Surely your hypothesis should allow you to calculate what you think the difference should be. It needs to do something predictive and testable like that, if you want it to be science.
It is frustrating being relegated to the status of idiot just because you are not understood. Every astronomical measurement taken is only relative to the point in space at which it was taken. It is like looking through a pin hole in a piece of paper from ten feet away and describing the universe from what you observe. we have to be able to overcome our position of relativity in order to get a more accurate representation. If mass is distorting space, how do you measure that distortion? This is what my experiment is designed to do. By measuring wave frequencies at one distance as they approach a mass, and then measuring the same wave frequencies from a different distance as they move away from a mass, a formula could be derived that you could apply to your fancy mathematical equation’s that you all love so much. Maybe this has already been done and I just don’t recognize it in what I find as the confusing language of your mathematics. So if any one is frustrated with what appears to be my rudimentary view of the universe, and feels the need to make snide comments, go ahead. Only, those comments reflect upon you more than I.
What you propose has already been done and you just don’t recognize it.
It is true that some of the bizarre and nonsensical things asserted by modern physics go against common sense. The only defense modern physics has to offer is that every experiment we make to try to disprove these silly theories only confirms them.
Math isn’t fancy. It’s just precise. If you find that mathematics leaves you frustrated and confused, then poking holes in modern physics might not be the best use of your time, because the only way to prove that physicists with their quantum-this and relativity-that are dead wrong about the nature of the universe is to prove that their fancy theories don’t match with experimental results.
To do that you’d have to use math. How fast does a ball drop? Does a heavy weight fall faster than a light weight? Do objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force? You can restate equations in words, but that doesn’t make it easier to understand. So take Maxwell’s equations, Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia. What exactly is all that complicated math? It just explains how light behaves and unifies the confusing phenomena of light, electricity, and magnetism. If you understand this, then you understand how an electric motor or an electric generator works.
But if you think Maxwell got it all wrong, then it’s not enough to just assert that maybe he got it all wrong, and have any scientists since 1862 ever bothered to check? Yes. Yes, they have bothered to check, because these equations are used every single second of every day by engineers. And if the equations didn’t work then this mysterious internet we’re using to communicate with each other wouldn’t work.
You do understand that the light is not moving in a straight line to your eye? It is expanding, and contracting in three dimensional space at every mass it encounters. The point of greatest expansion would be closest to whatever is the largest mass it encounters on its journey. Its greatest contraction would be whatever point that was farthest away from any mass along its journey, and it repeats the process for every mass that it passes. What part of its journey are we observing it at?
The sun’s gravity does not explain the red shift we see when we observe distant galaxies.
Do you accept that plain english statement, or not?
No, I’m afraid I don’t realize that. As far as I am aware nobody has ever suggested such a thing other than you. I said above that light does not behave this way, and I said that because all the evidence - giant mountains of data - we’ve gathered over decades refutes that description. The behavior of light is computable through current established formula and the numbers match to incredible degrees of precision. Those formulas insist that light does move in geodesics , not just to my eye but everywhere, and not just light but all electromagnetic radiation, and not just radiation but massed particles as well, unless they are being artificially accelerated.
You can’t simply assert whatever comes into your head and then demand that others prove it true. Especially when others have already done the experiments and come up with answers contradicting yours. The former is sheer pseudoscience, or crankery, or crackpottism, or any of the other names it has been called over the past few hundred years. No pseudoscience has ever magically turned into science. Whenever science is changed it comes from real scientists doing real science with real math. This can never change. You are not changing it. You are, purely and simply, doing it wrong.
Once again, there have been scientific revolutions; but no scientific revolution was ever initiated by somebody who did not start out with a comprehensive technical understanding of current science.
You seem to have enough insight to realize that you don’t understand physics. Surely you must also understand that it works - that it’s not just people (like you) pulling random ideas out of their backsides - but that prevailing theories are supported by vast amounts of research data. And it’s the basis for computer chips, mobile phones, GPS satellites, and all endless other technology that you use every day. What on earth makes you suppose that you could, from your position of complete ignorance, understand where there might be flaws in the current theories?
Do you also plan to teach Lionel Messi how to play football, and Beyonce how to shake her booty?
There’s a wonderful snarky quote from Wolfgang Pauli to Werner Heisenberg when they were both just starting out trying to grasp QM and realizing that they had to learn to think differently from what the old textbooks taught.
If light is not expanding as it approaches a mass, explain why, when the suns rays shine down upon the earth, they appear to expand as they get closer to the ground.
The same reason railway lines look like they converge into the distance.
By “expand,” do you mean “diverge”?
As a side note, I have a book from ca. 1960 that is a collection of serious articles (i.e., Scientific American) by proponents of steady state and big bang theories, which were going head-to-head at the time. Both sides had heavy hitters (Hoyle et al), not cranks. In 1960, it was far from being settled, and this is an example of how science works.
I think I’ll go re-read that book sometime, just for shits & giggles.
How much expansion did you measure?
How does your system explain a laser vs. a flashlight?
I’m waiting for his system to explain perspective.
Unless you have a measurement of this apparent expansion then it is nothing but a subjective observer effect.
Even more when it happens because you are understood. Trust me, I know.
Light doesn’t expand and contract - it follows the curvature of space, which is gravity. Massive objects change the curvature of space.
And red shift isn’t caused by gravity - it is caused by the recession of the emitter relative to the observer. If the emitter is receding, since light cannot travel slower, it shifts to a lower-energy part of the spectrum. Red light is lower-energy than blue light (roughly speaking). When the emitter is approaching the observer, the emitted light is blue-shifted.
On average, most stars and galaxies are red-shifted, because on average, most of them are moving away from us. Therefore, the universe is expanding.
I have no more knowledge about cosmology than an astronomy course forty years ago, but maybe my very crude level of understanding will make my explanations simple enough. I hope so.
Regards,
Shodan
In his system a dragon with a laser beats an M1A1 with a flashlight.
I’m guessing that he is thinking of sunbeams from gaps in clouds.
Not true that gavity doesn’t cause red or blue shifting. But it’s usually a very small effect, unless you’re near an extremely massive object, such as the humongous black holes found in the center of most large galaxies. Generally, the Doppler shift from motion of bodies is so much greater that gravitational shift is ignored. Furthermore, his “theory” has the shifting from gravity backwards.
That’s not true for stars within our galaxy. They’re as likely to be blue- as red-shifted.
My theory is that a mass takes up the space that would otherwise occupy the same area that the mass does. This is how the space is warped. this warping of space is, to some extent, opposite of the density of the mass. We all agree that the light of a star changes its position as it travels by a mass. Also that it radiates out in all directions from its mass. My theory says that the sunlight would be entering less space as it travels farther from the mass of the sun. When you look up at the sun, when it is high in the sky on a bright day, notice how the light all pools around the sun, making it very hard to look directly at the surface of the sun, and as you look farther away the effect becomes less. This effect is caused by the compression of the light wave as they are entering the less space farther out. The light waves appear opposite of the way they appear to expand as they enter the space that is being warped by our planet. I suppose you are going to tell me that this effect is also just perspective, like the train tracks moving away from you but opposite. Only thing is we know that the light is traveling towards us. So stop being offended by your perceived attack on your religious standard model, and open your eyes, and your mind. If I am right, think of a way to prove or disprove, instead of making snide comments about how big of a dumb ass you think I am, or referencing some bullshit mathematical nonsense aimed at confusing the issue.
As we have said before, unless you can quantify your statements (use math) then they are just hot air bullshit.