
One of the best responses that I've seen in a while. Very good

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 11-06-2006 11:01 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 100 (362824)
11-09-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
11-09-2006 7:35 AM


Response to Everybody
My views of the universe and all of it’s quirks (and quarks) are the result of at least 70 of my 76 years of inputs into this little brain of mine. My bread-and-butter field was electronic engineering. When I wasn’t doing that, I was ingesting everything in the sciences, religion & even pseudo-sciences. For any calculations you need all the inputs you can get a hold of.
I have no conscious control of the outputs of these calculations. Not everything that was input was accepted. Too many humans are apt to swallow anything. For example, there are almost as many religions today as there are people. When you accept all, you end up by building the rest of your outputs on quicksand. My mind has a tendency to simplify instead of complicate things. It tends to generalize instead of specialize. There has been a lot of indigestible matter that has been left by the wayside.
I’m not saying that I’m correct in all the results that I have been writing about. But, honestly, they are the best I can do after all the filtering and reorganization that this little mind did. One cannot ask for much more.
It’s true what I stated at the beginning. Too many people have digested too much and will not be too pleased with having fun poked at their specialty. I’m also too old to keep up with all the responses. I print everything out and read at my leisure. The Texas desert air is good for old codgers and for their cogitations. No bugs like in Maine where I grew up.
I do not get riled at the negative or sometimes even insulting responses. I expected that when I started. In one of the forums, I was kept too busy trying to respond to all so that I never even got to finish my input thread.
I suggest that you sit back and think, think, think. Much of the information out there is set in shaky ground. Swallow some mental “Tums”. After you settle down, smile and smell the roses.
As for myself, I have many more threads to inflict on y’all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 11-09-2006 7:35 AM Percy has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 100 (365138)
11-21-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Son Goku
11-21-2006 9:28 AM


Great Debates
Y'all are really very well read and intelligent debaters. You have delved into this subject to a much greater depth than I have and that is quite apparent. You are all way above my level. Oh, I can follow almost everything in you discussions and whatever stumps me, I look up.
But, to be perfectly frank, I'm still quite happy with most of the thoughts of my initial thread.
You are all a pleasure to read except for those personal attacks. Those I don't believe belong at your levels.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Son Goku, posted 11-21-2006 9:28 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Son Goku, posted 11-22-2006 9:01 AM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 100 (365378)
11-22-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Son Goku
11-22-2006 9:01 AM


Re: Great Debates for Son Goku
Thank you. You've put a lot of work in the response and it will get all the attention that it deserves. Will respond when I get my ducks in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Son Goku, posted 11-22-2006 9:01 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 100 (365593)
11-23-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by cavediver
11-22-2006 5:47 PM


More Explanations
OK guys. Rocking while reading all your messages does bring back a few memories (helped by the few naps resulting from the combination of both) . Maniacs have a tendency to save everything in case that it might be needed at a later time. Texans have a habit of using these stored items.
About 40 years ago I wrote and article that I entitled “Logical Reanalysis fo the Michelson-Morley Experimental Results to Establish the Correlation Between Gravity and Electromagnetism”. After I’d written it, I filed it. I just ran across it a few weeks ago. After re-reading it, I realized that I’d been full of myself in those days. But, it does answer some of the questions about why I should think the way I do today.
The article is too long to copy here. I could start another thread with it but, I haven’t been too luck in that department either. It’s either too long, too controversial, too crazy, etc.What the heck, lets strike a happy ”medium’ and write a condensed version here.
The experiment was run time and time again with the same result. No discernable ether or medium for our light-wave propagation. There were sad wave theorists and happy corpuscular theorists in those days. I, for one, could not junk the medium. I had to redefine it to explain the apparently negative result. The original idea is that the medium or ether had to be a fixed or nonmoving medium, and had to be completely permeable so that matter could pass directly through it without creating even a ripple. I contended that the experimental results had to mean that the medium’s original specifications were faulty.
Our medium has only one requirement. It must be so constructed so that it permits electromagnetic intercourse between each and every body in the universe. This medium must be perfectly elastic, that is, it must allow itself to be dragged about in each and every direction at the exact velocity of each body in the universe. Such a medium would produce negative results in the experiment no matter which of the bodies or combination of bodies were used.
If we look around, we find that there is something that fits the requirements of this perfectly elastic medium. What does every body in the universe drag about with it that is related to every other body in such a manner. Why couldn’t light be propagated in or on the gravitational force that interrelates each and every body in the universe. Why not? It wouldn’t be the only force field that does so. The electrostatic field between the plates of a capacitor acts as a medium for the conduction of signal intelligence.
The change in the gravitational force as bodies move relative to each other would cause the frequency changes we know as the Doppler effect. The corpuscular nature of light is still maintained because light is produced and propagated in pulses which appear corpuscular when they strike an object.
This is one of the basic reasons why my thinking could seem a little strange to you. Isn’t it amazing that a man like Einstein could arrive ar relativity by completely bypassing the one step that was absolutely necessary to its logical deduction and paradoxically that this step (the unified field theory) was the one he tried to take after he had already unconsciously taken it? The logical progression for his determination could have be: (1) the establishment of gravity as the ether which provides a unified field theory, and (2) deduction of the side effects of this unified field theory which includes relativistic phenomena
Sorry for this extended yakkin.

baloneydetector#zero

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 11-22-2006 5:47 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 11-23-2006 2:03 PM baloneydetector#zero has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024