Frequency, Wavelength, & Redshift

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi BV Well maybe gravitons would like to move instantaniously through
space ,but my intinsic space field slows it to "c". That fits well with
Einstein. Have been giving a lot of thought to this theory,and coming
up with some far out thoughts. Trying to tie BB right up to our
universe's present space time,and even to its future time. Bert

DisclaimerAs I have made clear before, I am no physicist, and do not claim
near a percentage of the knowledge most posters have here, but I do have an
interest in learning, so I'll keep posting./Disclaimer My brain has always
had trouble with the concept of our laws of physics all being linked to the
speed of light. I say this simply because, what if we could not see light?
Or if we could see a different wavelength? Would our laws be different? I
believe our laws to be nothing more then ways of describing our perception,
which means that we are certain to miss something.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV wrote,

I believe our laws to be nothing more
then ways of describing our
perception,...

You mean like our perceiving space to be a 'void'?

...which means that we are certain to
miss something.

Yes...? Go on.

oc

BenignVanilla wrote:

DisclaimerAs I have made clear before, I am no physicist, and do not claim
near a percentage of the knowledge most posters have here, but I do have an
interest in learning, so I'll keep posting./Disclaimer My brain has always
had trouble with the concept of our laws of physics all being linked to the
speed of light. I say this simply because, what if we could not see light?
Or if we could see a different wavelength? Would our laws be different? I
believe our laws to be nothing more then ways of describing our perception,
which means that we are certain to miss something.

While we usually call c "the speed of light", remember that it
applies to all frequencies in the EM spectrum, visible or not. So
even if we could only sense infrared or ultraviolet radiation our
researches into the propagation speed of these 'visible rays' would
produce the same results. I'd also expect our alternate-universe
analogues who have IR- or UV- instead of light-sensitive eyes to
develop technologies allowing them to make observations in the
400-to-700-nanometre band, despite the invisibility of those
wavelengths to their unaided senses.

Considering how tiny the range we can see is in relation to the scope
of EM radiation, it shouldn't be surprising that a very large
proportion of current astronomical research is conducted at invisible
frequencies. Although we were effectively blind to most of the
radiation reaching us until about a century ago, by now our
technology can produce images in any sort of 'light', ranging from
low-frequency radio waves to gamma radiation.

--
Odysseus

Odysseus Eddington the founder of EG&G showed me a picture of black
dashes. I asked him what the dashes were and this is what he told
me. They were the cars moving through Boston"s harbor tunnel .That was
over 30 years ago. Bert

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
BV wrote,

I believe our laws to be nothing more
then ways of describing our
perception,...

You mean like our perceiving space to be a 'void'?

...which means that we are certain to
miss something.

Yes...? Go on.

Yes, I probably should but I am not sure where I was going with that
thought. I guess...Bert was making references to the speed of light, and I
guess that resparked my confusion about our use of the speed of light as an
all important constant. I dunno what I am saying, I have a thought here
somewhere, I just can't get it into words.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV wrote,

Bert was making references to the speed of light, and I guess that
resparked my
confusion about our use of the speed of
light as an all important constant. I
dunno what I am saying, I have a
thought here somewhere, I just can't get
it into words.

How 'bout this- Why is the speed of light absolutely fixed? Why is
propagation speed not energy dependant or frequency dependant? Or, why
is propagation speed not infinite?
Photons on opposite sides of the universe, decoupled and
out of communication, still 'know' to fly at exactly c. Why is this? You
can't say "It's a property of space, established at the BB", because if
space is 'nothing' and void, it cannot have "properties".

And on a related note, there is the "curvature" of space describing
gravity. How can 'nothing' be curved?

Clearly, the fixed value c indicates a carrier medium of a particular
"viscosity"/density. And the "curvature" abstractly describes the
acceleration-rate of the _flow_ of said medium into a gravitating mass.
Or does it not? oc

Hi oc My theory giving space a field that takes away instantaneous
action,also gives photons,and gravitons their set speed. oc Think of it
as an object fallind through Earth air reaching a top speed of 160 mph
because it can't push the ai in front of it away any faster. Lots of
answers come out a space field that will create inertia rather than let
the object pushing through it trying to get to light speed. After the
BB it was natures way to create mass from the motion of energy. The
space field shows us there realy was only energy coming from the BB. It
shows great acceleration can create mass when the objects acceleration
is slowed or stopped. It showed mass is created from inertia Mass is
gravity,and both are equivalent to great motion. In truth they are all
changes in motion Inertia mass is the same as gravity mass. Seems oc
I'm just trying to bring reality to the "Princible of Equivalence" By
adding the 5th force "The intrinsic field of space" That is the name I
gave my theory. Took my thoughts over 50 years to put in
words(hopefully) that its gravity all the way down. For years people
asked me where is gravity? I answered it is right under your nose,and it
is your nose. Today in my minds eye it fits for the very first time.
Bert