Chapt17 Telescopes are our best distance measure with upper limitabout 400 million light years distance #1579 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

In May 2010
Enrico wrote:


A couple of formulas he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence

Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L


I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
being inverse square


I called it "diffusion" in my previous post, but I should have looked
up the terminology and called it "divergence"


Now I wonder what "physically" causes divergence? Wikipedia makes
no stab at explaining a cause.


Now I am straying a bit here by noting that the intensity can be
thought of
as divergence where perhaps these two concepts are the same
fundamentally.


And another issue that catches my eye is that intensity is inverse
square just
as Coulomb and gravity are inverse square. Â*So can we say that the
reason or
cause for intensity or divergence of regular light is because it is
moving inside
an Atom Totality where the Space is charged and so the intensity of
light
would have to follow the same law or force as that of Coulomb and be
inverse
square? Whereas in a Big Bang theory, Space has no charge and thus
the
intensity of light in a Big Bang should not follow a inverse square
but rather
follow what laser light follows-- a linear relationship with
distance.


Now I am not understanding or knowing as to why a laser light, the
individual
photons seem to be linked or tied together so as to stay on course
and
not
diverge as regular light with an inverse square? Sort of reminds me
of
the
Bell Inequality of linked light.


Has any physicist, dare explained how it is that laser light seems to
stick together
as if the light waves are tied or connected and why they have
overcomed their tendency
to diverge as regular light diverges into a inverse square?



At the bottom of the page is a link to a calculator:
http://www.pseudonomen.com/lasers/calculators/


Here is someone asking almost exactly the same question
as you did earlier, plus some nontechnical information
about detection range of lasers the lunar retroreflector
experiment:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6192437AAON4zA

Yes, they corrected me on the diffusion, for it is divergence. But I
wonder
what is the physics explanation of what causes divergence? I think
it
is due
to the fact that Space is charged as in an Atom Totality and that
causes
the intensity of light formula to end up being one and the same as
the
Coulomb force of an inverse square with distance.


Now since the laser light divergence is linear and not inverse
square,
reminds
me of the Weak Nuclear force of physics which is linear. If I
remember
correctly
the Strong Nuclear force rules are more of a inverse cube rule, not
linear and
not inverse square.


So here, we may have a example of light behaviour that is traced to
the four
forces of physics, and that all these light behaviour concepts of
intensity, divergence,
refraction, diffraction, diffusion, coherence and hundreds of others,
are all
manifestations
of the 4 Maxwell Equations.

Now has anyone shown how all of Optics is a subset of the 4 Maxwell
Equations? I suspect it would be easy to prove since Optics is only
about EM.


So, if intensity is equivalent to divergence, would mean that
intensity is merely just the Coulomb Force as light moves in space.


Introduction to cosmic masers
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/mas...roduction.html


Google search string - laser beam intensity over distance
Gets About 1,200,000 results (0.32 seconds)


Manufacturor's data sheet:
http://www.coherent.com/downloads/Un...Parameters.pdf


Beyond this, the math starts getting heavy.


Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Enrico

So now, I can really make it very easy on myself about the Telescope
being the very
best distance tool of astronomy.


If I were to conjecture that Space of the Cosmos is not a 100% clean
space, just as it
is not a 100% vacuum in space. So that there is muck or grime or
dirt
or imperfections
throughout space and as we go further in distance we encounter these
imperfections.


Now these imperfections are actual atoms of hydrogen, or they can be
other simple
particles.


So that light from a star as it travels through Space, is diverged
because it constantly
runs into some of these atoms or particles.


Call it divergence due to grime or muck of Space.


And this grime and muck are not randomly situated in Space but
uniform
in Space.


This would mean that all physical energy sources whether a flashlight
or a Supernova
if their light travels far enough through this muck and grime, that
eventually you achieve
such a distance that you can no longer see the flashlight nor the
Supernova.


So then when I guess that 400 million light years is the edge of the
Cosmos, I mean
that the most powerful Supernova light cannot survive after
travelling
through
400 million light years of the background muck.


Now we have the Background Cosmic Microwave Radiation, and I am
calling for a
Cosmic Background of Muck and Grime spread uniformly throughtout the
Cosmos
as hydrogen atoms or other particles which would prevent the viewing
of a Supernova
beyond 400 million light years away.


Now the astronomers allege that
SN2003fg Bootes is 4 billion light years away
and
SN2005ap Coma Berenices is 4.7 billion light years away


But in their alleging they assume Space is empty, crystal clear and
containing no
muck and grime for light travelling through Space for a long time
and
a long distance.
And come to think of it, I suspect noone believes Space is a vast
clean Space with
no atoms of hydrogen uniformly distributed through space to interfer
with long distant
travelling light waves.


Now the reason that all telescopes on Earth have a upper limit of
seeing distance
is because of the grime and muck in the air that no matter how
large,
how precise
or anything else about the telescope, that the dirt in the air will
prevent you seeing
a supernova at a huge distance away from Earth.


So, how do I reconcile this Muck constraint with the alleged billion
light year away
Supernova reported? I reconcile it by saying that the Supernova
occurred but since
they were determined distance by Doppler redshift, that they got
that
distance
all wrong. That the true distance of both those supernova in Bootes
and Coma
Berenices were at a distance between 200 million to 400 million
light
years away.


Now having dirt in the air or Space is the easiest way for me to
determine an Upper
Limit of distance using the telescope as a distance tool. But there
are other
concepts that cause a limit to distance, such as the loss of
intensity
over distance.


In May of 2010
Craig Markwardt wrote:
On May 10, 4:37Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Enrico wrote:


A couple of formulas he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence


Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L


I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
being inverse square


Huh? Â*The formula above describes a constant beam opening angle. Â*A
emitting source with constant opening angle still falls off in
intensity with the square of distance. Â*I.e. *inverse square*
still
applies. Â*Since your conclusions are based on a faulty premise,
the
conclusions are not relevant.

Do you know what "linear" means in mathematics as opposed to
inverse square? Probably not.


Again, do you ever stop to think about whether your thoughts are true
or
false with simple known experiments. The reason a laser beam is used
to reflect off a mirror on the Moon planted by the astronauts
decades
ago
is because the laser beam is not a inverse square with distance.
Otherwise,
just use a white light flashlight for the roundtrip to the Moon.


Now I wonder what "physically" causes divergence? Wikipedia makes
no stab at explaining a cause.


Classically, it's Huygen's principle. Â*Formally, it's the behavior of
Maxwell's equations.

And you do not know the Maxwell explanation, I take it.


I already started the explanation by saying that the Coulomb law is
inverse square. So intensity is inverse square and intensity is
equivalent to divergence of light. So to have a Universe
where the intensity of light is the same inverse square as the
Coulomb
law, means that Space of the Universe has Charge, and is inside a
atom.


The Big Bang theory would not dictate that intensity must be
identical
to Coulomb law for obvious reasons because it is senseless to have
Charge for the overall Cosmos in a Big Bang theory.
The Atom Totality theory dictates and demands that the
Optics of light inside an Atom Totality have intensity equivalent
to divergence and then identical to Coulomb. Demands it because
well, Space in the Atom Totality is charge itself. Space = Charge
and
Charge = Space.


So, Craig, care to provide meat to your sentence? Care to provide
what
you believe the Maxwell Equations explain how divergence of light
occurs?


If I were to conjecture that Space of the Cosmos is not a 100% clean
space, just as it
is not a 100% vacuum in space. So that there is muck or grime or
dirt
or imperfections
throughout space and as we go further in distance we encounter
these
imperfections.


Now these imperfections are actual atoms of hydrogen, or they can be
other simple
particles.


"Atoms" have known effects on propagating light. Â*"Simple particles" -
such as dust - have known effects on propagating light. Â*Neither
of
them causes redshift of the center wavelengths of spectral lines.

Now the above was written in 2010 at a time in which I did not have
the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics, but one can see
that I was using the Maxwell Equations as a bulwark of physics. Notice
especially that logical tie up of having astronomy telescopes
following a inverse square law for the motion of light in space
implies Space is the Maxwell Equations and thus the Universe is a big
atom, not a Big Bang.

In many cases, the redshift of an object is actually detected - or
limited - by observing the effects of intervening gas between a
bright
source and us. Â*The gas itself causes absorption at specific known
rest wavelengths. Â*Measuring the redshift of those wavelengths
allows
one to set a lower limit to the redshift of the source. Â*So,
contrary
to your claim, astronomers do indeed consider the effects of
"atoms"
in space.

Well a Doppler Redshift of light waves violates Special Relativity, so
we throw out Doppler Redshift as a distance measure. Even Hubble threw
out the Doppler Redshift later in his career in astronomy. The only
reason others never followed his lead is that they are too lazy in
work and too illogical in mind.


This would mean that all physical energy sources whether a flashlight
or a Supernova
if their light travels far enough through this muck and grime,
that
eventually you achieve
such a distance that you can no longer see the flashlight nor
the
Supernova.


"Tired light" has been ruled out for years. Â*Ned Wright's page
discusses this.


CM

This is 2013 now and the above was 2010. Since then I have an easy
explanation for redshift of light, which measures curvature. It goes
like this: Planet Earth cannot be bound by gravity to the Sun when the
Sun is moving at 220km/sec in Space and Earth at 29km/sec. So to
resolve that discrepancy, the Sun forms a EM-gravity cell and this
cell rotates on the solar axis with a rotation speed that carries
Earth around in orbit of its 29km/sec plus a factor of 220km/sec. So
that every star, every galaxy has a gravity EM-cell around it. And
when light travels through all these gravity cells, it is bent more
and more to the red wavelength.

I do not need tired light to explain redshift. I need only curvature
of Space, caused by gravity cells.

Now Craig prides himself as being an astronomer. But has Craig ever
asked himself, how could it be, that Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity can explain how Earth moving at 29km/sec while the Sun is
moving at 220km/sec, how in the world could General Relativity ever
keep Earth attached to the Sun in its ecliptic, because with those
sort of speed differences, the Earth would now be where the Kuiper
belt is in a 100 years elapsed time. So is Craig's knowledge of the
motion of Sun and planets a parrot's knowledge, or is Craig able to
satisfactorily answer how General Relativity can reconcile 220km/sec
with 29km/sec. For me, GR is a fake theory and can never reconcile
those speeds. Only the idea that gravity is EM gravity and the Sun
forms a EM-gravity cell that rotates in Space.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies