Yes, I think a particle can either be charged or not charged. When electricity travels through a wire, it goes one direction, and is given a positive designation, when it goes the other direction, it is given a negative designation, but the electricity has not changed, only its direction. An electron is given a negative designation. So people believe that their is some kind of energy that is opposite of a charge, (dark Energy), I call bullshit on this and all the other dark theories that have arisen out of the misconception. These theories are quite imaginative, but they are closer to art, and religion. Modern physicist hold up there math equations the same way preachers do a bible.
No physicist thinks this. None. That is no more dark energy than it is Alvin Dark, the baseball player.
As people keep saying, you have to thoroughly understand current science in order to overthrow it. Starting at the bottom of a pile of ignorance about current science will always leave you in the … dark.
Ugh, seriously, this is so full of misconceptions about what the theory is as to invoke the “not even wrong” quote. You so badly misunderstand what it is that is in current theory that the claims that it is bullshit are meaningless. Up until now the questions about the nature and cause of red-shit have not been unreasonable. If you look at the history of how the current understanding was gained you will see (as described above) a very large number of competing possibilities suggested, analysed and finally dismissed. All carefully worked through, with their value living and dying on their ability to predict what was actually observed. That they didn’t predict what was observed is a big clue.
But seriously, this characterisation of what electricity is the nature of - charge, and the nature of energy (dark or not) - is more akin to the babbling of someone who has heard a few odd terms, and made up their own personal internal stories about what those words mean. Charge is not energy. Not in any form. Nobody thinks there is an opposite energy to charge, because the idea makes exactly no sense. This is simple high school physics. Stuff you can do experiments in your own kitchen to verify.
In my case the cause of “red-shit” was colitis but it could also be borsht.
Let’s just underline this point.
There have certainly been times in the history of scientific knowledge where somebody has proposed a radical new theory that initially met with resistance, perhaps even scorn, from the establishment; but the new theory was later shown to be correct.
When this has happened, it has never been the case that the scientist proposing the radical new theory did not understand the old theory as well as anyone else alive.
And the expanding universe was one of those radical new theories that initially met with significant resistance. It was reluctantly accepted and became a consensus because nobody could come up with another theory that fit all observations. It is highly ironic that some people now think of it as an orthodoxy that is blindly accepted.
Are you actually asserting that there are not three states of electric charge (positive, neutral, negative)?
Because if you are, it’s really trivial to demonstrate that you are wrong.
Yes, you would think there would have to be a very slight difference. I do not know if there are instruments delicate enough to detect it. This is why the most extreme difference would have to be measured from the opposite side of the sun from one satellite, (while the wave is expanding) and then from our side of the sun during a solar eclipse, (while the wave is compressing). But if the two satellites were an equal distance from the sun, the difference might still not be detectable due to relativity. Maybe, a solar eclipse is not required. If two satellites were on opposite sides of the sun, at different distances from the sun, and were pointed towards the same star. one pointed away from the sun at the star, and a second, pointed towards the sun but still able to see the star. This second satellite would have to be “far out man” (imagine Tommy Chong).
I took my boat out on lake Huron today, I was looking at a buoy in the water and watching the waves as they broke around the buoy. It looked to me like the wave almost stretched around the buoy and then filled the void from the buoy. As the peak of the wave passed, it left a slight bulge in the peak of the wave where the buoy had once been. The bulge was short lived and then disappeared as the momentum of the wave evened everything out again. But I cant help thinking that the wave had some how stretched just a little bit to encompass the buoy as it moved toward the shore. So I tried to imagine the same thing in three dimensions. This is why I have questions about the validity of red shift meaning that our universe is expanding. So if anybody is going to chime in with some fancy mathematical equation explaining wave velocity or angular momentum in defense of there crumbling understanding of the universe, save it. Plain common sense language will do just fine.
There are, as was explained to you earlier. We can actually detect the amount that light gets distorted by the sun’s gravity field, and this has been measured very precisely. However, this value is much smaller than the red shifts we detect in distant galaxies, so it is not the cause of that red shift.
We don’t need your setup, we just need to measure the redshift of a star that is 180 degrees opposite the sun and one that is 90 degrees opposite the sun.
Also if we have a detector orbiting the earth, it’s very easy to observe things in the direction of the sun, you just put up a little umbrella. That doesn’t work on Earth during the day because the atmosphere here is so dense that the whole sky is lit up. But in space, no atmosphere, so a little umbrella is all you need.
As for your idea that the universe is filled with little buoys that disrupt light, well, there are such things, and it is called matter. So there are parts of our galaxy that we can’t observe because dust is in the way. If a photon emitted by a distant galaxy smacks into an atom before it reaches Earth, then that photon will never be observed on Earth. When you look up at a star, your eyeball is absorbing photons from that star, and those photons will not continue their journey through interstellar space. They got absorbed by your eyeball.
But the earth is really small, and the universe is mostly empty space even in a galaxy, which is why we can see the stars at all. If there were lots of stuff in the way the galaxy would be opaque and we wouldn’t see stars, we’d see diffuse nebulae.
Lots of times the atmosphere on Earth is opaque just like this, and we can’t see the stars. Like when the night sky is cloudy, or during the daytime when the atmosphere is scattering so much light from the sun.
But interstellar space isn’t transparent in the same way our atmosphere is mostly transparent. There just isn’t anything there. No gas, no dust, no molecules, no particles. Even the hypothetical dark matter in galaxies is very diffuse. If you took our sun and scattered it over a couple cubic light years it would be a hard vacuum. Same thing with the amount of dark matter in interstellar space. There’s a lot of it in our galaxy, which creates a lot of gravity, but there isn’t very much of it per cubic meter of interstellar space.
Gentlemen and ladies: this is the core right here. Our dear friend has repeatedly told us he refuses to listen or learn.
That being the case, I for one am going to go with some sound advice I learned right here on the 'Dope: When someone tells you who they truly are, it’s to your advantage to listen then behave accordingly.
How do you find GPS works for you while you’re out on your boat? Were you aware that scientists with their crumbling understanding of the universe use the fancy mathematical equations of General Relativity in the GPS system; and that if they did not do so, position errors of the order of 10km would result?
Perhaps you should design a replacement GPS system based on your plain common sense ideas?
Here’s some plain common sense. Light “waves” (and all electromagnetic "waves"0 are not waves in the same way that water is. You cannot use water waves as an analogy for a stream of photons. Photons do not “bulge.” They follow straight lines, i.e. geodesics, i.e. the shortest path between two points. The presence of matter changes the meaning of “straight” because it curves space, i.e. changes what the shortest path is. No bulging, compressing, or any other of your wrong language applies.
How do we know this? Math. Math, math., math, math, math.
This is really the point about reasoning about waves. The equations describing waves come last. Indeed the very basic equations describing periodic waves in water and light are the only thing the two have in common. Everything else is different. Which is why you can’t use the behaviour of water to reason about the behaviour of light.
Indeed we only use a wave description to describe light in that it provides a way of predicting the probability that it will do something. Waves on the surface of water on the other hand require a limited set of circumstances, and even then the waves themselves and their behaviour is dependant upon a whole range of factors that light simply doesn’t possess. Water waves require that the depth of the water be significantly greater than the wave length. Water is a fluid - it has density and viscosity. The wave motion depends upon both of these. The wave motion you see is a boundary effect - it is one of a number of different wave propagation modes water can sustain. It is not clear at all what sort of boundary effect you can use for light propagation. Water also supports waves in 3D, sound waves underwater for instance. Which behave totally differently to surface waves.
Most importantly, light propagation is described by QED - quantum electrodynamics. In addition to the propagation of the wave in a vacuum, QED tells us how light behaves when it interacts with other things. Like dust particles. And the rules are different. And we know this because we can measure what happens. QED contains a wave component. But it isn’t an emergent property dependant upon density, viscosity, a boundary layer, the force of gravity, the depth of the water, all ultimately derived from the statistical mechanics of fluids.
Interstellar and intergalactic space does contain some dust. And the dust does cause the light we see from far away to redden slightly. But, and this is really really important - it does so by removing some of the blue energy from the light. The location of the spectral lines is not changed. The dust act as a simple reddening filter, in exactly the same manner as the light from the Sun is reddened during a sunset. This slight reddening matters if you are trying to use the colour (as opposed to spectral lines) of light from a galaxy to work out its distance. More interestingly, the dust inside a galaxy has a big effect on its colour, and the precise shape of the reddening effect gives clues to the make-up of the dust particles - and turns out to be linked to the age of nature of the galaxy.
QED tells us a great deal (all verified by experiment - and indeed initially driven by experimental results) about how light behaves when interacting with dust. It is all well and good to come up with criticisms of the lack of “common sense” in the descriptions of how this works. However there is nothing more common sense than taking the time to verify with experiments that your description actually works. This has been done, many many times, and QED has the distinction of being the most accurate description of experimental phenomena ever. The rules of science are also simple common sense. If you think you have a new, or better, way of describing the underlying understanding of how something works, you need to propose a way that it can be tested. Your test must be structured so that if your new idea is wrong, the test will fail. If your test works, you have validated you new idea, and the idea gains some chance of being right. If it fails, you are probably wrong. Over the last century we have subjected light to the most rigorous scrutiny imaginable. The rules we have that govern its behaviour are worse than not common sense, they are deeply counter-intuitive. But they pass the most critical common sense test of all. They work, and they have never been contradicted by any experiment. And scientists would love to find a chink in all of this. Find a flaw in QED and you will get a free trip to Stockholm and a nice gold medal for your efforts. Finding the flaw in classical descriptions of how light worked, and showing by experiment that nature of this flaw, was what got Einstein his trip to Stockholm. You can be sure that most scientists have secretly fantasised about repeating that effort.
In all fairness, the OP was proposing an experiment when he asked his question in the first place.
If common sense explanations were sufficient, the universe would have been explained by the ancient Greeks. They are not.
Verified.
But he has never showed any inclination to modify his crackpot beliefs based on the results of any experiment.
Well, I guess there’s proposing experiments (for someone else to do) and doing experiments (which is harder). Between all that, who’s got time to look at results, especially those you don’t like.
Well, the point is that everything he has proposed has already been done, a vast number of times, and the loophole/discrepancy that he proposed would have been spotted decades ago. Of course, interpreting the results requires math. Perhaps if we used “common sense” instead of fancy math, the truth (sorry the truth) would become clear.