Captain’s Log, Stardate 06
More Particles of Space
Particle Eta-7 (UPDATED)
Exploding/Imploding the Big-Bang theory?
Proofs of Twinkling Light
New insights to light diffraction
________________________
(Manythanx to:
- St Paul’s College, Raheny & Science Lecturer Fergal Close and to
- University College Dublin (UCD); Physics Department & Thomas O’Reilly
for assistance & use of their facilities.)
________________________
# One sunny summer afternoon spent lazing & half-watching a cricket match at Newlands grounds during the last days before commencing final year engineering –> attention was drawn to the sun setting behind Table Mountain. The shadow was shifting down the tree’d slopes and realisation that its shadow would soon be coming across. Attention averted back to the cricket. Only later did it strike home that the shadow did not come across – a distinct shadow line was not experienced - this caused momentary thoughts & a mental note to think later why this was so.
Over the years occasional thoughts came back to this issue but no resolution.
# We have become accustomed to the Big-Bang theory simply because it has been repeated so often by so many leading scientists that we believe it through repetitive association rather than whether there is truth in this theory.
The Big-Bang theory gained prominence from Edwin Hubble’s research that showed that galaxies are generally moving away from our galaxy (i.e. the universe is expanding) and that the further away the galaxies are then the faster the galaxies are travelling. This theory was developed by use of the Doppler effect (modified) & deductive reasoning of red/blue shift phenomena of light transmitted from distant stars/galaxies
Nobel Prize winning scientists Arno Pensias and Robert Wilson extended this red/blue shift phenomena by discovering micro-wave radiation from deep space and deduced that this was transmitted from galaxies so far distant & travelling so fast that its light had been red-shifted down to the micro-wave region of the electric/magnetic spectrum. The consequence of this discovery is that scientists now claimed that distant galaxies are travelling very near to the speed of light.
Does this make any sense?
It should be noted that these theories have a common foundation – that light particles travel at the speed of light c = 299 792 458 m / s or approx. 186 000 miles per second.
As previously argued; does it make sense that particles are buzzing around at this speed? We would not exist if they did, we would be blasted to smithereens. Still in doubt? Then stand in front of an AK47 (but, please don’t). QED!
Does it make sense that galaxies are travelling at speed c? We do not see this happening, why then is it theorised that they do?
Consequently, it is proposed that there have been misinterpretations & misunderstandings of scientific observations that have brought about unrealistic models of what exists & how these entities function in the far reaches of space.
And the cause for these misinterpretations & misunderstandings stem, partly, from errors in deductive reasoning concerning light experiments.
Historical interpretations of science research have significant impact upon how we view nature – where interpretations have been incorrect it can have enormous impact on our every-day lives. Example: anti-matter has produced interpretations of doppel-ganger ‘mirror’ planets, which has spawned endless sci-fi stories which cause further distortions in research – to the point where white-elephants, such as CERN Large Hadron Collider, are built at massive wasted cost.
We need to rethink some basics concerning Young’s Slit Experiment & also the Doppler Effect – because the import of Young’s experiment is that light behaves as a wave & the Doppler Effect is used to measure the differences in received frequencies from distant stars and compared to a standard spectrum -> and both of these classical principles have been incorrectly interpreted -> and from these incorrect interpretations incorrect deductions have been made (galaxies at near speed c, 9,10,11 dimensions, etc.)
__________________________________
Young’s Slit Experiments.
An earlier discussion on Twinkling Stars (see Particle Alpha-1) proposed that the zig-zagging from switching-mechanism propagation of light through the ether was the predominant cause of twinkling light. But, a scanning of school/college text books a few nights back gave further insights & other reasons as to why light (all light, not just stars) do twinkle.
In broad daylight, even moonlight, the ambient light swamps the twinkling effect but Young’s slit-experiment performed with a laser light gives clear proof that light as observed does twinkle.
The diffraction patterns produced by a double slit in Young’s slit-experiment proves conclusively that observed light from a point source has dark bands. Bear in mind:- our eyes are ‘double-slits’ & stars are point-sources, hence we observe a diffracted pattern which then appears to have a twinkle. QED!
But, we need to think further about Young’s experiment because it appears that there are more errors in the classical interpretations.
Recap observations (note, refer to 1st year physics books for a formal explanation of this experiment):
A single slit with a laser light produces a diffraction pattern with a central span of intense light, and less intense side-bands of light on either side of the centre point. Depending on the width of the slit the pattern changes; for a slit equal to 1 wavelength there is a single maxima & no side bands, at 10x wavelength there are two side bands either side of the centre point.
Using a double slit produces a broader diffraction pattern.
The light patterns and the deduction & calculations of wavelengths are not in themselves producing conclusive insight to light propagation.
It was at this point that thoughts of the shadow, or non-shadow, from Table Mountain came to mind. A quick hunt in UCD’s cupboard found a battered black negative strip. On placing this in the laser beam, and fine-tuning its position produced a near similar pattern as for a single slit. But, it appeared that there were some slight differences between the right side of centre point and compared to the left side. But, nevertheless, both sides produced light patterns, even though the one side was obstructed by the dark negative. Which is why the shadow never distinctly appeared at Newlands - it was simply a case of the light intensity diminishing progressively until the mountain entirely obstructed the sun. (Also note: the sun is not a point source, so the shadow would have begun to appear the moment the bottom of the sun went below the mountain edge, but the light from the top swamps the shadow caused by the bottom parts of the sun. But when the top is near the edge of the mountain we approximate a point source – nevertheless there was not a distinct shadow because of the phenomena of light diffracted into the shadow area – the light simply diminished, and the shadow, already there, progressively darkened.)
Further still, and not previously recognised by physicists/scientists:- if the negative is reversed then the slight differences in the light patterns on the screen are also reversed – what this means is that a Young’s single slit is simply producing a light pattern on the screen from one edge of the slit, and with a mirror image superimposed from the other edge –> thus producing the pattern we observe.
And a double slit produces a doubling of this.
Varying of the distance between the two slits & of the slit widths simply alter the light projected onto the screen
But, why do we see a point source from the laser and not a diffracted pattern around it similar to the effect of an obstruction?
What causes the light to encroach into the shadow region behind an obstruction? It is not from a wave dynamic.
The most logical explanation seems to be the consequence of the ether being packed like a jar of marbles & light being propagated through a switching mechanism. It appears that the obstruction affects the switching mechanism, which is point-by-point specific.
A switching mechanism does not produce a wave mechanic, it simply produces a switching of a discrete energy & information ‘packet’ from one light particle to the next, once transmitted it then transmits the next discrete packet. Side-band effects through the ‘marble’ structure of the ether would therefore explain the ‘diffracted’ light patterns.
But, a diffraction grid produces 4 nodes either side of centre point, with n4 at approximately 45 degrees – how is this caused? Wave theory does not explain it.
We need to recognise that a wave dynamic (air/water) is a higher order transmission mechanism than light which appears to be a primary transmission mechanism (particle/sub-particle)
All this is open to other explanations. But, what is clear is that space is not empty, there must exist an ether of some form such that we have constructive light propagation. It is not a case of particles buzzing at speed c every which way.
A further point:- Close observation of the laser light reflected off the screen produces a twinkling effect This is because the laser light is a point source, our eyes are double-slits, and we hence see a ‘diffracted’ pattern, much as projected onto the screen through a double-slit. The reason we do see it with a reflected laser beam is because it is such high intensity even relative to daylight.
(Warning: do not look too long at a laser reflection as it is not good for eyesight, also NEVER look directly into a laser beam source, it will permanently destroy your eyesight).
It is also a misnomer to say ‘speed of light’, because ALL electro/magnetic propagation in space is at speed c, and since there are far higher electromagnetic frequencies than the visible light spectrum it means that the frequency oscillations are far higher than those for light – so, if we argue that light particles zip at speed c & speed c is the maximum possible it kind of conflicts with the realities of higher frequency oscillations –> it doesn’t make sense, the two issues (speed c as a max & higher frequencies) conflict. But a constructive switching transmission mechanism makes more sense & does not cause a conflict on these points.
[UPDATE: The minima points within the ‘diffraction’ pattern is caused by interference at the edge of the slits. With a single edge (not two, as with a slit) the light ‘flares’ on either side of the edge, (as observed on the screen). When an opposing edge is introduced (a slit) then the two edges cause a dual interference which has the effect of nullifying the forward light at the minima point of interference; and increase the intensity with those particles that experience an additive maxima interference. The maxiumas & minimas are then propagated outwards into the patterns as observed. EXACTLY how & why this happens is not known, but cannot be via a chaotic wave mechanic model which would not produce coherent light information. The size of the minimas indicates that the ether particles function in ‘clustewrs’.
Also, the ‘flare’ is cone shaped (2D – because a slit is interfering predominantly in only 2D) which further supports a ‘marble’ like structure to the ether, as opposed to wave mechanics – the fact that the ether switching mechanism has commonalities with wave theory does not mean that light acts as wave theory.]
___________
Doppler effects:
Briefly again, Doppler effect is observed when a frequency signal transmitted to a distant body reflects back the signal to the transmission site. If the body is stationary & the transmission medium constant then the frequency received back will be the same => we can deduce that a body has caused the reflection and hence can determine its direction; timing of the round trip allows us to calculate range (distance). If the body is moving we can determine from the frequency change its radial speed, and over a period of samples we can determine its direction, and hence determine its vector velocity.
In water the principle is called SONAR (Sound Navigation & Ranging), in air radio is used, hence RADAR (Radio Direction & Ranging).
This principle has been applied in modified form to determining the radial velocity (speed directly away from or towards) of distant stars & galaxies from earth. It is modified in the sense that no initial transmission is made from earth (because objects are millions of light years away), instead observations of distant stars are made & the received light transmissions analysed, and by comparing the received light frequency to the known frequencies of light it can be deduced whether there has been an increase in the frequency (a shift towards the blue end of visible light) because the star/galaxy is moving towards us, or a decrease in frequency (a shift to the red end) because the star/galaxy is moving away.
Hubble observed that the further away that a star/galaxy was from earth then the greater the red shift, from which he deduced that the further away the star/galaxy the faster was that star/galaxy moving.
Nobel Prize winning scientists Arno Pensias and Robert Wilson discovered micro-wave radiations from deep space and deduced, as confirmed by the Nobel Foundation (see Nobel Physics 1978), that this micro-wave radiation was from the near farthest reaches of the universe & deduced that it emanated from star/galaxies moving at near speed c & that it supported the Big Bang theory.
The problem with these theories is that firstly light particles have to travel at speed c and, even more, that vast planets & stars must also be travelling at near speed c for the transmitted light to be ‘red-shifted’ down to the micro-wave region of the electro-magnetic spectrum.
In all honesty this is fanciful stuff – and it indicates that sufficient caution was not taken by scientists in interpreting their observations – it certainly confirms that the scientists applied little, if any, engineering insights, nor that they took steps to obtain engineering opinion. But, this is not to knock the significant work in identifying the phenomena that each scientist has.
If we rethink & accept for the sake of this argument that light is propagated through a switching mechanism it follows then that these red/blue shift theories are entirely incorrect.
A fundamental requirement for Doppler measurements is that the frequency of the transmitted signal that is used to detect movement of a body must be such that it can discern a measurable change in the reflected frequency due to the movement of that body. If the frequency is too high then clearly it will not be able to detect a change, and if too low other factors can affect the reflected signal & thus produce spurious measurements. There is an optimal frequency band in which particular velocity ranges can be measured.
On the basis that we accept a switching mechanism for light propagation, and that light particles are much, much smaller than the highest measured electro-magnetic wavelength, it means that the light transmitted (by switching mechanism) from distant stars/galaxies are NOT affected by the velocity of the body because the switching frequency is far, far, greater than the light frequency transmitted (& observed on earth millions of years later).
But, drift velocity of the ether would influence – to what degree is unknown until we can determine the magnitude of this drift velocity – but, drift velocity there must be otherwise there would be no energy flow & hence no rotation of planets.
How then do we interpret the reduced frequencies of light (to red end of spectrum) from distant stars/galaxies? As a suggestion – it is possibly that far distant stars/galaxies are simply dying out – much like a fire in the hearth, as it diminishes the light shifts to the lower frequencies, i.e. towards red. And, if we accept a drift velocity, then the lifetime of those distant stars/galaxies would be many times older - thus a diminishing light frequency due to a decaying process would make sense (more so than galaxies zipping at speed c)
_________________________
Another way to look at all this – is it reasonable to argue that whilst all that is immediately around us has rational dimension & shape that at some point as we go further into space that those regions now suddenly take on some other, irrational, dimensions & shapes? Is this a reasonable proposition? It is contended that it is not.
If we accept a switching mechanism for light propagation then everything remains rational & regular – no matter how far we go into space.
It also means that the previous estimates of the universes lifetime of 14 Billion years since the Big-Bang, if ever there was one, is incorrect. It also means that it is entirely reasonable that the earth (& other planets) has been through a number of melt/freeze cycles, which could also mean that previous life existed on earth before ours – a far more reasonable & rational argument than dopple-ganger planets, or antimatter, or warped space, or 9, 10, 11 dimensions, etc.
Whether there was a Big-Bang or not, we first need to confirm the nature of light propagation & our interpretations of other fundamental physics principles – we also need to shift mindsets away from exorbitantly expensive white-elephants such as CERN Large Hadron Collider (of which there are serious undertones regarding their research and who is making use of it).
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic world’s.)
XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.
##### END of Particle Eta-7 #####