Steve, I favor quoting only specific sentences, instead of entire messages, so there's less redundant verbiage for readers. Is that an option?
Light Waves Are Not Field Waves
Gary said: [LK: Or they may shine by glow mode discharge.] Closer, but the conventional model of rays of light doesn't work here either. A glow in the visible range again would fall off very quickly. With all recent instruments, they are looking for the spectra of the elements, and the strongest 'light' will be the Lyman Alpha hydrogen line, but this is in the UV, and we could not see it by eye. So what makes 'stars' visible in our night sky, or the dust and debris of the Milky Way visible, when the only emissions robust enough for us to 'see' are in the UV?
In this paper, http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html, Mathis says: "Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal."
He says the photon is spinning and it can resemble either a transverse or longitudinal wave, depending, I think, on the direction of spin with respect to the forward or translational motion. Apparently, the mass of the photon is at a point on the spherical surface, so, as the photon advances, the mass moves both circularly and linearly, resulting in a stretched wave or corkscrew motion. I have a somewhat different model, but I haven't checked mine against many known facts, so I don't know if mine could explain such wave motions.
Why Photons Express Different Wavelengths I recommend reading that paper. It's not real long. I guess it would help to quote some more of it.
- But now we must move on to ask why and how photons express different wavelengths. Electromagnetic radiation, in the form of photons, comes in a wide range of wavelengths, as we know. How is this achieved? It is achieved by a wide variation of stacked spins. As I began to show in a previous paper, it turns out that photons can maintain a linear velocity very near c over a wide range of sizes. The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs. This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron. - The most common photons appear at the size range of 18213 less than the proton mass and size. This is where we find the infrared photons, as I showed previously. But the small mass of the photon allows it to stack spins over a wide range of radii. In this, it is unlike the electron or proton. The proton cannot add extra spins above the z-spin without creating instability. This is why "mesons" over the baryon size are not stable. The extra spins begin interfering with the energy of the inner spins. But with the photon this appears not to be the case. Extra spin levels do not cause appreciable slowing, nor do they cause appreciable instability. We may theorize that smaller photons would be more stable, but the difference in small photons and large ones is not easily measured from our level. - What this means, specifically, is that if we give the infrared photon a z-spin as its outer spin, we can find a smaller photon whose outer spin is the y-spin. We can also find a larger photon with another axial or x-spin on top of the infrared's z-spin. In this way, we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on. By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of z1. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it. - This means that photons do not come in a continuous spectrum. No, they come in stepped levels, each level double the one under it.
I'm not clear on whether he suggests that photons can lose or gain "spin stacks" (and thus change "wavelength") in flight, or when encountering an atmosphere or a magnetic or electric field, but it seems possible. We should probably ask him, in the event that he may think it's worth a little time to answer. I decided to do a little more searching first though. And the following from http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf may be relevant.
according to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge density [= photon density]. Charge should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.
So, if the photon mass changes depending on the photon density around the photon, would that help solve the problem of light from objects in space reaching Earth? If mass changes, I suppose that means energy changes, and does that mean wavelength changes too? (By the way, toward the end of that paper he shows that the photon density [in Earth' lower atmosphere, I think] is about 56 million photons per cubic meter.)
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
For the Light problem, Wal Thornhill said this the most succinctly in that Particle/Wave duality is a complete misnomer. Light is a Wave. Mass is merely the illusion given for slow moving waves of light interacting within the holographic matrix. It's only an opinion but quantum mechanics is no mechanics at all and has yet to explain or build anything beyond pure hypothesis.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Lloyd I am still out on photons being an actual thing, not merely an artifact. Ive posted in other places what I think is wrong with MM's photons being force carriers, but the stacked spin idea is intriguing, will have to read some more. I for one think spin is tied into everything, as everything we observe is spinning.
Kal I quite agree, quantum mechanics leaves a little to desire. Virtual particles seem too convenient to me to get the math to a safe place.
I do notice that they say light is a transverse wave and needs no medium to propegate, yet no one seems to be able to explain wave propegation without a medium. Water or string, both mediums. Sound requires the vibrational properties of atoms to propagate, whereas light merely needs the underlying aether. Of course I believe in an aether, because a space composed of geometric curves without substance that tells mass how to move after mass bends this nothing is just plain moronic. As if something can effect nothing and this nothing then affect somethings. Worse than quantum mechanics and all their virtual particles that exist in whatever state needed until observed.
Will have to read and think more, and will get back to you all, thanks for the ideas!
All of them screenshots from WWT ( appr. 4 MB each )
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Aether Photon Spin
SJW said: I am still out on photons being an actual thing, not merely an artifact. Ive posted in other places what I think is wrong with MM's photons being force carriers, but the stacked spin idea is intriguing, will have to read some more. I for one think spin is tied into everything, as everything we observe is spinning. - they say light is a transverse wave and needs no medium to propegate, yet no one seems to be able to explain wave propegation without a medium. ... Of course I believe in an aether
If you accept the existence of aether, then the question is, is the aether moving or stationary. Mathis has photons as the aether, so the aether would be constantly moving at high velocity, although Mathis says they can also move at lower velocity until others push them back up to light speed, I think. I think this is the only theory I've heard of where photons are the aether and they're moving close to light speed all the time. This changes quite a bit the usual way of looking at aether. I think it explains a lot of things, as his many papers show. If the photons are spinning, this can explain why electric and magnetic fields push things at right angles. If a spinning ball hits an object, it tends to bounce at right angles to its initial direction. - And, as I mentioned previously, if the photons are the medium, then it may be the moving medium that gives the appearance of waves.
More from Katirai (on Light) Since the next section from Katirai is related to the light/photon discussion, I'll go ahead and post it now. Again, it's from http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008 and if anyone disagrees with any of these statements, please say why, if you like.
_{Galactic Illumination} _"If we look at some galaxies, we find the light of the centre illuminates the entire galaxy. _"If we consider that the centre of a galaxy may be one star, it follows that the centre illuminates the clouds and planets circling it. _"If we assume that the centre is made of millions of stars, and also assume that hundreds of billions of stars are circling the centre, then the light of the centre would be dim compared to the light of the stars circling it. _"This is simply because there would be far more stars circling than the number of stars making up the centre. _"This point is all the more poignant since astronomers also believe that the objects circling the centre are very hot stars, because they are blue. _"Many astronomers were in fact puzzled to find that the light of the centre of a galaxy was much brighter than the rest of the galaxy (see figure 14). _"For example, on September 12, 1997, Dr. Philippe Crane and his team at the European Southern Observatory in Garching, Germany, announced that using the Hubble Space Telescope, they had realized that the nucleus of the NGC6251 galaxy is shining so brightly that its light illuminated the central region of the galaxy. _"They wrote, "Something is lighting up the centre of galaxy NGC 6251; --- The strange beast that rules the centres of galaxies: a bright central object is illuminating a surrounding material disk. _"" What is this " --- strange beast --- "? The author contends that it is a single star, around which circle planets, asteroids and clouds. _""With increasing refinement in infrared astronomy, some unexpected findings have surfaced. _"For example, it has been found that the nuclei of galaxies emit large amounts of infrared energy.
_{Galactic Cloud Illumination} _"if the objects circling the centre of the galaxies are hot stars, then they should illuminate the clouds surrounding them. _"The photographs tell another story. _"None of the blue objects in the photographs illuminate their surrounding clouds. _"Furthermore, the light of the blue and white objects is faint and dull.
_{Galactic Object Counts} _"If we examine recent images with excellent resolution, it is easy to count the number of spherical and luminous objects within the galaxies. _"In most galaxies there are less than a few thousand. _"In fact, in the large majority of galaxies, there are less than several dozen. _"Despite this, some persist in the old belief that spiral clouds in a galaxy are aggregates of billions of stars, appearing as clouds from a distance. _"The photograph of M88 taken in ultraviolet light distinguishes the planets from the clouds. _"It shows, not billions, but only a few hundred planets within the clouds. _"The image shows the spiral galaxy M77, taken in ultraviolet light, shows a star in the centre with about a dozen planets around it. _"The images show three spiral galaxies: on the left, M33; the middle, M74; and on the right, M81. _"The photographs were taken in ultraviolet light. _"Notice the size of the centre stars relative to their planets around them. _"There does not seem to be a big difference in size – perhaps several times, at most.
_{Radiation from Galactic Centers} _"In our solar system, the sun is a strong source of heat energy, x-rays and gamma rays, while the planets are not. _"If the objects in a galaxy are planets circling a single star, the same should hold true. _"This is exactly what infrared and x-ray images of galaxies show. _"They confirm that the centres of galaxies are strong sources of infrared and x-rays, while the objects circling the centres are not.
_{Phases in Galactic Objects} _"a further indication suggesting that objects circling the centre of the galaxies are planets is that the light of these objects undergoes different phases, similar to those of our moon. _"Astronomers' observations have found this exact phenomenon in many galaxies such as Andromeda.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Well the centres of galaxies are very bright. That is because they are powered by electricity or they are 'stars' that are powered by nuclear bulldust. The objects around the centre are unlikely to be powered by electricity just as Jupiter and Saturn, etc, are deprived of electrical power by the Sun. So just how big these objects near the centre are is unknown, but they are not ordinary stars. Mo
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
The solar wind is an electric current that extends far beyond the dwarf planet Eris. This current hits earth and all the gas giants within the solar system which has enough power to ionize the ionospheres resulting in a glow-mode plasma discharge we call northern or southern lights on earth. These effects are also photographed on the gas giants. This same electric current powers and is stored up in the planetary cores.
Intergalactic electric currents are already mapped between galaxies. These are visible by the synchrotron radiation of these plasma filaments which are a plasma in movement, but run in the dark-mode.
Electron rains are a misname for the better known term of electric currents. Moving electrons are electricity. Plasma is more conductive than copper wiring and answers only to EM mechanics, and other plasma characteristics like Marklund Convection, within our Plasma Labs.
Galactic Cores are not deprived of electricity at all.
Because the period of this class of variable is dependent on the star's luminosity, Delta Cephei is of particular importance as a calibrator for the period-luminosity relationship since its distance is now among the most precisely established for a Cepheid. This accuracy is thanks in part to its membership in a star cluster[9][4] and the availability of precise Hubble Space Telescope/Hipparcos parallaxes.[3] Hence, in 2002, the Hubble Space Telescope was used to determine the distance to Delta Cephei within a 4% margin of error: 273 parsecs (890 light-years).[10]
We present an absolute parallax and relative proper motion for the fundamental distance scale calibrator, delta Cep. We obtain these with astrometric data from FGS 3, a white-light interferometer on HST. Utilizing spectrophotometric estimates of the absolute parallaxes of our astrometric reference stars and constraining delta Cep and reference star HD 213307 to belong to the same association (Cep OB6, de Zeeuw et al. 1999), we find pi_{abs} = 3.66 +/- 0.15 mas. The larger than typical astrometric residuals for the nearby astrometric reference star HD 213307 are found to satisfy Keplerian motion with P = 1.07 +/- 0.02 years, a perturbation and period that could be due to a F0V companion ~7 mas distant from and ~4 magnitudes fainter than the primary. Spectral classifications and VRIJHKT$_2$M and DDO51 photometry of the astrometric reference frame surrounding delta Cep indicate that field extinction is high and variable along this line of sight. However the extinction suffered by the reference star nearest (in angular separation and distance) to delta Cep, HD 213307, is lower and nearly the same as for delta Cep. Correcting for color differences, we find <A_V> = 0.23 +/- 0.03 for delta Cep, hence, an absolute magnitude M_V = -3.47 +/- 0.10. Adopting an average V magnitude, <V> = 15.03 +/- 0.03, for Cepheids with log P = 0.73 in the LMC from Udalski et al. (1999), we find a V-band distance modulus for the LMC, m-M = 18.50 +/- 0.13 or, 18.58 +/- 0.15, where the latter value results from a highly uncertain metallicity correction (Freedman et al. 2001). These agree with our previous RR Lyr HST parallax-based determination of the distance modulus of the LMC.
So we find once again his claim is correct, absolute parallax is not used, just relative parallaxes to objects they believe to be stars and are estimating the distance to. Assumption upon assumption, adjustment upon adjustment.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Galactic Cores are not deprived of electricity at all. kalensar Well the Sun has a double layer around it and the planets inside this are deprived of electrical power because of the double layer. So I'm saying that there is a double layer around the galactic core and those blue stars are inside this double layer and so are similarly deprived. Mo
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
The double layers do not stop the Sun or the planets from receiving power. Earth itself is more similar to the gas giant planets than it is to Mars or the inner rocky planets since it has a very extensive magnetic field, double layers and the likes because it has an internal dynamo like the gas giants.
Truthfully, the Sun possibly has a plasma triple layer type of system going on. This seems like a stretch but we do know that the Heliosphere is part of the Sun which acts much the same as Earth's own Van Allen Belts; a giant self produced field which protects against the harsh radiation thrown by the Galactic Plasmoid. The heliosphere also has a giant ribbon hitting it from the outside. The ribbon was predicted by Wal Thornihill in the Electric Star model.
Then we can look at Venus which has no out Van Allen Belt magnetic field, exhibits dual tornadoes on both poles and has an outer atmosphere temperature of 800 F.
Space is full of electricity even here in the local solar system. We know this simplby by following the Solar Wind clear out to the Heliosphere and beyond with Voyager 1.
Thanks for reading Mo, and sorry for going so off topic Mods.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Mathis says: "Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal."
Could be, but how might that help explain the visibility of distant objects any better than a field wave model? I'm going to take another look at Katirais "Revolution in Physics" though, as I balked at some of his ideas previously, but a spinning aether 'particle' prodcing the electric field seems plausible. If the aether, as JL wondered, is a rotating magnetic field, then it would produce an electric field, a background field. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2856
@Kalensar
Mass is merely the illusion given for slow moving waves of light interacting within the holographic matrix.
Yeah, I think it's all going to come down to an information field in the end, but attempting to fill in the steps along the way is kind of, er, interesting? I was going to say fun but...
but the stacked spin idea is intriguing, will have to read some more. I for one think spin is tied into everything, as everything we observe is spinning.
Yes, intriguing for sure. Katirai in his "Revolution in Physics" book also has everything spinning, and at very high rates. Where I balked was with his introduction of another 'particle' orbiting the electron, the Samareh, or Electromoon. He figures Sun-Planets-Moons should have an equivalent at the smaller scale, Nucleus-Electrons-Samareh, and makes some interesting observations based on that idea. He relies on the existence of an Aether for much of what we observe at the larger scales, and that light, electricity, magnetism and gravity are all manifestations of flows or vibrations of the Aether. But what is the Aether? I think eventually it will reduce to an information field, the Matrix, as kalensar says, but a rotating magnetic field may be part of the progression from information to matter. How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go? I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't have taken that red pill, ignorance may well be the easier path.
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I must iterate that I do not say for certainty that Background field is an information field, but it is certainly one of the most plausible idea formations considering the data we do have for the microcosmos.
We know that magnetic fields can store information, certain elements like silicon have this inherent ability, and despite my repugnance for quantum mechanics it has yielded some solid discoveries like the Planck Length. We also know that photonic energy, or Light more accurately, can store vast amounts of information and is also one the best vehicles for transmitting information.
One experiment I wish was feasible concerning quantum mechanics deals directly with quantum entanglement. If we could isolate two entangled photons, one on the moon and one on earth, then we could really verify how potent quantum entanglement is. The Moon sits just a little tiny bit beyond one light second from earth. It is my guess, because of that small amount of distance, that there would register a time dialation between the entangled photons, whereas entangled photons on earth will always react instantaneously because they are within the geometric area of a square light-second. This experiment would yield a lot of insight to how important the speed of light is concerning our time perception. This will be an exciting moment in science.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
kalensar - I think that a basic idea in EU is that if Saturn was outside the heliosphere and quite some distance from the Sun then it would be fed by a Birkeland current and a Z-pinch and be quite a bright star. Clearly this is very relevant to working out the distances to stars.
So I am proposing that those blue stars near the galactic centre are more like Saturn inside the Solar System compared with a nearby star outside of the Solar System.
I don't agree that the Earth has an internal dynamo and prefer the Earth's magnetic field being totally produced by a remanent magnetic field. Mo
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Kal, Mo
I think EU is looking at it wrong too concerning the power source. I think every atom, every particle, every asteroid, moon and planet is what is powering the Sun, the excess being emitted into space and along the Birkeland Currents from star to star (read galaxy). I don't believe the universe requires a mysterious outside power source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction In space once in motion...quite different than having to expend energy here on earth to keep the motion going. The produced current acts to accelerate the planet, counteracting the small relative pull of gravity (an EM event I believe), hence the orbit stabilizes. As to the aether, I see no other explanation for what we observe but that there must be something there, even if our current technology does not allow us to observe it. Atoms were once hypothetical too, until technology advanced enough to detect them. Field equations abound, but a field must have substance, in one form or another, so the objection against an aether at this point in our technology is pointless, all our equations rely on it.
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Well Steve, I got into EU simply because it ended up producing accurate explanations using lab data. The refreshing thing about it is that it ain't propounding to know the beginning of anything. The main boys even admit they do not know where all the electricity is coming from, just simply that the effects of what we are looking at match the lab results the best. That is humility and a breath of fresh air from a philosophical standpoint alone.
I am not for or against the proposition of an aether as a medium for moving light. Plasma itself seems to be the best explanation for an aether, but that is just purely my opinion. My whole bent on is purely on the substance we call light which seems to be an information propagation system that is self referencing and can be depleted energy-wise to form the stuff we call matter. I have a huge problem swallowing subatomic particles because they just seem to be nothing but virtual particles, which in turn just seem to be a mathematical figment based on the relatively uninspiring results of decades of particle accelerator experiments. There just seems to be no reason to even look that far down microscopically when the best results for technology lies right in the Elements themselves. The results for Spintronic computers seems to be more feasible and better than even the dream of a quantum computer. Only time will tell.
On topic, Light is the best way to gauge our way of telling how far away a light shines, but unless we completely understand how our one Known star, our Sun Sol, works in it's entirety then we have little reason to even assume the workings of the rest of the universe. Our best method for understanding is right in our own technology and labs because technology is a mirror of Nature. I focus on the Sun and it's wattage because that seems to be the best direction for the answer of giving us our best yard stick. My own number playing is running contrary to even Katirai on the W/d^2 equation these days but that is okay because it's helping me get to an answer.
All I can say is that by not blindly following rhetoric we are all helping to get some real answers and some real questions asked about very questionable concepts. If this whole discussion ends up getting disproven down the road, well, at least we had the courage, gumption, and wisdom to do some critical thinking.
