On Jul 1, 5:13*am, GSS wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:44 pm, John Kennaugh
wrote: GSS wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
.......
Yes, qualitatively it is an old idea. But I have developed the old
qualitative idea into the quantitative regime of physics. The novelty
of the subject book is its analytical study of the stress strain
patterns in the physical space continuum. I wonder if you have been
able to follow the derivation of equilibrium equations in chapter 15
of the subject book!

The criticism I would make is that if the universe is expanding then
vast amounts of the "physical space continuum" is being created from
nothing. Something physically real from nothing.

No, the universe is not expanding. There is some interpretation flaw.
In our earnest quest to understand 'Nature', it is not rare to make
faulty interpretations of experimental observations.http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3
...... Modern physics says it is not interested in what a field is, only what
it does in 'the model'. It does not claim it really exists nor does it
claim that the model has any relationship with how nature actually works
other than it gives accurate predictions within its field of
applicability.

Is it a case of 'grapes are sour'? Or perhaps we are steadily
progressing towards a better understanding of the 'fields'.
.........

Regarding the null result of MMX, let me reproduce my response in one
of the previous posts.
"There is one more aspect of MMX which is rarely discussed. That is,
the frequency (and wavelength) of light in two light paths of MMX is
assumed to be constant.

It is an experimentally established fact that the frequency of light
emitted from an emitter is influenced by the state of motion of the
emitter.

with respect to what? That was the problem.

Say with respect to the Lab frame (or the observer).
Quoting Wikipedia on Thermal Doppler broadening:
"The atoms in a gas which are emitting radiation will have a thermal
distribution of velocities. Each photon emitted will be red or blue
shifted by the Doppler effect depending on the velocity of the atom
relative to the observer. The higher the temperature of the gas, the
wider the distribution of velocities in the gas, hence the broader
will be the spectral line emitted from that gas."

Let f be the frequency of light emitted from a stationary
(say in BCRF) emitter and f' be the frequency of light from an emitter
moving with velocity v. Then the ratio f'/f will be a function of v.
Consequently the frequency and wavelength of light in the two light
paths of MMX will not remain same.

No assumption was made that it would the frequency returning from both
directions is the same - otherwise you would not get stable fringes to
look at. The assumption was that independent of the spacing between
wavecrests in say the outward and return journeys that an individual
wavecrest would remain intact and that the distance it travelled would
vary in the two paths i.e. 2 wavecrest split from 1 setting out together
would return at slightly different times due to the path difference.

This time difference is computed as a function of v. But what gets
measured in MMX is not this time difference but the difference in
phase angle of the waves arriving from two paths to produce
interference fringes. For converting the above time difference to the
difference in phase angle, it is multiplied with a constant frequency
(2.pi.f). This implies that a constant frequency f has been
effectively assumed in the two light paths. When the propagation times
in each of the two light paths have been computed as functions of v
then why not the frequencies along each of the two paths also as
functions of v?

If it could be shown that the number of wavelengths on each of the two
light paths of the MMX are independent of v then it will confirm the
fact that velocity v wrt a fixed reference frame cannot (even in
principle) be detected with MMX type setups.

There was other evidence; *Trouton and Noble 1903 predicted according to
Maxwell's theory that a charged parallel plate condenser (capacitor)
should experience a turning moment when in moving aether - it didn't.

"A Successful Trouton-Noble experiment by Jean-Louis Naudin and
Patrick Cornille"http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/troutnbl.htm





In this regard let me refer to an interesting article titled "Much Ado
about Nil: Reflection from Moving Mirrors and the Interferometry
Experiments" by Christo I. Christov at,
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...6/PP-06-10.PDF

Hmm! It may or may not be a valid challenge but his statement:

"the expected second-order effect was an artifact from the fact
that the emission theory of light (essentially corpuscular in
its nature) was applied to model the propagation of light in a
continuous medium."

is not a good start as it is absurd. The emission theory predicts a null
result. The simplest explanation of the null result is emission theory.

They also claim, "We pose correctly the problem of propagation and
reflection of waves in a resting medium when both the source and the
mirror are moving with respect to the medium. We show that the strict
result from the interference is nil which invalidates most of the
conclusions drawn from the perceived nil effect of MME."







Further, you may also refer to chapters 5 and 12 *of the subject book
in this regard."
......

No, this does not still answer my original question. "How do you
mentally visualize an 'independent field'?"

We can mentally visualize any physical entity provided we are in
possession of all the relevant information. We cannot visualize a
ghost because a ghost is not a physical entity. But an electromagnetic
field is a physical entity, so we must be able to mentally visualize
it. I visualize it as a dynamic stress/strain field in the physical
space continuum (which you prefer to call aether) and can describe it
through mathematical equations.

I agree.

If you believe that electromagnetic field does not exist as an
independent entity but can exist only as a sort of 'appendage' to
'charge',
kindly describe how do you mentally visualize this physical
entity 'charge'. Can you represent this charge-field entity through
mathematical equations?

No what I am saying is that a field does not physically exist at all it
has no physical existence. Two charges attract each other (or repel). It
is a property of charge that they do this. It is counter intuitive but
so is the idea that my desk is made of atoms which are mainly empty
space - it appears solid. We know that 'solid' does not really exist.

No, the solid does really exist. It exists as an 'inter-connected'
system of atoms and molecules, the boundary layer of which displays
characteristic reflections of light and produces specific reaction
forces to all contact interactions.

Two charges attract each other, it does not require an intermediary. You
are not detecting the existence of a field what you are detecting is the
presence of a charge attracting your probe charge as described by
Coulombs law. As I describe it a 'field of influence', a metaphysical
'field'.

Yes, what we experimentally detect is the characteristic interaction
which is described through a 'field of influence'. *But this
characteristic interaction itself is the result of physical
(superposition) interactions of the two stress/strain 'fields'
associated with the source and probe charges. I agree, there is some
mix up between the notions of 'field of influence' and the physical
(EM or stress/strain) fields associated with charge particles. That is
probably due to their similar mathematical representations.

Some particles contain, or have a property we call charge. For reasons
we do not understand there are two sorts of charge - like charges repel
each other, unlike charges attract each other. At present that appears
axiomatic i.e. has to be accepted as no further explanation adds to your
knowledge.

*In this regard you may refer to chapters 16 to 18 of the subject
book!!

Some particles contain, or have a property we call mass. As far as we
know there is only one type of mass and mass attracts other mass. A
gravity field does not physically exist, what a probe mass detects is
the presence of other mass. At present that appears axiomatic i.e. has
to be accepted as no further explanation adds to your knowledge.

Yes, here too there is a similar mix up between the 'field of
influence' and the physical field of gravitation (chapter 22).





If photons have electromagnetic fields associated with them then photons
must contain charge (equal +ve and -ve obviously) and if we are going to
ever explain wave phenomena, properties such as frequency and wavelength
then I agree with Waldron that the charge must be spinning. In any case
there is other strong evidence that photons are linked with charge.
Maxwell's equations are built exclusively on relationships surrounding
charge and while his theory must be junked the predictive accuracy of
his equations must indicate a link between light and charge and
therefore between charge and photons.

Here you demonstrate that after abandoning the concept of aether, you
have acquired too many wrong impressions. *First of all please
understand that Maxwell's equations have not been 'junked'. These are
a set of most effective and most valid equations in physics.

I didn't say they were junked. They are very useful to engineers and I
am perfectly happy for engineers to continuing to use them. Physicists
should look at them with extreme caution and question the assumptions
and interpretation which go with them as they are wrong. Light is not
physically made up of waves

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Its already been shown that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 2, 12:35 am, BURT wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:13 am, GSS wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:44 pm, John Kennaugh
wrote: GSS wrote:
.......
Yes, qualitatively it is an old idea. But I have developed the old
qualitative idea into the quantitative regime of physics. The novelty
of the subject book is its analytical study of the stress strain
patterns in the physical space continuum. I wonder if you have been
able to follow the derivation of equilibrium equations in chapter 15
of the subject book!

The criticism I would make is that if the universe is expanding then
vast amounts of the "physical space continuum" is being created from
nothing. Something physically real from nothing.

No, the universe is not expanding. There is some interpretation flaw.
In our earnest quest to understand 'Nature', it is not rare to make
faulty interpretations of experimental observations.
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3
........
Its already been shown that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

Before I could show you where you are wrong, kindly show me the basis
on which *you* believe that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate. Specifically,

(a) What are the experimental observations which (you believe) can
only be interpreted as 'expanding universe' and nothing else?

(b) Which existing law, theory or model of physics supports the
hypotheses of expanding universe?

(c) By 'expanding universe' do you imply that the 'spacetime
continuum' of GR expands as a whole or do you believe that only
physical space expands with the expanding universe?

(d) Do you believe that with the expanding physical space, its
permittivity and permeability constants eps_0 and mu_0 also decrease
or increase in the expanding universe?

(e) Do you believe that with the expanding universe additional new
physical space (or spacetime continuum) is continuously being created
out of nothing or that only the existing physical space (or spacetime
continuum) is expanding to a 'bigger' volume?

GSS

On Jul 2, 3:09*am, GSS wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:35 am, BURT wrote:



On Jul 1, 5:13 am, GSS wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:44 pm, John Kennaugh
wrote: GSS wrote:
.......
Yes, qualitatively it is an old idea. But I have developed the old
qualitative idea into the quantitative regime of physics. The novelty
of the subject book is its analytical study of the stress strain
patterns in the physical space continuum. I wonder if you have been
able to follow the derivation of equilibrium equations in chapter 15
of the subject book!

The criticism I would make is that if the universe is expanding then
vast amounts of the "physical space continuum" is being created from
nothing. Something physically real from nothing.

No, the universe is not expanding. There is some interpretation flaw.
In our earnest quest to understand 'Nature', it is not rare to make
faulty interpretations of experimental observations.

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...tter=B&spage=3
.......

Its already been shown that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

Before I could show you where you are wrong, kindly show me the basis
on which *you* believe that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate. Specifically,

(a) What are the experimental observations which (you believe) can
only be interpreted as 'expanding universe' and nothing else?

(b) Which existing law, theory or model of physics supports the
hypotheses of expanding universe?

(c) By 'expanding universe' do you imply that the 'spacetime
continuum' of GR expands as a whole or do you believe that only
physical space expands with the expanding universe?

(d) Do you believe that with the expanding physical space, its
permittivity and permeability constants eps_0 and mu_0 also decrease
or increase in the expanding universe?

(e) Do you believe that with the expanding universe additional new
physical space (or spacetime continuum) is continuously being created
out of nothing or that only the existing physical space (or spacetime
continuum) is expanding to a 'bigger' volume?

GSS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cosmological redshift is expanding volume that is expanding light.
This universe goes on forever.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 4, 4:01 am, wrote:
On Jul 2, 3:09 am, GSS wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:35 am, BURT wrote:
.......
Its already been shown that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

Before I could show you where you are wrong, kindly show me the basis
on which *you* believe that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate. Specifically,

(a) What are the experimental observations which (you believe) can
only be interpreted as 'expanding universe' and nothing else?

(b) Which existing law, theory or model of physics supports the
hypotheses of expanding universe?

(c) By 'expanding universe' do you imply that the 'spacetime
continuum' of GR expands as a whole or do you believe that only
physical space expands with the expanding universe?

(d) Do you believe that with the expanding physical space, its
permittivity and permeability constants eps_0 and mu_0 also decrease
or increase in the expanding universe?

(e) Do you believe that with the expanding universe additional new
physical space (or spacetime continuum) is continuously being created
out of nothing or that only the existing physical space (or spacetime
continuum) is expanding to a 'bigger' volume?

GSS

Cosmological redshift is expanding volume that is expanding light.
This universe goes on forever.

Mitch Raemsch

Perhaps you mean that 'expanding volume' (of space) is implied by the
notion of 'cosmological redshift'.

As per Wikipedia, "redshift is defined as an increase in the
wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector
compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in
wavelength corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the
electromagnetic radiation."
Further, "In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble
and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue
shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted
these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect,
but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing
redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost
immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a
different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the
correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of
cosmology derived from general relativity that have a *metric*
expansion of space. As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."
Still Further on "Understanding the expansion of space":
"Spacetime is highly curved at cosmological scales, and as a result
the expansion of the universe is inherently general relativistic;"

Well, I have already shown in chapter 8, 'Fallacious Notion of
Spacetime Continuum in Relativity' that spacetime continuum is just a
mathematical notion and not a physical entity. In the mathematical
model of General Relativity, spacetime manifold with differential
scaling, has been used as a graphical template to represent
gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The
differential scaling of the coordinate space (or spacetime) is being
touted as curvature of space (or spacetime) which is all humbug. As
such all notions of 'expansion of the universe' as derived from GR is
totally unfounded and false.

However, the observation of 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies' still needs to be logically explained through
some causal physical mechanism. In this regard let me discuss three
different possible alternatives which probably have never been
considered in literature.

A. New Tired Light Hypothesis :
The interstellar space is not really empty as is generally assumed but
contains a high density of low energy neutrino flux. "The cosmic
neutrino background is the universe's background particle radiation
composed of neutrinos. These neutrinos are estimated to have density
of 56 of each type per cubic centimeter at a mean temperature 1.9 K."
As the streams of photons coming from distant galaxies, wade through
this neutrino flux in the interstellar space, the photons will scatter
these low-energy neutrinos without themselves getting deflected from
their flight path. However in the process of scattering the
interstellar neutrinos, the photons will keep losing a minuscule
fraction of their energy. Total amount of such energy loss will be
obviously proportional to the total distance traversed by the photons.
This will explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing distances
of galaxies'.

B. Permittivity (eps_0) Variation with Distance, Hypothesis :
It appears quite probable that over the cosmological distance scales
of billions of light years, the physical properties of permittivity
and permeability of physical space may not remain constant. In
comparison with the central region of the universe, if the parameters
1/eps_0 and mu_0 decrease in magnitude towards the outer peripheral
regions, this will lead to decreased energy levels of various electron
shells in atoms and molecules. Consequently, in the outer peripheral
regions of the universe, the energy of photons emitted during various
electron transitions will also decrease in comparison with the
corresponding energy levels in the central regions of the universe.
This will also explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies'.

C. New Hypothesis on Emission of Photons from Moving Source :
In chapter 12 (page 121) of the subject book, I have discussed a new
hypothesis on emission of photons from moving sources. As per this
hypothesis, the energy of a photon emitted from a moving light source
is proportional to the magnitude of relative emission velocity Vr or
more correctly Vr/c. I have shown that the null result of the MM
experiment is fully explained by using the proposed hypothesis and
this constitutes the main justification for its validity. Most
significant implication of the new hypothesis is that the observed red
shift of distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting
universe instead of the currently held view of an expanding universe!
Of course if we assume an infinitely large but bounded universe, where
the protons and electrons, produced from the so called 'vacuum
fluctuations', are almost uniformly distributed in the initial stages,
then we may imagine the initial universe as a giant hydrogen cloud.
The gravitational collapse of this initial giant hydrogen cloud
ultimately lead to the formation of stars and galaxies. During the
process of this gravitational collapse, the outer peripheral regions
of the universe will obviously acquire much higher inward radial
velocities that will explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies' as per the proposed new hypothesis.

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html

On Jul 5, 3:32*am, GSS wrote:
On Jul 4, 4:01 am, wrote:





On Jul 2, 3:09 am, GSS wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:35 am, BURT wrote:
.......
Its already been shown that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

Before I could show you where you are wrong, kindly show me the basis
on which *you* believe that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate. Specifically,

(a) What are the experimental observations which (you believe) can
only be interpreted as 'expanding universe' and nothing else?

(b) Which existing law, theory or model of physics supports the
hypotheses of expanding universe?

(c) By 'expanding universe' do you imply that the 'spacetime
continuum' of GR expands as a whole or do you believe that only
physical space expands with the expanding universe?

(d) Do you believe that with the expanding physical space, its
permittivity and permeability constants eps_0 and mu_0 also decrease
or increase in the expanding universe?

(e) Do you believe that with the expanding universe additional new
physical space (or spacetime continuum) is continuously being created
out of nothing or that only the existing physical space (or spacetime
continuum) is expanding to a 'bigger' volume?

GSS

Cosmological redshift is expanding volume that is expanding light.
This universe goes on forever.

Mitch Raemsch

Perhaps you mean that 'expanding volume' (of space) is implied by the
notion of 'cosmological redshift'.

As per Wikipedia, "redshift is defined as an increase in the
wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector
compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in
wavelength corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the
electromagnetic radiation."
Further, "In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble
and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue
shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted
these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect,
but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing
redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost
immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a
different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the
correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of
cosmology derived from general relativity that have a *metric*
expansion of space. As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."
Still Further on "Understanding the expansion of space":
"Spacetime is highly curved at cosmological scales, and as a result
the expansion of the universe is inherently general relativistic;"

Well, I have already shown in chapter 8, 'Fallacious Notion of
Spacetime Continuum in Relativity' that spacetime continuum is just a
mathematical notion and not a physical entity. In the mathematical
model of General Relativity, spacetime manifold with differential
scaling, has been used as a graphical template to represent
gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The
differential scaling of the coordinate space (or spacetime) is being
touted as curvature of space (or spacetime) which is all humbug. As
such all notions of 'expansion of the universe' as derived from GR is
totally unfounded and false.

However, the observation of 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies' still needs to be logically explained through
some causal physical mechanism. In this regard let me discuss three
different possible alternatives which probably have never been
considered in literature.

A. *New Tired Light Hypothesis :
The interstellar space is not really empty as is generally assumed but
contains a high density of low energy neutrino flux. "The cosmic
neutrino background is the universe's background particle radiation
composed of neutrinos. These neutrinos are estimated to have density
of 56 of each type per cubic centimeter at a mean temperature 1.9 K."
As the streams of photons coming from distant galaxies, wade through
this neutrino flux in the interstellar space, the photons will scatter
these low-energy neutrinos without themselves getting deflected from
their flight path. However in the process of scattering the
interstellar neutrinos, the photons will keep losing a minuscule
fraction of their energy. Total amount of such energy loss will be
obviously proportional to the total distance traversed by the photons.
This will explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing distances
of galaxies'.

B. *Permittivity (eps_0) Variation with Distance, Hypothesis :
It appears quite probable that over the cosmological distance scales
of billions of light years, the physical properties of permittivity
and permeability of physical space may not remain constant. In
comparison with the central region of the universe, if the parameters
1/eps_0 and mu_0 decrease in magnitude towards the outer peripheral
regions, this will lead to decreased energy levels of various electron
shells in atoms and molecules. Consequently, in the outer peripheral
regions of the universe, the energy of photons emitted during various
electron transitions will also decrease in comparison with the
corresponding energy levels in the central regions of the universe.
This will also explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies'.

C. *New Hypothesis on Emission of Photons from Moving Source :
In chapter 12 (page 121) of the subject book, I have discussed a new
hypothesis on emission of photons from moving sources. *As per this
hypothesis, the energy of a photon emitted from a moving light source
is proportional to the magnitude of relative emission velocity Vr or
more correctly Vr/c. *I have shown that the null result of the MM
experiment is fully explained by using the proposed hypothesis and
this constitutes the main justification for its validity. Most
significant implication of the new hypothesis is that the observed red
shift of distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting
universe instead of the currently held view of an expanding universe!
Of course if we assume an infinitely large but bounded universe, where
the protons and electrons, produced from the so called 'vacuum
fluctuations', are almost uniformly distributed in the initial stages,
then we may imagine the initial universe as a giant hydrogen cloud.
The gravitational collapse of this initial giant hydrogen cloud
ultimately lead to the formation of stars and galaxies. During the
process of this gravitational collapse, the outer peripheral regions
of the universe will obviously acquire much higher inward radial
velocities that will explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies' as per the proposed new hypothesis.

GSShttp://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All your thoughts about physics are doubt based GSS. That is the wrong
way to go.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 5, 11:27*am, wrote:
On Jul 5, wrote:





On Jul 4, 4:01 am, wrote:

On Jul 2, 3:09 wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:35 am, BURT wrote:
.......
Its already been shown that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate.

Show me where I am wrong.

Mitch Raemsch

Before I could show you where you are wrong, kindly show me the basis
on which *you* believe that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate. Specifically,

(a) What are the experimental observations which (you believe) can
only be interpreted as 'expanding universe' and nothing else?

(b) Which existing law, theory or model of physics supports the
hypotheses of expanding universe?

(c) By 'expanding universe' do you imply that the 'spacetime
continuum' of GR expands as a whole or do you believe that only
physical space expands with the expanding universe?

(d) Do you believe that with the expanding physical space, its
permittivity and permeability constants eps_0 and mu_0 also decrease
or increase in the expanding universe?

(e) Do you believe that with the expanding universe additional new
physical space (or spacetime continuum) is continuously being created
out of nothing or that only the existing physical space (or spacetime
continuum) is expanding to a 'bigger' volume?

GSS

Cosmological redshift is expanding volume that is expanding light.
This universe goes on forever.

Mitch Raemsch

Perhaps you mean that 'expanding volume' (of space) is implied by the
notion of 'cosmological redshift'.

As per Wikipedia, "redshift is defined as an increase in the
wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector
compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in
wavelength corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the
electromagnetic radiation."
Further, "In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble
and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue
shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted
these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect,
but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing
redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost
immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a
different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the
correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of
cosmology derived from general relativity that have a *metric*
expansion of space. As a result, photons propagating through the
expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift."
Still Further on "Understanding the expansion of space":
"Spacetime is highly curved at cosmological scales, and as a result
the expansion of the universe is inherently general relativistic;"

Well, I have already shown in chapter 8, 'Fallacious Notion of
Spacetime Continuum in Relativity' that spacetime continuum is just a
mathematical notion and not a physical entity. In the mathematical
model of General Relativity, spacetime manifold with differential
scaling, has been used as a graphical template to represent
gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The
differential scaling of the coordinate space (or spacetime) is being
touted as curvature of space (or spacetime) which is all humbug. As
such all notions of 'expansion of the universe' as derived from GR is
totally unfounded and false.

However, the observation of 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies' still needs to be logically explained through
some causal physical mechanism. In this regard let me discuss three
different possible alternatives which probably have never been
considered in literature.

A. *New Tired Light Hypothesis :
The interstellar space is not really empty as is generally assumed but
contains a high density of low energy neutrino flux. "The cosmic
neutrino background is the universe's background particle radiation
composed of neutrinos. These neutrinos are estimated to have density
of 56 of each type per cubic centimeter at a mean temperature 1.9 K."
As the streams of photons coming from distant galaxies, wade through
this neutrino flux in the interstellar space, the photons will scatter
these low-energy neutrinos without themselves getting deflected from
their flight path. However in the process of scattering the
interstellar neutrinos, the photons will keep losing a minuscule
fraction of their energy. Total amount of such energy loss will be
obviously proportional to the total distance traversed by the photons.
This will explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing distances
of galaxies'.

B. *Permittivity (eps_0) Variation with Distance, Hypothesis :
It appears quite probable that over the cosmological distance scales
of billions of light years, the physical properties of permittivity
and permeability of physical space may not remain constant. In
comparison with the central region of the universe, if the parameters
1/eps_0 and mu_0 decrease in magnitude towards the outer peripheral
regions, this will lead to decreased energy levels of various electron
shells in atoms and molecules. Consequently, in the outer peripheral
regions of the universe, the energy of photons emitted during various
electron transitions will also decrease in comparison with the
corresponding energy levels in the central regions of the universe.
This will also explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies'.

C. *New Hypothesis on Emission of Photons from Moving Source :
In chapter 12 (page 121) of the subject book, I have discussed a new
hypothesis on emission of photons from moving sources. *As per this
hypothesis, the energy of a photon emitted from a moving light source
is proportional to the magnitude of relative emission velocity Vr or
more correctly Vr/c. *I have shown that the null result of the MM
experiment is fully explained by using the proposed hypothesis and
this constitutes the main justification for its validity. Most
significant implication of the new hypothesis is that the observed red
shift of distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting
universe instead of the currently held view of an expanding universe!
Of course if we assume an infinitely large but bounded universe, where
the protons and electrons, produced from the so called 'vacuum
fluctuations', are almost uniformly distributed in the initial stages,
then we may imagine the initial universe as a giant hydrogen cloud.
The gravitational collapse of this initial giant hydrogen cloud
ultimately lead to the formation of stars and galaxies. During the
process of this gravitational collapse, the outer peripheral regions
of the universe will obviously acquire much higher inward radial
velocities that will explain the 'increasing redshifts with increasing
distances of galaxies' as per the proposed new hypothesis.

GSShttp://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All your thoughts about physics are doubt basedGSS. That is the wrong
way to go.

Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you are lost in your head GSS.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 6, 7:46*am, BURT wrote:
[......]
I think you are lost in your head GSS.

Mitch Raemsch

What makes you think so, Mitch?

GSS