Redshift without expansion

Reading Jan Pantelljes thread on redshift has got me
thinking again about how to try to explain redshift
without expansion but still accomodating a constant c.
At first it seems an intractible problem.But I realize
that approaching it in the usual manner by accepting
a constant c and an observed redshift and extrapolating
a expanding universe to make everything fit isnt the
only approach. Instead, I try to see if a constant c can
be consistent with an observed redshift due to distance
in a *non expanding universe*. So rather than checking
whether space needs to be variable I check whether
speed needs to be variable. And my results show that
in fact with a non expanding universe c can still be
constant.
I believe that I can show this to be the case by using
lateral thinking and treating light not as a particle
but as a classical virtual wave. More specifically I
treat light as an information wave expanding outwards
from source facilitated by ever increasing rings of
theoretical oscilatting points in space (or as below as
observors at these theoretical points) with a decrease
in frequency in oscillations where the distance
increases.
So rather than a photon travelling outwards I instead
set up a thought experiment where at regular equally
spaced points radiating out from the source I place
observors who see light ever more redshifted the
farther from source they are located. The 01 patterns
refer to the frequency observed . So for instance
whereas observor 1 observes 1 beat every 4 time
units, observor 4 sees 1 beat every 10 time units.
(ie lower frequency observed the farther away from
source). As you can see if the distance between each
observor and between observor 1 and source are equal
then it becomes clear from the chart that the speed
of light is constant even though the observed frequency
becomes lower the farther from source.
One extra point is that some critics will say.." but
light appears to be disappearing as it expands outwards
from source". Take for instance the light wave marked
by `x`. It appears that it vanishes after observor 1.
Yet this is an illusion because in fact light isnt
treated as a moving photon but rather as a virtual
wave tracing the pattern of beats observed emanating
out from source.As the light is treated as a pattern
of oscillting points in space in actual fact no energy
is lost as all observors `see` light coming constantly
from the source. Its just that the farther away one
is from source the redder this light appears. Or in
different terms the further from source the slower the
measured frequency of light. It is an illusion that
the light marked x disappears after observor 1. In
fact as no object is moving no object gets
lost.

(Note that below distance is horizontal axis and
time is the vertical axis)


| | | | |
Source observor1 observor2 observor3 observor4

0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1x 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1x 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1

Ive repeated the pattern enough times to show that
observor 4 sees a pattern that repeats at a frequency
of 1/10. As you can see from this layout above each
observor `sees` light at a certain frequency and that
frequency decreases the farther away from source
relative to distance , YET, at the same time the
speed of the `wave` going out from source is constant.
So to summarize; redshift and a constant c can be
consistent with a non expanding universe
as long as light is treated as a moving series of peaks
due to stationary oscilatting points
in space and not as a moving object like a photon.

Sean

On a sunny day (18 Jun 2006 06:19:54 -0700) it happened "sean"
wrote in
.com:

So to summarize; redshift and a constant c can be
consistent with a non expanding universe
as long as light is treated as a moving series of peaks
due to stationary oscilatting points
in space and not as a moving object like a photon.

Sean

Hi, it does not make sense to me, yes you can set up those observers,
but given c for lightspeed, and equal distance for observers,
and you say f (color) changes [for those observers], then what makes
it change?

There ar several theories, 'tired light' was discussed here, some static
'electrostatic effect' was also discussed, the consensus is doppler, due to
that the observers are moving away from each other, what do you propose the
mechanism is here?

In article .com,
sean wrote:

So to summarize; redshift and a constant c can be
consistent with a non expanding universe
as long as light is treated as a moving series of peaks
due to stationary oscilatting points
in space and not as a moving object like a photon.

Explain why Cepheids and Type 1A SN are in agreement with the Hubble
method of ascertainig distance...?

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...
...
So rather than a photon travelling outwards I instead
set up a thought experiment where at regular equally
spaced points radiating out from the source I place
observors who see light ever more redshifted the
farther from source they are located. The 01 patterns
refer to the frequency observed . So for instance
whereas observor 1 observes 1 beat every 4 time
units, observor 4 sees 1 beat every 10 time units.
(ie lower frequency observed the farther away from
source). As you can see if the distance between each
observor and between observor 1 and source are equal
then it becomes clear from the chart that the speed
of light is constant even though the observed frequency
becomes lower the farther from source.
One extra point is that some critics will say.." but
light appears to be disappearing as it expands outwards
from source". Take for instance the light wave marked
by `x`. It appears that it vanishes after observor 1.
Yet this is an illusion because in fact light isnt
treated as a moving photon but rather as a virtual
wave tracing the pattern of beats observed emanating
out from source.As the light is treated as a pattern
of oscillting points in space in actual fact no energy
is lost as all observors `see` light coming constantly
from the source.

The energy is proportional to the frequency so
the fact that more distant observers see lower
frequencies means that energy _is_ being lost
however you explain it.

Its just that the farther away one
is from source the redder this light appears. Or in
different terms the further from source the slower the
measured frequency of light. It is an illusion that
the light marked x disappears after observor 1. In
fact as no object is moving no object gets
lost.

(Note that below distance is horizontal axis and
time is the vertical axis)


| | | | |
Source observor1 observor2 observor3 observor4

0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1u 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1x 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1v 1x 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1w 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1y 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1z 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1

Ive repeated the pattern enough times to show that
observor 4 sees a pattern that repeats at a frequency
of 1/10. As you can see from this layout above each
observor `sees` light at a certain frequency and that
frequency decreases the farther away from source
relative to distance ,

I think you got it wrong somewhere, observers 2, 3
and 4 all see the same frequency in your diagram.
Also observer 2 doesn't see a consistent frequency,
the gaps between the '1's are unequal. You also
seem to have lost the cycles I have labelled 1u, 1v,
1w, 1y and 1z.

George

Dear Jan Panteltje:

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (18 Jun 2006 06:19:54 -0700) it happened "sean"
wrote in
.com:

So to summarize; redshift and a constant c can be
consistent with a non expanding universe
as long as light is treated as a moving series of peaks
due to stationary oscilatting points
in space and not as a moving object like a photon.

Hi, it does not make sense to me, yes you can set
up those observers, but given c for lightspeed, and
equal distance for observers, and you say f (color)
changes [for those observers], then what makes
it change?

There ar several theories, 'tired light' was discussed
here, some static 'electrostatic effect' was also
discussed, the consensus is doppler, due to that
the observers are moving away from each other, what
do you propose the mechanism is here?

Sounds like dispersion. As the "light wave" moves outwards from
the source, a dispersive medium will remove energy from the wave,
yielding a loss in energy (frequency).

Of course a dispersive medium affects different wavelengths
differently, and fails to describe the "red shift" of the
duration of type Ia supernovae...

David A. Smith

Ive responded to all replies here in one post...
From: Jan Panteltje
Hi, it does not make sense to me, yes you can set up those observers,
but given c for lightspeed, and equal distance for observers,
and you say f (color) changes [for those observers], then what makes
it change?
There ar several theories, 'tired light' was discussed here, some static
'electrostatic effect' was also discussed, the consensus is doppler, due to
that the observers are moving away from each other, what do you propose the
mechanism is here?
Hi Jan. George pointed out errors and Ive fixed and simplified the
illustration below so it should be clearer now hopefully?
As far as the mechanism goes, well what Im doing here
is only supplying redshifted data and showing that the data does indeed
show light as a wave propogating out at constant speeds
where the universe isnt expanding.
As far as a mechanism goes well I dont know yet what the vacuum
is or why reality exists. Then again no other theory except maybe
creationism can say why we are here.And no theory has yet to explain
what the vacuum is made of and how light can propogate as a wave in it.
Certainly not the standard model. So I dont see the need to
work out mechanisms just yet. Except to say that energy appears to
propogate out through a vacuum and that we can detect it
as oscillating frequencies of energy at points in space.
Quite why light frequencies are observed to decrease the farther
from source isnt something I can comment on except to say,..
Thats whats observed so we`ll have to accept it as fact.
My advantage is that although I dont supply a explanation
as to why the observors light gets redder with distance,
I dont have to add in a expanding universe. Which isnt explained
by BB theorists either.
Its worth pointing out though that if light were to not
decrease in observed frequency the farther from source in a non
expanding universe it would then be travelling at infinite speeds
Look at my graph and imagine if observor 1 and 2 were seeing
the same freqeuncy. The lines would be horizontal and instantaneous
travel would be a reality. Which isnt observed.
In other words the data shows us that if light travels
at a constant speed c , it would have to lose frequency
with distance. So in a sense thats my explanation of why light
redshifts. It has to to fit the mathematical model.
That mathematicians (like Uncle phineas) havent realized
this going back to when redshift was discovered is a monument
to their collective stupidity.

From: David A. Smith
Sounds like dispersion. As the "light wave" moves outwards from
the source, a dispersive medium will remove energy from the wave,
yielding a loss in energy (frequency).
Of course a dispersive medium affects different wavelengths
differently, and fails to describe the "red shift" of the
duration of type Ia supernovae...
Ive already shown on newsgroups how these
conclusions of SN never checked if the data fitted a
non expanding model. Look at any paper and youll see
that at no time is z replaced with 0 in any formula
calculations.
The second point is if you do substitute z with 0 then you can
fit the available raw SN data to a non dilated template and
show as a good a fit as that of a dilated template. The problem is
that the data available in about 25% of cases at least has been altered
to
fit the dilated template by having its flux increased or
decreased by up to 15% because the data DIDNT fit the dilated model.
Read Knop 12 903 to see even he admits this fiddle. So in these
examples the fit doesnt work as well to a non dilated template
but..if one removes the 15% adjustment then all examples fit a
non dilated template as well as a dilated template.


From: George Dishman

The energy is proportional to the frequency so
the fact that more distant observers see lower
frequencies means that energy _is_ being lost
however you explain it.

Im not exactly sure what you mean here.
Are you saying that this idea cant work because
each observor sees less energy in my model and
that has to be explained by me as this isnt observed
by astronomers. Or are you saying astronomers
observe less energy and this isnt explained by
my model?

I think you got it wrong somewhere, observers 2, 3
and 4 all see the same frequency in your diagram.
? No. How did you figure that? Look again Observor
2
Also observer 2 doesn't see a consistent frequency,
the gaps between the '1's are unequal. You also
seem to have lost the cycles I have labelled 1u, 1v,
1w, 1y and 1z.

Sorry Ive revised it so each observor should *now* have a
constant observed frequency. Ive also reduced it to
two observors at twice the distance and twice the
frequency which represents the idea better
as it can scale up or down infinitely.
As you can see all light propogation is
at the same speed and its constant in all
examples.
(distance across in units, time down
in equal units per line)

0 1/2 1

Source observor1 observor2
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x(yy) 0
1x 0 0 (yy)
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 0
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
As for your point that lines disappear as in example
above..at (yy). This is an illusion as in fact
these lines are virtual paths. They dont represent
a photon travelling through space but rather
show lines of peaks through space/time and are
only there to show that the peaks of each freqeuncy
which are themselves only abstract units can be traced
through time at constant speeds. Dont forget speed is an
abstract concept only on paper. We derive speed from
mathematically combining distance and time. Which
is what Ive done above. Instead of a object
measured at various points in space/time and deriving
an abstract speed. I measure frequencies at various
points in space time and draw abstract lines
from one peak to the next previous peak and back to
source and derive a constant speed in all cases.
Also please note,.. at (yy) in fact NO cycle is broken
nor any interruption of energy is observed.
See how observor 2 at (yy) experiences no
loss of energy or interruption of observed
frequency.
Im open to you pointing out any other errors
but it seems to me Ive got it above correct now
and it is indisputable that the illustration
shows a non expanding universe with a constant
c where the observed frequency diminishes
with distance.
Sean

On a sunny day (19 Jun 2006 09:07:43 -0700) it happened "sean"
wrote in
.com:

Its worth pointing out though that if light were to not
decrease in observed frequency the farther from source in a non
expanding universe it would then be travelling at infinite speeds

This is not correct.
What you say here is: 'Light frequency drops over distance.'
And you are also implying that that has to do with the speed at
which light travels.

Whatever picture you may have of light, if we take a pond, throw a
stone in it, we see a circular wave pattern emerging from where the
stone hit the water.
The wavelength (frequency) will not change.
Ducks at fixed positions from the source (1 meter, 2 meters, etc) will
bump up and down on those waves in the *same* frequency, and the pool
was not expanding.

(Somebody else give the particle 'photon' explanation, this was the 'wave'
one).

So I think you have some misunderstanding of what EM waves are.

For a moment yesterday it thought you wanted to state that *time* changed,
but this does not seem to be the case.

You can see from above model that as a duck swims away from where the stone
hit, the faster it goes the less bumps (wave maxima) it will pass per unit of
time, it sees a lower 'frequency', Doppler effect.

If the duck was fast enough, then it could even keep up with the wave and see
DC (a fixed elevation level, it could always ride a 'high' (wave top) or 'low'
(wave bottom, or anywhere in between.).

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (19 Jun 2006 09:07:43 -0700) it happened "sean"
wrote in
.com:

Its worth pointing out though that if light were to not
decrease in observed frequency the farther from source in a non
expanding universe it would then be travelling at infinite speeds

This is not correct.
What you say here is: 'Light frequency drops over distance.'
And you are also implying that that has to do with the speed at
which light travels.

Whatever picture you may have of light, if we take a pond, throw a
stone in it, we see a circular wave pattern emerging from where the
stone hit the water.
The wavelength (frequency) will not change.
Ducks at fixed positions from the source (1 meter, 2 meters, etc) will
bump up and down on those waves in the *same* frequency, and the pool
was not expanding.

If I understand Sean's diagram, he is suggesting that at
some point after passing the first duck, every second
wave vanishes for no apparent reason. The waves travel
at constant speed but subsequent ducks observe a lower
frequency. Of course the means the only frequency change
that wouldn't produce sidebands would be a factor of
two, think what would happen to the next duck if every
third wave vanished.

George

George Dishman wrote:


If I understand Sean's diagram, he is suggesting that at
some point after passing the first duck, every second
wave vanishes for no apparent reason. The waves travel
at constant speed but subsequent ducks observe a lower
frequency. Of course the means the only frequency change
that wouldn't produce sidebands would be a factor of
two, think what would happen to the next duck if every
third wave vanished.
These points lines defined by x`s arent waves .
You say the duck would find every that every third
wave vanished and this would disrupt its bobbing cycle.
But look at the duck at observor 3 cycle before, during
and after point BBB in time. Its cycle remains
unchanged. Wheres the disrupted bobbing cycle?
What wave disappears? Dont forget this is a schematic
diagram with the lines of x`s only there to join up
the observed peaks in space time and they arent meant to be
or cannot be considered even by any stretch of the imagination
as a wave. Their purpose is twofold. To show that the general
flow of information of light is constant, which it does, and
also as bar charts showing energy loss over distance.

0 1/2 1

Source observor1 observor2
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 0 BBB
0 0 0
1x 0 0
0 1x 0
1x 0 1x
Ive done a more detailed statistical version which Ill describe
a bit more below, but its clear from the diagram that the `lines`
you call waves reduce with distance . I think its an inverse
proportional relationship
which would be whats observed I think.Anyways the lines are
a good indicator of flux/brightness relative to distance as well as
indicating for all
lines and all fractions a constant speed.
So I must correct you again and say that theyre not waves and at no
time is any observors cycle or observed frequency disrupted or is any
information
wave or anything else lost except for that mentioned above due to
distance and brightness.
But Ive listened to your criticism about the graph not working in
1/2`s and would like to correct that misunderstanding too.
The chart does work 1/2 or 1/4 etc. The problem is that the
above 2 observor graph is a template only showing how a frequency
change can give a constant speed. Which it does. But it needs numbers
and data fed into it to work on more levels and Ive done that to
an extent now. Its more complex but what it works out to is
Ive got the redshift halving each level of distance unit. Starting
at frequencies 48,24,12,6,3,1.5,0.75 0.35, 0... And each level assigns
to a standard distance. So 6 is 5 units, 3 is 4 units 1.5 3 units,
0.75 2 units0.375 1 unit. Seeing as 6 is z=5 Ive asigned each unit
~2.5 billion light years, but thats flexible. Ive used that because
as best as I can find out z=5 is somewhere between 12-15 billion
light years. Ive got ambiguous figures for this so if you know
what z=5 is in light years please feel free.(also z=3,1.5 and 0.75
would be nice if you could)
So if the universe is considered not to be expanding then
I can give approximate distances from redshifts based on what my
model calculates..
z=6 =~12.5 billion light years
z=3 =~9-10
z=1.5 =~6-7.5
z=0.75 =~3-5
z=0.375 =~1-2.5
Im not sure if thats matched by whats assumed as distance from
the expansion model , but Ill have to admit I cant figure out
how a redshift of z=6 works out in distance. Even Neds page, although
it gives lots of help doesnt like to say for sure if distance is
`how far it was from us when the light left` or `how far the light
has travelled since`. From what I can tell both are quite different
numbers but you must be way more familiar with this than I.
Sean www.gammarayburst.com

On a sunny day (21 Jun 2006 05:50:20 -0700) it happened "sean"
wrote in
.com:

If the duck was fast enough, then it could even keep up with the wave and see
DC (a fixed elevation level, it could always ride a 'high' (wave top) or 'low'
(wave bottom, or anywhere in between.).
Yes but as I say above were not talking now about ducks on water waves.
My impression is that light does not propogate in the same mechanical
way as the water waves?
Sean


I was under the impression Maxwell used fluid analogy top get his equations.
I still cannot confuse myself enough to follow you reasoning in that example.
The EM wave *moves*, and you will see amplitude variations (as the duck sees),
the amount of bobbing of the duck is related to wave amplitude, the frequency
to wave frequency (for stationary ducks), when one moves you get a frequency
change.

Its nature.