DARK ENERGY OR TIRED LIGHT (DECREASED SPEED OF PHOTONS)?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205–211
"Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the
dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought
that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.
Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
accepted, it could be completely wrong. (...) The observational
techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear
dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical
considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that
astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is
circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical
observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding
universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point
that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea.
Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a
model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration. The static cosmology does require the Andrews (2006)
anomalous dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae. It is emphasized that
the anomalous dimming effect has nothing to do with a particular
cosmology. The anomalous dimming effect has everything to do with the
intrinsic short duration of supernova light curves and the cosmic
redshift of the supernova light. The intrinsic short duration of a
celestial body is the key concept because the observed redshift-
magnitude relation for the brightest E-type cluster galaxies do not
show the anomalous dimming effect at all."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
"Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the
dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought
that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.
Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
accepted, it could be completely wrong. (...) The observational
techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear
dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical
considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that
astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is
circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical
observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding
universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point
that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea.
Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a
model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration. The static cosmology does require the Andrews (2006)
anomalous dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae. It is emphasized that
the anomalous dimming effect has nothing to do with a particular
cosmology. The anomalous dimming effect has everything to do with the
intrinsic short duration of supernova light curves and the cosmic
redshift of the supernova light. The intrinsic short duration of a
celestial body is the key concept because the observed redshift-
magnitude relation for the brightest E-type cluster galaxies do not
show the anomalous dimming effect at all."

Do Einsteiniana's highest priests know that the only reasonable
alternative to idiotic Big Bangs, accelerated expansions of the
universe etc. is the assumption that "the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT"? They
do, but for the moment that is a grand secret between them:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 13, 4:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev


The only reason we see light is because of the function of the brain.
Light, as we 'see' it not what it appears to be, so how can we expect
our brains to fathom out based on visual observation?

The discovery of super entanglement has thrown the 'cat amongst the
pigeons' with regard to light within classic physics.

If all cosmologists were born blind, what do you think their findings
would be so far?

It is clearly beyond our whole mentality to acknowledge the universe
starting from nothing. The natural questions emerge,one of the most
dominating would be 'what is it expanding into'.

The further the cosmologists have gone, the more anti intuitive their
observations have become. Even S. H. decided that beyond the event
horizon, was 'imaginary time'.

That didnt go down to well with his fellows ,I would suspect.

BOfL

Einsteiniana's contribution to the hypothesis that the speed of light
decreases over the vast stretches of the universe (a silly explanation
of course but still going in the right direction):

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html
"However, since a major paper by Andreas Albrecht and Jao Magueijo in
1999, and another one by John Barrow in the same issue of Physical
Review D, the speed of light has come under increasing scrutiny as a
physical quantity that may be varying. These scientists are saying
that if lightspeed was significantly higher at the inception of the
cosmos (about 10^60 higher) then a number of astronomical problems can
be readily resolved. Paul Davies statements echo that and he, like
Barrow, considers that lightspeed has declined over the history of the
universe. By contrast, Albrecht and Magueijo contained the lightspeed
change to the earliest moments of the Big Bang and had it drop to its
present value immediately afterwards. In that sense, this recent work
is consolidating the belief that the drop in lightspeed has extended
over the whole history of the universe. This is the position that the
cDK research has advocated since the early 1980's. The cause of the
change in the speed of light has still to be determined, but according
to Lineweaver, one of the prime suspects is that the structure of the
vacuum has been changing uniformly across the cosmos. This is also the
position that the cDK research has advocated since the early to mid
1990's and was formalised a technical paper which has so far been
submitted for publication to two physics journals, one astronomy
journal and one general science journal and none have been willing to
publish it. It is also the key subject of another paper also under
review, entitled "Exploring the Vacuum." Because there is an intrinsic
energy in every cubic centimetre of the vacuum, this energy may
manifest as virtual particle pairs like electron/positron pairs that
flit in and out of existence. As a photon of light travels through the
vacuum, it hits a virtual particle, is absorbed, and then shortly
after is re-emitted. This process, while fast, still takes a finite
time to occur. Thus, a photon of light is like a runner going over
hurdles. The more hurdles over a set distance on the track the longer
it takes for runners to reach their destination. Thus, if the energy
content of space increased with time, more virtual particles would
manifest per unit distance, and so the longer light would take to
reach its destination."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
"Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the
dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought
that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.
Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
accepted, it could be completely wrong. (...) The observational
techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear
dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical
considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that
astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is
circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical
observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding
universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point
that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea.
Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a
model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration. The static cosmology does require the Andrews (2006)
anomalous dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae. It is emphasized that
the anomalous dimming effect has nothing to do with a particular
cosmology. The anomalous dimming effect has everything to do with the
intrinsic short duration of supernova light curves and the cosmic
redshift of the supernova light. The intrinsic short duration of a
celestial body is the key concept because the observed redshift-
magnitude relation for the brightest E-type cluster galaxies do not
show the anomalous dimming effect at all."

Do Einsteiniana's highest priests know that the only reasonable
alternative to idiotic Big Bangs, accelerated expansions of the
universe etc. is the assumption that "the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT"? They
do, but for the moment that is a grand secret between them:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 13, 9:57*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana's contribution to the hypothesis that the speed of light
decreases over the vast stretches of the universe (a silly explanation
of course but still going in the right direction):

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html
"However, since a major paper by Andreas Albrecht and Jao Magueijo in
1999, and another one by John Barrow in the same issue of Physical
Review D, the speed of light has come under increasing scrutiny as a
physical quantity that may be varying. These scientists are saying
that if lightspeed was significantly higher at the inception of the
cosmos (about 10^60 higher) then a number of astronomical problems can
be readily resolved. Paul Davies statements echo that and he, like
Barrow, considers that lightspeed has declined over the history of the
universe. By contrast, Albrecht and Magueijo contained the lightspeed
change to the earliest moments of the Big Bang and had it drop to its
present value immediately afterwards. In that sense, this recent work
is consolidating the belief that the drop in lightspeed has extended
over the whole history of the universe. This is the position that the
cDK research has advocated since the early 1980's. The cause of the
change in the speed of light has still to be determined, but according
to Lineweaver, one of the prime suspects is that the structure of the
vacuum has been changing uniformly across the cosmos. This is also the
position that the cDK research has advocated since the early to mid
1990's and was formalised a technical paper which has so far been
submitted for publication to two physics journals, one astronomy
journal and one general science journal and none have been willing to
publish it. It is also the key subject of another paper also under
review, entitled "Exploring the Vacuum." Because there is an intrinsic
energy in every cubic centimetre of the vacuum, this energy may
manifest as virtual particle pairs like electron/positron pairs that
flit in and out of existence. As a photon of light travels through the
vacuum, it hits a virtual particle, is absorbed, and then shortly
after is re-emitted. This process, while fast, still takes a finite
time to occur. Thus, a photon of light is like a runner going over
hurdles. The more hurdles over a set distance on the track the longer
it takes for runners to reach their destination. Thus, if the energy
content of space increased with time, more virtual particles would
manifest per unit distance, and so the longer light would take to
reach its destination."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
"Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the
dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought
that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.
Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
accepted, it could be completely wrong. (...) The observational
techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear
dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical
considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that
astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is
circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical
observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding
universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point
that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea.
Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a
model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration. The static cosmology does require the Andrews (2006)
anomalous dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae. It is emphasized that
the anomalous dimming effect has nothing to do with a particular
cosmology. The anomalous dimming effect has everything to do with the
intrinsic short duration of supernova light curves and the cosmic
redshift of the supernova light. The intrinsic short duration of a
celestial body is the key concept because the observed redshift-
magnitude relation for the brightest E-type cluster galaxies do not
show the anomalous dimming effect at all."

Do Einsteiniana's highest priests know that the only reasonable
alternative to idiotic Big Bangs, accelerated expansions of the
universe etc. is the assumption that "the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT"? They
do, but for the moment that is a grand secret between them:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev


Photons must get around atoms, because going directly through a proton
or neutron is simply not an option. The greater the distance the more
of those pesky atoms get in the way, and thus creating the perception
or interpretation of "tired light".

~ BG

On Sep 15, 2:49*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:57*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





Einsteiniana's contribution to the hypothesis that the speed of light
decreases over the vast stretches of the universe (a silly explanation
of course but still going in the right direction):

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html
"However, since a major paper by Andreas Albrecht and Jao Magueijo in
1999, and another one by John Barrow in the same issue of Physical
Review D, the speed of light has come under increasing scrutiny as a
physical quantity that may be varying. These scientists are saying
that if lightspeed was significantly higher at the inception of the
cosmos (about 10^60 higher) then a number of astronomical problems can
be readily resolved. Paul Davies statements echo that and he, like
Barrow, considers that lightspeed has declined over the history of the
universe. By contrast, Albrecht and Magueijo contained the lightspeed
change to the earliest moments of the Big Bang and had it drop to its
present value immediately afterwards. In that sense, this recent work
is consolidating the belief that the drop in lightspeed has extended
over the whole history of the universe. This is the position that the
cDK research has advocated since the early 1980's. The cause of the
change in the speed of light has still to be determined, but according
to Lineweaver, one of the prime suspects is that the structure of the
vacuum has been changing uniformly across the cosmos. This is also the
position that the cDK research has advocated since the early to mid
1990's and was formalised a technical paper which has so far been
submitted for publication to two physics journals, one astronomy
journal and one general science journal and none have been willing to
publish it. It is also the key subject of another paper also under
review, entitled "Exploring the Vacuum." Because there is an intrinsic
energy in every cubic centimetre of the vacuum, this energy may
manifest as virtual particle pairs like electron/positron pairs that
flit in and out of existence. As a photon of light travels through the
vacuum, it hits a virtual particle, is absorbed, and then shortly
after is re-emitted. This process, while fast, still takes a finite
time to occur. Thus, a photon of light is like a runner going over
hurdles. The more hurdles over a set distance on the track the longer
it takes for runners to reach their destination. Thus, if the energy
content of space increased with time, more virtual particles would
manifest per unit distance, and so the longer light would take to
reach its destination."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
"Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the
dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought
that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.
Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
accepted, it could be completely wrong. (...) The observational
techniques used by Hubble led to the empirical discovery of a linear
dependence of redshift on distance. Based upon these historical
considerations, the first conclusion of the present study is that
astronomical evidence in favor of an expanding universe is
circumstantial at best. The past eight decades of astronomical
observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding
universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point
that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea.
Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a
model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration. The static cosmology does require the Andrews (2006)
anomalous dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae. It is emphasized that
the anomalous dimming effect has nothing to do with a particular
cosmology. The anomalous dimming effect has everything to do with the
intrinsic short duration of supernova light curves and the cosmic
redshift of the supernova light. The intrinsic short duration of a
celestial body is the key concept because the observed redshift-
magnitude relation for the brightest E-type cluster galaxies do not
show the anomalous dimming effect at all."

Do Einsteiniana's highest priests know that the only reasonable
alternative to idiotic Big Bangs, accelerated expansions of the
universe etc. is the assumption that "the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT"? They
do, but for the moment that is a grand secret between them:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev


Photons must get around atoms, because going directly through a proton
or neutron is simply not an option. *The greater the distance the more
of those pesky atoms get in the way, and thus creating the perception
or interpretation of "tired light".

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Was there not a time where the splitting of an atom was also not an
option?

BOfL

On Sep 13, 4:36*am, BOfL wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf

' So, there you have it. My concern about

cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev


The only reason we see light is because of the function of the brain.
Light, as we 'see' it not what it appears to be, so how can we expect
our brains to fathom out based on visual observation?

The discovery of super entanglement has thrown the 'cat amongst the
pigeons' with regard to light within classic physics.

If all cosmologists were born blind, what do you think their findings
would be so far?

It is clearly beyond our whole mentality to acknowledge the universe
starting from nothing. The natural questions emerge,one of the most
dominating would be 'what is it expanding into'.

The further the cosmologists have gone, the more anti intuitive their
observations have become. Even S. H. decided that beyond the event
horizon, was 'imaginary time'.

That didnt go down to well with his fellows ,I would suspect.

BOfL

Another related question; are there retro-photons (transponding or
anti-photons)?

If there’s electrons and positrons, then perhaps we should be
considering antiphotons.

The observation of photons by the human eye or via technology is
merely our very human interpretation, as having little if anything to
do with cosmic reality. For all we know, those photons are not
received by the human eye or that of our technology, but instead
emitted as an antiphoton(anti-photon) whenever triggered by the dark/
clear cosmic or local energy of a given electron/positron point-
source. In other words, for all we know the sun is absolute
blackness, or conceivably offering clear energy, much like what
surrounds a black/clear hole could be receiving our antiphotons before
retro-reflecting and so forth.

Question; can an individual atom, electron or positron retro-reflect?

Regardless of the original photon spectrum, the Doppler redshift/
blueshift is correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two
individual photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees
from one another is a blueshift of 2c. The speed of a photon is
therefore its wave frequency being directly relative to the velocity
of the observer (regardless of the original transmitted monochromatic
spectrum/frequency of either photon). A Doppler demodulation of this
proof should confirm this kind of dipolar merging event.

~ BG

On Sep 14, 1:27*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:36*am, BOfL wrote:





On Sep 13, 4:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf

' So, there you have it. My concern about

cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev


The only reason we see light is because of the function of the brain.
Light, as we 'see' it not what it appears to be, so how can we expect
our brains to fathom out based on visual observation?

The discovery of super entanglement has thrown the 'cat amongst the
pigeons' with regard to light within classic physics.

If all cosmologists were born blind, what do you think their findings
would be so far?

It is clearly beyond our whole mentality to acknowledge the universe
starting from nothing. The natural questions emerge,one of the most
dominating would be 'what is it expanding into'.

The further the cosmologists have gone, the more anti intuitive their
observations have become. Even S. H. decided that beyond the event
horizon, was 'imaginary time'.

That didnt go down to well with his fellows ,I would suspect.

BOfL

Another related question; *are there retro-photons (transponding or
anti-photons)?

In the world of relativity, how could it be any other way?

If there’s electrons and positrons, then perhaps we should be
considering antiphotons.

Thats not anti intuative.


The observation of photons by the human eye or via technology is
merely our very human interpretation, as having little if anything to
do with cosmic reality. *For all we know, those photons are not
received by the human eye or that of our technology, but instead
emitted as an antiphoton(anti-photon) whenever triggered by the dark/
clear cosmic or local energy of a given electron/positron point-
source. *In other words, for all we know the sun is absolute
blackness, or conceivably offering clear energy, much like what
surrounds a black/clear hole could be receiving our antiphotons before
retro-reflecting and so forth.

Take the eyes out of the equation, and the sun will be described as a
source of heat.
Science and metaphysics are starting to connect. Metaphysicians know
that reality is to do with the observer, not the observation.

The answer to your question would be very different from a quantum to
a classic physicist. Even within the scientific, the 'eyes of the
beholder' prevails.

Question; *can an individual atom, electron or positron retro-reflect?

You are asking the right questions.


Regardless of the original photon spectrum, the Doppler redshift/
blueshift is correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two
individual photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees
from one another is a blueshift of 2c. *The speed of a photon is
therefore its wave frequency being directly relative to the velocity
of the observer (regardless of the original transmitted monochromatic
spectrum/frequency of either photon). *A Doppler demodulation of this
proof should confirm this kind of dipolar merging event.

Now you just have to figure out whether the merging is 'out there' or
'in here'..:-).

For me, science is like music. You have to be highly qualified to
produce it, but not to 'appreciate it'.

BOfL

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 14, 7:24*pm, BOfL wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:27*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Sep 13, 4:36*am, BOfL wrote:

On Sep 13, 4:56*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf

' So, there you have it. My concern about

cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev


The only reason we see light is because of the function of the brain.
Light, as we 'see' it not what it appears to be, so how can we expect
our brains to fathom out based on visual observation?

The discovery of super entanglement has thrown the 'cat amongst the
pigeons' with regard to light within classic physics.

If all cosmologists were born blind, what do you think their findings
would be so far?

It is clearly beyond our whole mentality to acknowledge the universe
starting from nothing. The natural questions emerge,one of the most
dominating would be 'what is it expanding into'.

The further the cosmologists have gone, the more anti intuitive their
observations have become. Even S. H. decided that beyond the event
horizon, was 'imaginary time'.

That didnt go down to well with his fellows ,I would suspect.

BOfL

Another related question; *are there retro-photons (transponding or
anti-photons)?

In the world of relativity, how could it be any other way?



If there’s electrons and positrons, then perhaps we should be
considering antiphotons.

Thats not anti intuative.



The observation of photons by the human eye or via technology is
merely our very human interpretation, as having little if anything to
do with cosmic reality. *For all we know, those photons are not
received by the human eye or that of our technology, but instead
emitted as an antiphoton(anti-photon) whenever triggered by the dark/
clear cosmic or local energy of a given electron/positron point-
source. *In other words, for all we know the sun is absolute
blackness, or conceivably offering clear energy, much like what
surrounds a black/clear hole could be receiving our antiphotons before
retro-reflecting and so forth.

Take the eyes out of the equation, and the sun will be described as a
source of heat.
Science and metaphysics are starting to connect. Metaphysicians know
that reality is to do with the observer, not the observation.

The answer to your question would be very different from a quantum to
a classic physicist. Even within the scientific, the 'eyes of the
beholder' prevails.

Question; *can an individual atom, electron or positron retro-reflect?

You are asking the right questions.



Regardless of the original photon spectrum, the Doppler redshift/
blueshift is correct, whereas the merging or closing velocity of two
individual photon wave-fronts, each arriving at exactly180 degrees
from one another is a blueshift of 2c. *The speed of a photon is
therefore its wave frequency being directly relative to the velocity
of the observer (regardless of the original transmitted monochromatic
spectrum/frequency of either photon). *A Doppler demodulation of this
proof should confirm this kind of dipolar merging event.

Now you just have to figure out whether the merging is 'out there' or
'in here'..:-).

For me, science is like music. You have to be highly qualified to
produce it, but not to 'appreciate it'.

BOfL

Music produced by Einstein or Mozart at best sounds the same, at worse
Einstein's music sucks.

~ BG