Captain’s Log, Stardate 06

 

More Particles of Space

 

Particle Alpha-1

 

 

Why do stars twinkle? -> Light Transmission Dynamics (& DARK-FORCES)

 

##### Particle Alpha-1 #####

Why do stars twinkle? -> Light Transmission Dynamics (& DARK-FORCES)

It is argued by scientists that stars twinkle at night because of distortions to light rays as they pass through the earth’s atmosphere. When we do look at stars on a dark night they do appear to twinkle, yet we are told they do not twinkle in space –> deduction: the twinkle is due to earth’s atmosphere. Is this a correct deduction???

Whether star’s do or do not twinkle in space is not something we can determine directly ourselves but have to rely upon the statements by astronauts (tv pictures & films would not yield proofs because of technical aspects in reproduction).

We look at electric lights from a distance and they also appear to twinkle – it seems to support the deduction regarding twinkling stars being caused by atmospheric conditions – but is this correct? …………..

……. we need to think further the previous propositions, vis that:-

- Light particles do NOT travel at speed c, light information & energy is propagated at speed c.

- hence, e≠mc²

- Light does not behave as particle theory (in terms of buzzing around at speed c)

- Light does not behave as wave theory

- There is an ‘ether’ upon which light information & energy is propagated, and without which light cannot be propagated.

- The Universe is expanding. Corollary:- That there exists space with matter, and beyond that space with no matter into which space with matter is expanding, similarly with the ether.

- Matter is drifting into empty space at a ‘drift’ velocity (very, very much less than speed c)

- There is a switching-mechanism transferring light information & energy between ‘particles’ that make up the ether in space

oOo

If we consider a proposition that the ether is made up of particles that can transmit/propagate light and that these particles are spheres then we could consider their makeup as being like a jar of marbles, i.e. the entirety of occupied space having an ether made of these marble-like particles. (Note: 1. the term particle is used loosely, 2. unoccupied space has no ether)

If we observe the packing of the marbles in the jar – we notice that any marble fits more efficiently within the trough of surrounding/adjacent marbles – i.e. we see that the marbles are not aligned in straight lines within the 3 dimensions, they fit within the valleys formed by other marbles.

(Note: a ‘loose’ model can be achieved using coins, but beware – the packing is only in 2D which would not give a proper 3D packing representation, but the idea will be immediately clear)

If we view this jar of marbles as a magnified model of light ‘particles’ (some zillion times magnified) and consider that one marble represents one light ‘particle’.

Now imagine the entirety of space into which the ether has propagated and that all these particles (marbles) sit there propagating light information/energy in all directions, through a switching-mechanism, continuously and causing light to be propagated at speed c.

Now consider a distant star and its light emissions being propagated across the ether to a distant observer on the earth. The light direction we are interested in is the direction toward an observer that will be, in millions of light years into the future, at a specific position on the earth, and with a telescope.

Then, as propositioned earlier, the light energy from that particle on the star’s surface is switched to the next particle in line of sight to the (future) observer, and that successive particle then switches to the next particle and so on at the propagation rate of speed c (some 186,000 miles/second).

Eventually that point of light will reach the observer (millions of years later) and be observed. The first important point to note is that the intensity/energy of a particular light particle that reaches the observer is IDENTICAL to the intensity level of that part of the discreet light particle at the star’s surface that was pointing directly towards the observer when it left the star’s surface i.e. light energy of any discreet ‘particle’, or part of a particle propagated, is not diminished over distance.

This is not to say that the summed light energy per unit area at any position is not diminished as it propagates outwards due to the increase in surface area – the increase in surface area is the direct cause of summed energy intensity diminishing – because the surface area increases with the square of the distance from the point of any particular particle.

It is to say that the energy level of each discreet particle remains constant as the energy is propagated successively to other particles on its path.

If the light energy of the discreet particles were attenuated we would not be able to see stars – the fact that we can see stars is the proof of the proposition.

Recall the proposition that as the light information/energy is propagated outwards that particles do propagate a diminished side-band of light energy (which is why we see light beams from the side, and why light appears to be bent around interposing planets and not because of magnetic field distortions).

Since the light ‘particles’ (marbles) are NOT packed in uniform straight lines the light is transferred, switched, from one marble to another in a zigzag fashion through space.

To see this - look at the packing of marbles in the jar, to move from one side of the jar to the other, by connecting through adjacent marbles, your path would not be in a straight line. Light would be moving, switching, on a zigzag course from one marble to another (imagine a line connecting centre points of each pair of marbles) because each marble would be off-course from the straight path line from one side of jar to other. If we accept this proposition, that light is propagated between adjacent & touching particles, then at each propagation point the light information changes direction to transfer to the next adjacent particle. By ‘eyeballing’ this it is around 30 degrees. This shifting occurs at each propagation point so in effect the light zigzags through space.

In addition the side adjacent particles also transmit energy and this energy is summed to that of its adjacent particle. As this moves progressively outwards the surface area increases so the number of particles increases onto which the star’s light information is propagated outwards. Although the per-unit area energy (from the star alone) decreases the total energy across the sphere’s surface remains constant.

Now consider us looking down that path through the jar of marbles, and imagine this as a thin line and we are seeing the point end of the line (to assist in understanding this use a pencil with point end toward your eye). First hold the pencil point end directly toward you, now shift the point end 30 degrees (approximately), you see a ‘foreshortened’ pencil, now move it back to pointing directly to you; now move the opposite direction 30 degrees; keep repeating this shifting 30 degrees offset, 30 degrees back, 30 degrees opposite – this will give the end-on effect of the light zigzagging (in this case in a 2D plane). Once you have the hang of this now repeat the 30 degree shifts & 30 degree shifts back, but after each move make a new shift in a totally different direction (i.e. not just opposite and back) – this is the end-on effect in 3D. This is how light is transmitted through the ether particle by particle with light summing, point by point, each adjacent pair of particles as it propagates forwards.

This process is happening in all directions at each particle point in the ether.

This zigzag process is behind Heisenberg’s misinterpretation that led to his Uncertainty Principle (there/not-there) & Schrödinger’s Cat.

Also, note that each particle, being a sphere, has only a small fraction of its surface area that would be pointed towards the future observer. Each side adjacent particle on the star’s surface would also have a tiny point that would be pointing toward the future observer’s position but nonetheless with a tiny shift in angle from its adjacent neighbour. Each side-adjacent particle would also interact with each other’s side-adjacent particles and a summed transfer of light information would be propagated to the next particles, outward & toward the future observer. (Note: at the same time each particle is also transmitting/propagating information in all directions, not simply towards the future observer).

Now let’s quickly zip a few million light-years from the star’s surface to the observer’s position on earth.

From the future observer’s position:– the observer is seeing, millions of years later, a diminished object (the star) which is coming to his focal position – hence his eyes are taking in a small conic amount of light that represents just a tiny amount of the star’s total light energy that was propagated millions of years earlier.

But this light is being caused to zigzag through space. Also each tiny point of light from each particle that is looking towards the observer is being summed amongst all adjacent particles at each transmission point on each particle in the ether. And it is all coming down this narrowing ‘cone’ of vision as seen by the observer. So, the observer sees this twinkling effect of all the zillions of light particles at the star’s surface that are focal to the observer’s future position – which total amount of energy is miniscule because only a miniscule fraction of any one particle’s surface area (on the star’s surface) is focal to that future observer – BUT, nonetheless the numerous points of light propagating towards the observer are ALL zigzagging & summing - and hence twinkling starlight.

(Note: this does not mean that our atmosphere does not contribute to distorting light.)

Also, imagine a line between the observer and a particular point on a particular light-particle on the star’s surface. Recall:- the energy from each point, looking directly toward the future observer, on each of the star’s particles is the same energy that reaches the observer’s position, i.e. the energy is not attenuated (diminished) as it propagates through space.. The reason it doesn’t frazz the observer is because the amount of energy at the small points on each of the star particle’s surface is a very small amount of energy. It is the summed energy of the entire particle summed with all the particles at the star’s surface that creates the TOTAL ENERGY of the stars radiant energy, but it is only a tiny amount of energy from any particular particle on the star’s surface that reaches the observer.

(To help see all of this more clearly:-

- draw a small circle 1mm radius, draw another circle concentric 1 metre radius. On that large circle make a point representing the earth. On that point, the earth, is an even tinier point representing the observer – draw lines tangential to the star & to the observer – this triangle (in 2D, cone in 3D) represents what the observer sees of the star.

- consider a slide/film being projected on a screen and in focus, the image is sharp & clear – now turn the lens to put the image out of focus. Notice how clearly defined points become blurred – the reason for this is that for each & every point on the slide it converts to a blurred circle of light on the screen, and for each adjacent point on the slide it also creates its own blurred circle, which all overlap with each other – these are called circles-of-confusion.

This is (loosely put) similar to the light from each particle on the star’s surface being projected outwards into a circle which circle increases in size as it propagates further through space.

If we positioned ourselves at the screen and looked back to the slide in the projector (DANGER:- DO NOT DO THIS you will damage your eyes, just think it through) then you would be looking down the cone of the circles-of-confusion in the reverse direction and would if you could see the slide get back to the specific points that created each of the circles.)

oOo

The aforegoing explains the dynamics of light transmission within this model proposition – but we need to understand why star’s twinkle on earth, and why, as claimed, they do not twinkle in space.

The main point is to recognise that all light twinkles because of the zigzag propagation process.

The issue is why don’t we see it all the time with anything & everything we see?

The answer lies in recognising a common phenomena of any point light diminishing in perceived intensity (& hence twinkling effect diminishing sooner) when ambient light increases. Simply look at your room light in the day, then later at night, look at the sky in the day and notice that stars are not observable, at night they are.

It is contended that the twinkle emanates from the zigzagging of light through space – the summed light from the star reaching the observers eye is continually flickering, ever so slightly. But, increase in ambient light first swamps this twinkle, and as ambient light increases further the entire star light diminishes to zero.

When in space the spacecraft or ‘walking’ astronaut is invariably in direct sight of the sun, hence ambient light would swamp any twinkling effect.

Even on the moon this would be true also, and since the earth-light at night would be more intense than moon-light on earth, again the twinkling effect would be swamped.

It becomes clear then that there are unique circumstances & places in our solar system in which we only could observe twinkling stars – i.e. all other places would have high ambient light that would swamp/diminish the twinkling effect.

Those places that would be suitable are where a planet or body is sufficiently large relative to the sun & the distance from it that a cone of darkness is present, i.e. free from direct light, ambient light & significant reflected light.

To understand this draw a 1 metre diameter circle representing the sun, and a metre away from the circle’s edge another circle 9mm diameter – then draw tangential lines from sun-circle to earth-circle and extend to point of intersection. The cone from the earth to the intersection point is the cone of darkness (the circle sizes are to approximate scale but the distance between is not, but it nonetheless gives a picture of the cone). In real life the apex of the cone would be about 1.4 Billion metres distant from the earth (approx 148Billion metres – 148 Mkms- between earth & sun) – this seems big, but in space terms its miniscule.

It would be necessary to be within this cone when in space, and with the moon between earth & sun to remove reflected light from the cone, to observe the twinkling of stars, i.e. an astronaut would have to be conscious of the correct circumstances to observe the twinkling effect. It appears that the claim that stars, as seen from space, do not twinkle has derived from random observations – since there are only a few places & few occasions at those places in which twinkling stars can be observed it follows that on a random basis of observations that the observations have been in the wrong place and at the wrong time and hence incorrectly interpreted.

To observe twinkling from the moon the astronauts would need to be on the far side and with the earth between sun & moon. (Note: side-band effect would diminish the size of the cone.)

In short – a statement by an astronaut that stars do not twinkle in space is inclusive as to whether they do or do not twinkle as a consequence of light transmission dynamics by zigzag propagation.

The reason that planets do not twinkle, even on dark nights, is simply because reflected light from the planet is far less intense, and ambient light is high thus swamping any twinkle effect. Also the cone of arc is too large (is this a criterion?). This seems to make sense since it is only stars, which are far distant, that have such a small cone arc to an observer on earth (stars are million of light years away).

We see everyday objects because of reflected light which is low intensity and ambient light is far higher – hence twinkling swamped.

The aforegoing is not to say that atmosphere does not also contribute to a twinkling effect – but to say that it is an inconclusive statement. (Beware relying on the observing of electric lights for test purposes – the supply frequency has an effect, and is possibly a predominant effect.)

BUT, these propositions herein could be wrong, nevertheless it does make far more sense than light particles buzzing around at 186,000 miles per second, 9 or 10 or 11 dimensions, & other sci-fi contentions that are being pumped out ……………………..

Note also, the proposition of zigzagging means that light propagates at a far higher speed than its linear rate – for a 30 degree shift this would yield (1/cos 30 = 1/0.86 = 1.15) a 15% increase in propagation velocity = i.e. 186, 000 x 1.15 = approx 215,000 miles per second on a zigzag course to achieve 186,000 miles per second lineal propagation rate.

Next particle: Beta-2: Wobbling stars – what to make of them.

(Note: as stated before the focus of engineering by CDADD is on the SEBFL environments – there are crises facing the world but governments, academic institutions, religious bodies, etc. are refusing to engage honestly & transparently with the pioneered engineering that has brought clearer understanding of these crises – they continue to listen to dishonest scientists, exact & inexact, who isolate themselves from the real world.)

Chris Addington Pr. Eng.

www.cdadd.com

(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic worlds.

Also under severe economic oppression due to Ireland & UK government dishonesty.

XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.)

###### END OF Particle Alpha-1 #####