Some parts of a Steady State Universe may still be true.

Gravity and lens effect could also cause light from across the
Universe to acellerate towards the Earth. Objects closer to the
Earth, don't pass through the gravitation of bodies like our Galaxy.
But, objects outside of our Galaxy produce light that has been drawn
towards us over much greater distances, therefore allowing form some
acelleration of light. As a result of superluminal light from distant
objects, the red shift could be a real result of an untouched part of
math and physics that would explain the model of the Unverse in a more
thinkable way.

Superluminal velocities of light and variable velocity light are all
lab reproducable events.

Hot and cold both effect the velocity of light by as much as gravity.
Observing the black hole at the center of our Galaxy Tells us that the
gravity lens effect is real and Einstien right.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ltt081905.php

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1....18/light.html

As a rule anything that can happen in the lab is happening in space,
somewhere.

"The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote in message
...
Gravity and lens effect could also cause light from across the
Universe to acellerate towards the Earth. Objects closer to the
Earth, don't pass through the gravitation of bodies like our Galaxy.
But, objects outside of our Galaxy produce light that has been drawn
towards us over much greater distances, therefore allowing form some
acelleration of light. As a result of superluminal light from distant
objects, the red shift could be a real result of an untouched part of
math and physics that would explain the model of the Unverse in a more
thinkable way.

Light entering our galaxy from outside was also emitted
from a massive source, often another galaxy. It has to
climb out of one gravity well before falling into another.

The most distant objects we view are other galaxies with
masses on the same order as our own. The situation is
thus largely symmetrical for no net gravitational effect.


Superluminal velocities of light and variable velocity light are all
lab reproducable events.

The superluminal velocities reported are invariably
phase velocity results, effectively a "chirping" of
the signal shape, not superluminal velocities for
individual photons.

"The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote in message
...
Hot and cold both effect the velocity of light by as much as gravity.

Hot and cold? Sounds very cranky. Cite a reference.

TFCG:


The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:

Gravity and lens effect could also cause light from across the
Universe to acellerate towards the Earth.



Gravity has been shown to deflect photons. Isn't hat from Einstien? That
photons traveling through a gravitational field can be deflected.

Einstein, from my limited understanding, was concerned with the
mathematics of the physics involved and not with the fundamental nature
of gravitational existents and physical causes of attraction. Nor was he
concerned in that statement with the identity and properties of the
photon that is interacting with the identity and properties of the
gravitational existent.

I gather from the technology press and textbooks that he did provide
measurement validations of the course change of photons. In that limited
respect he did for photons what Newton did for the planets.




Objects closer to the
Earth, don't pass through the gravitation of bodies like our Galaxy.




If the above is true, why not? [Enter Aristotle and Euclid.]




But, objects outside of our Galaxy produce light that has been drawn
towards us over much greater distances, therefore allowing form some
acelleration of light.




You are presuming something that apparently has not been found in the
celestial environment, or at least to my limited knowledge, has not.

You are presuming a fact that as yet has not been found. Instead, to
approach the matter scientifically, you should ask: "Is there any
evidence for the acceleration of light in that context, or for that
matter, elsewhere?

You are also presuming another premise: that gravity exerts some type of
attractive force upon photons. You should, in all honesty and science,
instead ask the question: Is it possible that gravity existents exert a
force that is a physical cause for such accelerations of photons, and if
so, what is the specific nature of that causal principle?




As a result of superluminal light from distant
objects, the red shift could be a real result of an untouched part of
math and physics that would explain the model of the Unverse in a more
thinkable way.




That is wild fantasy any conjecture. I mean that I am a neophyte when it
comes to physics. I've only read three textbooks and taken two basic
courses in physics. I'm a sort of student of the topics of light and
gravity, and I want to know what they are. I know enough to know that
you haven't asked an actual question. A great deal in physics is in fact
known about the Red Shift. The basic measurements of the properties of
light, the velocities under certain conditions, energies, wavelengths,
energy levels, and so on, are one of the most heavily studied areas of
physics, except possibly for basic mechanics, electronics and heat.
Atomic science is a part of chemistry, or they are part of a common science.

If you are saying the scientists could gain by knowing more about the
Red Shift - well, sure. Why not?




Superluminal velocities of light and variable velocity light are all
lab reproducable events.




Not from what I have read. Only some specific measurements have been
made, and those I understand were made under the most exacting
conditions, e.g., by evaluating light during occultations. The specific
conditions that govern light and its properties are so exacting that one
cannot generalize about possible outcomes. You can't take your Hilti TOF
gadget out to the driveway and measure the bending of light.

You presume that in the celestial realm that "variable velocity light"
exists.

Now, if you had a patent on a camera that would image the "variable
velocity light" that you presume to exist you would be a billionaire and
Nobel Prize winner. Where is that "variable velocity light" that you
claim exists?


Ralph Hertle

On Dec 16, 10:31 pm, Ralph Hertle wrote:

Where is that "variable velocity light" that you
claim exists?

Google 'Variable Speed of Light, Magueijo'. Dr. Magueijo is a
'mainstreamer' who made a splash in the year 2000 with a 'heretical'
alternative to the popular inflation theory. Co-authoring with Dr.
Andy Albrecht (one of the fathers of inflation along with Guth et al),
Magueigo showed that if the speed of light is allowed to drop
precipitously across the 'inflation' spike, the need for inflation
disappears as if by magic (along with the niggling little problems
with inflation). To boot, Magueijo's variable speed of light (VSL)
also resolves the Horizon Problem and the flatness paradox.

However there's a major caveat with the VSL model. It is necessary to
violate the Lorentz invariance, which Magueijo freely admits and is
willing to do (talk about having brass cajones!). Albrecht quickly got
cold feet and back-pedaled back to the "approved" inflation theory.
But Magueijo soldiers on, still convinced of of the correctness of VSL
as the alternative. However, he remains a Void-Spacer and as such, has
no concept of the **mechanism** of the lightspeed drop. That mechanism
is offered he
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot...ang/page2.html

Once this mechanism is recognized, Magueijo can have his lightspeed
drop with no need to violate Lorentz (or any other constant for that
matter). And as stated here many times, the lightspeed drop, called
"c-dilation" is _as viewed from the 'outside' referance frame_. While
here 'inside', we observe deep-past artifacts such as the excessive
dimming of 1a supernovae.
The speed of light is constant 'there' locally,
just as it is constant 'here' locally. _This is the natural extension/
expansion of Special Relativity_. Just as SR holds c constant in all
inertial frames, the expanded model holds c constant in all _density
frames_ (or PDT frames).
oc

In keeping with the title of this thread regarding aspects of the
Steady State universe, there `is` a model which recognizes both the
Expanding and Contracting phases simultaneously with the Steady State
aspect. It fully validates Einstein's original lambda idea but in a
much greater way than he envisioned. See -
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

If I can produce a superluminal signal, with just a signal generator
and find it true with just a oscilliscope and achieve an actual 720
degree phase shift, that moves the signal ahead of the input, then I
would question your chirping idea.

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/Direct...TOKEN=94824420

Rule of thumb, anything that happens in the lab, happens in space.

On Dec 16 2007, 10:31*pm, Ralph Hertle wrote:
TFCG:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/sp...d.of.light.ap/

My point is that it's not moving.

These black holes at the center of the galaxy are warping space time
and light speed. These factors have to be worked out in detail before
red shift, blue shift doppler theory should ever be applied.

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

Everything should not be moving away. That perspective in all
directions could be a product of mass. If not all of it, some
fraction that in detail must be properly accounted for first.
Otherwise dating the Universe, and calculated distances are still all
off and should be considered as less than accurate. Not so much the
first 100 or 1000 light years, but anywhere after 250,000 light years
or toward the next galaxy should be considered questionable.