Giftt has selected this article by Mr. Allen of California for discussion separate from Guest comments of 1998 and 1999. The reason is obvious. Mr. Allen presents fundamental questions and problems to the existing theories of the expansion of the Universe, speed of light and the Ether theory. These all relate to the space-time-mass theory. The equivalent mass of the fabric of space-time provides the answers. This discussion also answers a lot of other comments and questions that has come to Giftt in the year of 1999. It has taken me about a year to think this over and provide the answers. It is indeed exciting and educational.
Here are the entire comments with appropriate notes from Giftt:
I wanted to send you a copy of my theory to
get your thoughts on it. I think there are similarities in some
of our conclusions. Please give me your thoughts.
A Heritics' notes on Astrophysics
By Richard Allen Revised
11-04-98 Originally Sent on 4-21-97
Intro: What if Hubbell was
wrong?
When Hubbel discovered that distant galaxies had red shift, and that this was apparent in every direction, it was concluded that the universe was expanding in all directions. It was also reasoned that the universe was expanding because of a " Big Bang " that occurred in the distant past. Most of our current understanding of the cosmos is based on the observed red shift in distant galaxies and the logical implication of a big bang theory and the resultant expansion of our known universe.
Hubbel believed that "Red
Shift", was caused by an object going away from us at
high speed. This caused the entire spectrum of the distant object
to be stretched or shifted towards the red end of the spectrum of
light. This deduction has been one of the pillars of modern
astrophysics, but is it correct? A reality check shows us
that some of the red shift calculated velocities approach the
speed of light. Using the current model for translating the
observed Red Shift into real numbers, show that an object such as
a Quasar, estimated to be some 200,000 light years across and 4
billion light years away from us is moving away from us at 90%
the speed of light. The very same Quasars can change their
brightness in a few days. If light can travel across a
galaxy at 186,000 miles per second then an object that computes
to be 200,000 light years across would take thousands of years,
not 3 days to change its brightness. Something is drastically
wrong with this model. Nature has always shown itself to be
consistent and elegantly simple. To reason a special exception
for the laws of physics for a certain type of object flies in the
face of common sense. So why the tremendous disparity between
observation and the laws of physics?
Giftt: I think you are to
the point Mr. Allen. The present expanding Universe and the Big
Bang theory are as much in trouble as the Flat Earth Science was
at the time of Aristotle.
There has been many theories about “Tired Light’ which just states that the photon ages by time and displays this age by loosing energy in the display of shifting its frequency to longer frequencies. As we know the energy of the photon is the product of the Plank’s constant “h” and the frequency “v”. The lower the frequency, the lower the energy. The theory of tired light suggests that time has an effect on the light. Obviously the more distant Galaxies will exhibit more of the Red-Shift (Shift to lower frequencies) and so they are not really running away. The space-time-mass theory can even explain this better. Since the fabric of space-time has equivalent mass, the huge mass of Universe itself (By general Relativity, this mass bends the light) will effect the light that travels in it. I mean not only mass bends the light; it also causes the light to shift to lower frequencies. This suggests that gravitational force effects the Photons of light and causes them to shift to lower frequencies. Obviously, the more distant a Galaxy, the more exposure to the Universal mass and the more Red Shift. I would like to propose to the Astronomers to make a simple measurement on the starlight that passes near the Sun and see if they can measure a Red-Shift effect. This would be very similar to the measurement that proved Special Relativity by measuring the bending of the starlight near the Sun. I even think that Einstein predicted the effects of Gravity of the frequency of light. (I have to Check.).
I believe that our observations are
only confusing because we do not understand the true nature of
light and its propagation. The Quasar riddle can be explained if
we accept the idea that these objects are close enough for us to
observe a change in brightness in a few days, but the light from
this object is red shifted for reasons we do not understand. This
of course completely blows away the expanding universe and the
Big Bang theory, but it never really made sense anyway. How can
infinity have a center, or a place where all matter could come
together? It just isn't good common sense. After all the concept
of infinity means that there is no beginning and no end and if it
could have an end, what could contain it?
Giftt: Universe could be Infinite and
Eternal, yet proving it is as challenging as proving it otherwise.
Modern astrophysics is like a house of cards
that was built on the premise that we understand enough about the
propagation of electromagnetic radiation to make sweeping
deductions about the universe itself. If we admit that we do not
understand light itself, you will quickly realize how tenuous or
current theories really are.
Part 2: What is Light ?
Did you ever wonder why light has a finite
speed limit that it cannot exceed? Why is this true?
Einstein proved it to be true mathematically but this does not
explain the physical reality. Light has been shown to behave both
as a wave and as a particle. This has been proven by experiment
but it has never been given a satisfactory explanation. The next
section talks about a new theory that provides a common
explanation for the red shift riddle, the speed limit of light,
and the dual nature of light.
Part 3: A New Theory
If the absolute speed limit of light
propagation is accepted, then we must also accept that this speed
limit is not relative to the position, speed, or direction of the
observer or the source. This means that final velocity of the
propagation of electromagnetic radiation is universal and
constant throughout the universe. This widely accepted
physical Law does not tell us what it is that limits the final
velocity of the propagation of light. There is no logical
way to explain how a photon of light could know how fast it was
going unless there was something to reference itself to. There
is no detectable Entity in space that could account for this.
What if we assume that there is something in
space that is undetectable to our instruments. It would have
little or no mass and it distribution would be roughly equal
throughout the entire universe. For the sake of our discussion we
will call it "pure energy" or energy at rest. If such a
thing existed it would be virtually transparent and invisible. If
it existed it could explain why light has a speed limit.
Let's say that a photon starts out by
leaving the shell of the excited atom and as it accelerates it
encounters this sea of pure energy. Since the photon is virtually
a quantitized packet of pure energy itself, it will absorb
energy and grow until it starts to have mass. As soon as this
happens it will slow down and dissipate enough energy to maintain
an equilibrium and keep itself at near zero mass. Once it has
slowed down and shed the mass it will pickup speed and the
process repeats itself almost indefinitely. This is a very
plausible explanation of why light has a speed limit. This
process would repeat itself but there would be a very slight loss
in the total energy of the packet over the years as it travels
through space. I propose that it is this loss of energy that is
the reason that light from distant galaxies is red shifted and
not because of some impossible speed, size and distance that is
put forth by current theory.
Part 4: The Split Personality of
Light
If we take the above concept a little
further we can explain another mystery. Suppose that when the
photon of light gains mass and then releases energy that this
will cause ripples on the "pond" of pure energy. These
ripples carry energy and would exibit the physical
attributes of a wave. It would have a frequency proportional to
its' energy and would cause interference when passed
through a diffraction grating and therefore behave like a wave.
Since the photon is still intact it would act like a particle
when it struck a phototube, exhibiting a distinct energy level.
This would explain why light could act as both a wave and a
particle. Someone might say that this has a similarity to the
Ether theory, which was disproved and discarded a long time ago.
It was reasoned that the ether would have some measurable effect
on the speed of a beam of light. In other words if one were
traveling on a planet such as earth, the speed of a beam of light
sent in the direction travel would be slowed when compared with
the speed of a beam sent in the opposite direction. Since there
was no detectable difference in the speeds of the two beams it
was considered proof that the ether did not exist. According to
our new theory the test was not valid because the
"ether" or as we are calling it here " energy at
rest", actually determines the final velocity of light. Not
the relative speed of the source. Light would always reach the
same velocity in either direction. "Ether" seems to
imply a gas like substance, and gases have mass. This is not what
I am describing. The term "energy at rest" describes an
attribute or characteristic of all non-matter in the universe. It
is very likely that what we have thought of, as a vast empty void
is in fact the medium by which all energy is transmitted.
An interesting side effect of the new theory
is that the actual frequency of an emitted photon would be
directly proportional to the amount of energy in the packet. This
is to say that the higher the quantity of energy emitted by an
atom, the more fierce the interaction between it and the
surrounding sea of rest energy and therefore the higher the
frequency of the vibration and wave pattern emitted. The atom
simply spits out different size energy packets depending upon its
makeup and state of excitation. They all reach terminal velocity
quickly but exibit a distinct frequency. Over an extended
distance these frequencies would gradually weaken and the entire
spectrum of a distant object would be shifted downward toward the
red end of the spectrum of visible light. Eventually the level of
energy and frequency would drop below the visible spectrum of
light. This would explain Ober's paradox. This is the reason
that there is considerable darkness in the night sky even though
we know there are billions of stars out there. If our current
theories were true about light energy going on forever without
being effected by vast distances, then our night sky would be as
bright as daytime.
Giftt: The speed of light came as the
part of the solution to the Maxwell’s equations of
Electro-Magnetic Radiation. This speed was calculated to be
constant at Vacuum with certain permitivity and permiability.
Einstein theorized that this speed of light is independent of the
relative speeds of the light source and the observer. A famous
example is that if two trains are exactly moving in the opposite
directions at the speed of light, the observer on one train
measures the speed of light of the opposite locomotive to be the
constant speed ”c” and not “ 2c”. This has
been mathematically and experimentally proven. Now the Energy at
rest that you attribute to the fabric of space-time is the same
as saying it has equivalent mass since matter and energy are
related (Again by Einstein). And there are theories about the
energy of the vacuum floating around. As for the Light
propagation slowing down and speeding up again, I could not
visualize it. The thinking that a Photon of light starts from
Zero speed and accelerates to “c” when it leaves an
atom can not be comprehended for two reasons:
1)
Photon does not have a rest mass, no one has ever found a photon
at rest and no one will. Photon exists only when a packet of
energy is moving at the speed of light.
2)
If we assume a classical model that the Photon is absorbed and
emitted by the electrons in the Atom, then that Electron is
already moving at speeds close to the speed of light. So the
photon does not accelerate from zero speed.
As for the Ether theory, I agree with
you. The Michaelson – Morely experiment has to be done
again. The relative motion of the planet Earth inside a
hypothetical standing still Ether is bizarre. The Earth’s
motion is such an Ether is not simple, Earth moves and spins and
spirals with the Sun and the Andromeda Galaxy at tremendous
speeds. My problem is with the theory of Relativity. If we expand
the Special Relativity to say the speed of light is independent
of the relative speeds of the observer and the source and
the media in which it propagates, then
Michelson-Morley experiment will not measure a shift in the speed
of light.
Part 5: Food for thought
If the theory of the Big Bang ,which is
based largely on Hubbel's' explanation of red shifted light from
distant galaxies, is not true, then the idea that the universe
always was, and always will be, seems very logical. It also makes
sense that the universe simply goes on forever and what we see is
a good sample of what the rest of infinity looks like.
We have covered a lot of ground but this is
just the tip of the iceberg. The next section will take a look at
gravity, the fundamental force of the universe.
Giftt: I like to think that present expansion theory and Big Bang are not correct. In the lack of science and experimental data, it is comforting that some old faiths and philosophers suggested the Universe to be Eternal-Infinite and Unique.
Part 6: Why am I publishing my
theories ?
I have been working on my theories and
concepts for over 20 years. I am 55 years old and I feel that it
is time to put my theories to the test of the scrutiny of others.
I have not developed a method to prove my ideas, but I strongly
believe that they will stand the test of intense debate. I would
appreciate any input that might prove or disprove these thoughts.
It is also possible that that I might inspire someone to go far
beyond what I have tried to accomplish. If you can think of an
experiment that would prove or disprove any of these concepts, I
would be very grateful.
This document will be mailed to many
individuals, but your input is very important to my research.
Please respond to me in writing at either of the addresses below.
Thank You,
Richard Allen Email
Address is
15209 Century Oak rd
rcallen@pcpro.net
Salinas, Ca. 93907
Giftt: Per author’s request we leave
his information so that guests may contact him directly.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |