[General] Cosmological Redshift

[Wolfgang Baer]

Chandra;
Thank you for the very clear and well written paper.Proc. SPIE 8832-49 
(2013)


Let me feedback my understanding.

What you are saying is that a white light background is present 
independent of which atoms in the inner corona produced the light. Such 
a white light background is absorbed by atoms in the outer corona. These 
atoms cut a Gaussian notch , determined by the thermal velocities, but 
the notch center is not shifted since the inner and outer corona are 
moving at the same velocity of the distant star.

This means relative to the local aether ( your CTF) at the distant star 
a white light notch exists without a red shift that is independent of 
the speed of the star.

If aether is an absolute background against which all motion is 
measured, and we assume no in flight change in permeability 
characteristics applies then the shift we should detect here on earth 
would be dependent only on the velocity of the earth relative to the 
absolute background.

If we draw the aether as the empty page background then no matter which 
way the earth moves in that background some light notches would be red 
and others blue shifted.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/ sun 
orbit 30km/sec, galactic speed 220km/sec cosmic background COBE 390km/sec.

This velocity is too small and is not significant in actual Hubble red 
shift data which is angularly symmetric.

Thus you conclude as advertised in the abstract “So, the physical 
process(es) behind the Hubble Red Shift is (are) certainly different 
from Doppler effects,”

*I see no difficulty with your reasoning and agree with your conclusion* 
“conclude that the cosmological frequency down shift (redshift) 
originate in the CTF as a very weak distant dependent energy loss of the 
EM wave packets as they propagate through vast distances between the 
galaxies [5].

*However , is that not what the expanding universe implies?* If the 
universe space is expanding then the earth is moving away from all 
surrounding light sources and space stretches between the source and 
sink of EM radiation. The visualization of a deSitter universe is for 
space to expand like the surface of a balloon with a radius proportional 
to its age (R= c*T) . If we draw the light path from a distant star that 
left a long time ago and arrived at the earth today we would map the 
angular arc distance around the spatial circumference and plot a space 
time trajectory as I’ve done in the diagram below.

The Einsteinian argument then says an atom existing in the PAST was also 
in a stronger gravitational field because all the matter was closer 
together and therefore the clocks (atoms) run slower than the clocks 
NOW. Since we use atomic clocks NOW they run faster than when the light 
was emitted and therefore we perceive the light from distant stars 
whether in the absorption or emission spectral comparison as red shifted.



	


Interestingly enough when we go farther into the past where the radius 
of the universe “R” wasR = M*G/c^2 then no light would reach us. This 
presumably is the 3deg black body event horizon.
I did a calculation in grad. school that showed that if one 
systematically takes away known sources of radiation in order to try to 
get at the residual measurement one will automatically eliminate blue 
light and the remaining remaining radiation curve would look like and 
could easily be confused with a black body radiation curve. I do not 
know how the black body radiation data is processed, but assume light 
from known sources must be eliminated.

Albrecht did you not say that everything would be a lot easier if we 
just let the speed of light vary?


best,
Wolf


Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 1/27/2016 1:11 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> Dear Wolfgang Baer: I still owe you further explanation regarding my 
> view of Doppler Effect. Both the source velocity and the detector 
> velocity are experimentally discernible, as was original perceived by 
> Doppler himself. This point of view is re-validated by analyzing the 
> stimulated emission as the response of a moving detector. See the 
> attached. If it raises further un-answered questions about my 
> viewpoint on Cosmological Redshift; I will be delighted to try to answer.
>
> At this moment, I do not have the details of a definitive model for 
> the Cosmological Redshift.
>
> Chandra.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160128/14ca73c4/attachment.htm>