- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
18 years 9 months ago #14912
by Tommy
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[JMB]A light filament has a core in which the field is very nonlinear, and a surrounding evanescent wave. Through their evanescent wave, two beams interact, may be bent. This is observed and computed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, "this" as you described it, is a system. Your description above, two beams interacting, is exactly a system. Therefore, there are emergent properties and wholes, and "nonlinearity" I think is the new buzzword for this whole-out-of-parts evolution. And I wonder if your description of an experiment above isn't also a description of a photon?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At usual frequencies, Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous, so that it cannot be solitons, it cannot be particles, the photon does not exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think light is made of BOLs. Balls of light. I think that what the balls of light we observe on a almost daily basis, particularily those plasma balls observed floating in air, is a basketball sized (what some would call) photon. Maybe we could call the new photon a nanoson. (nano-sun).
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[JMB]A light filament has a core in which the field is very nonlinear, and a surrounding evanescent wave. Through their evanescent wave, two beams interact, may be bent. This is observed and computed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, "this" as you described it, is a system. Your description above, two beams interacting, is exactly a system. Therefore, there are emergent properties and wholes, and "nonlinearity" I think is the new buzzword for this whole-out-of-parts evolution. And I wonder if your description of an experiment above isn't also a description of a photon?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At usual frequencies, Maxwell's equations are linear and homogenous, so that it cannot be solitons, it cannot be particles, the photon does not exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think light is made of BOLs. Balls of light. I think that what the balls of light we observe on a almost daily basis, particularily those plasma balls observed floating in air, is a basketball sized (what some would call) photon. Maybe we could call the new photon a nanoson. (nano-sun).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #10370
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
I think light is made of BOLs. Balls of light. I think that what the balls of light we observe on a almost daily basis, particularily those plasma balls observed floating in air, is a basketball sized (what some would call) photon. Maybe we could call the new photon a nanoson. (nano-sun).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think it would be confusing. The balls of light use the ionisation of the air to produce the required non-linearity during some seconds. The light may propagate in the vacuum, where the Maxwell's equations are linear, therefore do not allow the formation of solitons.
I think light is made of BOLs. Balls of light. I think that what the balls of light we observe on a almost daily basis, particularily those plasma balls observed floating in air, is a basketball sized (what some would call) photon. Maybe we could call the new photon a nanoson. (nano-sun).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think it would be confusing. The balls of light use the ionisation of the air to produce the required non-linearity during some seconds. The light may propagate in the vacuum, where the Maxwell's equations are linear, therefore do not allow the formation of solitons.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #10373
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The light may propagate in the vacuum, where the Maxwell's equations are linear, therefore do not allow the formation of solitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't want to say that matter is a tiny Sun. I want to say more so that if we blew the electron up to the size of the Sun, it probably would look just lke the Sun, made of some smaller kind of whateverstuff, probably waves of whateverwave stuff.
I keep pointing out that Maxwell's equations of the kind found in the text books, and presumbably those you are referring to are not ALL of Maxwell. Maxwell also had 20 quaternions which were edited out by heaviside. From what I gather these quaternions are a mathematics used to describe scalar functions. Somewhere in there is Rienmann and his fourth dimension, and Maxwell's attempt to use that different dimension via the displacement currents.
These "balls of Light" stick around more than a few seconds. You may be right about the ionization, but where is the battery pack?
It in the same place that other thing is where we can't see it either...
So we got macro Balls of Light spirialing in the sky all over the place on the one hand, and NANO Balls of light creating inexplicable crop circles all over the place on the other hand.
I don't want to say that matter is a tiny Sun. I want to say more so that if we blew the electron up to the size of the Sun, it probably would look just lke the Sun, made of some smaller kind of whateverstuff, probably waves of whateverwave stuff.
I keep pointing out that Maxwell's equations of the kind found in the text books, and presumbably those you are referring to are not ALL of Maxwell. Maxwell also had 20 quaternions which were edited out by heaviside. From what I gather these quaternions are a mathematics used to describe scalar functions. Somewhere in there is Rienmann and his fourth dimension, and Maxwell's attempt to use that different dimension via the displacement currents.
These "balls of Light" stick around more than a few seconds. You may be right about the ionization, but where is the battery pack?
It in the same place that other thing is where we can't see it either...
So we got macro Balls of Light spirialing in the sky all over the place on the one hand, and NANO Balls of light creating inexplicable crop circles all over the place on the other hand.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #10377
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
These "balls of Light" stick around more than a few seconds. You may be right about the ionization, but where is the battery pack?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Usually, the "balls of light" are produced by the lightnings, or by strong electric discharge. I am afraid that your balls of light are not the common ones.
These "balls of Light" stick around more than a few seconds. You may be right about the ionization, but where is the battery pack?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Usually, the "balls of light" are produced by the lightnings, or by strong electric discharge. I am afraid that your balls of light are not the common ones.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 9 months ago #10381
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Tifft's smallest redshift quantum, 2.88 km/s or thereabouts, occurs not only with galaxies, but also with stars and HII regions in our galaxy. I checked whether red/blueshifts (apparent radial velocities, a.k.a. RV's) of stars in various constellations were equally distributed modulo 3. Using Dibon-Smith's small catalog (Wiley, 1992), which gives RV's to 1 km/s, I found that constellations near l=0,90,180 & 270 (and b=0), tended to have unequal, though nonsignificantly so, RV distributions mod 3. Combining all four directions gave statistical significance.
Then I made a periodogram using Robinson & Muirden's very small catalog, which gives RV's to 0.1 km/s. It contains the 286 brightest stars in the sky, excerpted from RE Wilson's 1953 Carnegie catalog. I considered only the 22 stars located near the above directions, namely, R.A. 17h to 18h30' and Decl. -20 to -40 and its antipode, and 20h30' to 22h and +40 to +60 and its antipode. The brightest stars tend to be nearby, so spatial trends in stellar velocity affect their RV's less. They tend to be massive, so binary orbits affect their RV's less. At the positions chosen, Oort's law red/blueshifts are approximately zero.
The periodogram showed a strong family of peaks at 10.9, 5.55, and 2.72 km/s. Those who would confirm this, should look at nearby non-binary stars in the abovementioned windows of sky.
My sample of 425 stars from Dibon-Smith's list, near the apex and antapex (corrected for the mean RV of the patch), and near the intersection of the Milky Way with the equator of the apical sphere (uncorrected)(and possibly in the entire Milky Way), clearly showed an excess of RVs 65-70 km/s. Astronomers have attributed that phenomenon to causes other than quantized redshift. Only four of Dibon-Smith's entire 2400-star list had RVs (roughly corrected for apex motion) greater than 110: 144(=72*2), 154, 180 and 304(72*4=288). The two former were in the 168-star apex/antapex patches.
Blitz, Fich & Stark (Astrophysical J. Supplement 49:183-206, 1982) used radio emissions of carbon monoxide to measure RV's of HII regions in our galaxy. Using my same sky windows, I made a periodogram for the 31 HII regions whose RV's were stated to < 1.0 km/s accuracy. (One trio and two duos of regions were so close in position and RV, that I merged them, netting 27 regions.) Then I augmented these by including the 22 regions whose RV's were less accurate, and made another periodogram. The first, second and third most valid peaks, by size and consistency, were 2.36, 2.59; and 4.5(+/-) 0.2 km/s.
Substituting mean orbital speed (calculated from semimajor axis, eccentricity and orbital period) for RV, I made a periodogram for the 61 planets, asteroids and moons listed in WK Hartmann, "Moons & Planets", 2nd ed., 1983, Appendix. The most prominent peaks (excluding the oscillatory region below about 1.1 km/s) were 14.27, 7.34 and 2.63 km/s.
Tifft's small period is most prominent between the large moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and (doubled) between the inner planets. The differences in orbital speed of Jupiter's 2nd&3rd and 3rd&4th large moons are 2.85 and 2.68 km/s. Saturn's 1st&3rd, 3rd&4th and 4th&5th large (>1000 km dia.) moons differ 2.87, 2.91 and 2.31 km/s. Venus&Earth differ 5.22=2*2.61; Earth&Mars differ 5.70=2*2.85. So, diverse objects in our galaxy and solar system show approx. 2.5 km/s quantization.
Then I made a periodogram using Robinson & Muirden's very small catalog, which gives RV's to 0.1 km/s. It contains the 286 brightest stars in the sky, excerpted from RE Wilson's 1953 Carnegie catalog. I considered only the 22 stars located near the above directions, namely, R.A. 17h to 18h30' and Decl. -20 to -40 and its antipode, and 20h30' to 22h and +40 to +60 and its antipode. The brightest stars tend to be nearby, so spatial trends in stellar velocity affect their RV's less. They tend to be massive, so binary orbits affect their RV's less. At the positions chosen, Oort's law red/blueshifts are approximately zero.
The periodogram showed a strong family of peaks at 10.9, 5.55, and 2.72 km/s. Those who would confirm this, should look at nearby non-binary stars in the abovementioned windows of sky.
My sample of 425 stars from Dibon-Smith's list, near the apex and antapex (corrected for the mean RV of the patch), and near the intersection of the Milky Way with the equator of the apical sphere (uncorrected)(and possibly in the entire Milky Way), clearly showed an excess of RVs 65-70 km/s. Astronomers have attributed that phenomenon to causes other than quantized redshift. Only four of Dibon-Smith's entire 2400-star list had RVs (roughly corrected for apex motion) greater than 110: 144(=72*2), 154, 180 and 304(72*4=288). The two former were in the 168-star apex/antapex patches.
Blitz, Fich & Stark (Astrophysical J. Supplement 49:183-206, 1982) used radio emissions of carbon monoxide to measure RV's of HII regions in our galaxy. Using my same sky windows, I made a periodogram for the 31 HII regions whose RV's were stated to < 1.0 km/s accuracy. (One trio and two duos of regions were so close in position and RV, that I merged them, netting 27 regions.) Then I augmented these by including the 22 regions whose RV's were less accurate, and made another periodogram. The first, second and third most valid peaks, by size and consistency, were 2.36, 2.59; and 4.5(+/-) 0.2 km/s.
Substituting mean orbital speed (calculated from semimajor axis, eccentricity and orbital period) for RV, I made a periodogram for the 61 planets, asteroids and moons listed in WK Hartmann, "Moons & Planets", 2nd ed., 1983, Appendix. The most prominent peaks (excluding the oscillatory region below about 1.1 km/s) were 14.27, 7.34 and 2.63 km/s.
Tifft's small period is most prominent between the large moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and (doubled) between the inner planets. The differences in orbital speed of Jupiter's 2nd&3rd and 3rd&4th large moons are 2.85 and 2.68 km/s. Saturn's 1st&3rd, 3rd&4th and 4th&5th large (>1000 km dia.) moons differ 2.87, 2.91 and 2.31 km/s. Venus&Earth differ 5.22=2*2.61; Earth&Mars differ 5.70=2*2.85. So, diverse objects in our galaxy and solar system show approx. 2.5 km/s quantization.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #17064
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> [Joe Keller]
<font size="4">Tifft's smallest redshift quantum, 2.88 km/s or thereabouts, occurs not only with galaxies, but also with stars in the Milky Way. I checked ]</font id="size4"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Oh boy, long time since I knew the ramifications of Tifft shift. I remember that a periodicity in the redshift could not exist if redshift were due to velocity/distance, the expected shifts would be smooth. Unless, of course, stars and galaxies do exist at periodic distances like onion skins, and we were at the center - then Tifft shift would be expected too. If the observed redshift can be due to some other cause other than Doppler, then Doppler redshift is not the only redshift there is. If there is a non-Doppler effect in the redshift, how much "is" Doppler? Can it be as little as none? And if it is none, whither thou goest expansion?
So...what does cause redshift? I hear two answers, atomic hydrogen and the second is molecular hydrogen. Over...
<font size="4">Tifft's smallest redshift quantum, 2.88 km/s or thereabouts, occurs not only with galaxies, but also with stars in the Milky Way. I checked ]</font id="size4"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Oh boy, long time since I knew the ramifications of Tifft shift. I remember that a periodicity in the redshift could not exist if redshift were due to velocity/distance, the expected shifts would be smooth. Unless, of course, stars and galaxies do exist at periodic distances like onion skins, and we were at the center - then Tifft shift would be expected too. If the observed redshift can be due to some other cause other than Doppler, then Doppler redshift is not the only redshift there is. If there is a non-Doppler effect in the redshift, how much "is" Doppler? Can it be as little as none? And if it is none, whither thou goest expansion?
So...what does cause redshift? I hear two answers, atomic hydrogen and the second is molecular hydrogen. Over...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.296 seconds