1 The intensity of light should be inversely proportional to the distance between the source and the observer before considering how much intensity is lost by traveling through a medium
2 The intensity of light is lost as it travels through a medium by a different amount for each frequency or wavelength
3 The farther a light source is from an observer the more mass it will need to have as a source if made of the same material at the same temperature and density in order to have sufficient intensity of brightness to be seen by the observer and the more mass the light source has the greater gravitational red shift will occur and the greater the gravitational red shift that occurs the less energy per area per time the observer will experience from the light emitted by the source. Light from some sources might not experience a red shift but the percent of those light sources that do not have enough mass to be visible would increase as their distance from the earth increases. As the distance increases the minimum mass required and thus the minimal amount of red shift required for a stationary light source (of the same material, temperature, pressure and density) to be seen increases. This is assuming that gravitational red shifting and blue shifting really does occur in real life.
4 From a probabilistic viewpoint, the further the distance between the source and the observer the more likely at least one opaque object of a given size or greater will be between the source and the observer. This might be similar to the relationship of the number of cracks on a section of road and the length of the segment of a road or the Poisson distribution.
Points 1 through 4 could account for red shifts from distant stars and a lack of unlimitted or infinite brightness experienced on earth by an individual in a universe that might be of unlimited or infinite volume and might have never experienced a big bang and in which some stars that were thought to be moving away from an observer due to a doppler shift might not be moving away from the observer in all cases that big bang believers have claimed them to be doing so.
Alleged shifts in light spectrums may occur from light sources that are stationary relative to the earth as the light from a stationary source traveles through the medium of outer space not necessarily through a doppler effect caused by a light source moving away from or towards the earth.
The intensity of light at one frequency or wavelength may be decreased by a different percent than the intensity at another frequency or wavelength for the same medium at the same thickness
Outer space is supposedly an imperfect vacuum which would mean it is a physical material. If the physical material outer space is made out of reduces the intensity of blue light more strongly than it reduces the intensity of red light or absorbs blue light better than red light traveling through the same distance or thickness of material at the same temperature, pressure, chemical concentration and density then the further the distance between a stationary light source and an observer the more red shifted the light would appear to be to that observer.
By red shift in the context of the effects of light traveling through a medium, I mean a shift in the frequency and wavelength distributions of the light. In this specific type of red shift the weighted average of frequency with respect to intensity would decrease and the weighted average of wavelength with respect to intensity would increase as the distance the light has to travel from the source through the medium to reach the observer increases. A blue shift in this context would mean the weighted average of frequency with respect to intensity would increase and the weighted average of wavelength with respect to intensity would decrease. The frequency of the individual photons would not change as the distance traveled through the same medium increases but the intensity would change for a given frequency as the distance traveled through the same medium increases. The percent decrease in intensity would be different for blue light than red light since the medium the light is traveling through blocks or absorbs one wavelength or frequency a different amount than it does with another wavelength or frequency. I mention traveling a further distance through the same medium because changing what medium a wave is in can also change it's wavelength intensity distribution and or frequency intensity distribution but that is not the source of the red shift I am talking about.
One should also consider that if the path of a light source orbited around a observer in a perfect circular path at constant absolute value of acceleration and absolute value of velocity and maintained a constant distance from that observer what sort of doppler effect ( if any ) would happen even though the light source is neither moving towards or away from the observer in terms of the absolute value of the distance between the source and the observer
Supposedly gravitation could also cause a shift in frequency that is separate from or in addition to the one allegedly caused by velocity. The farther a star is from earth the more massive the star would usually have to be to be seen from earth because the intensity of light is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the observer and the light source before intensity lost due to traveling through a medium is even considered. This means a greater gravitational red shift would usually be experienced the farther the distance from the earth a star is observed from even if it was not moving away from the earth.
In the case of gravitational red shift I believe the claim would be that each photon actually individually increases it's wavelength and or decreases it's frequency. It is possible for a wave to change it's frequency without changing it's wavelength or change it's wavelength without changing it's ftequency if the velocity or speed of the wave changes which can happen if it changes it's medium or if the medium changes some factor like temperature.
A universe of infinite or unlimited volume with an unlimited number of stars would not necessarily be unlimitedly or infinitely bright as viewed from the earth because objects between some of the stars and the earth would be opaque or partly opaque and block some of the light from other stars or objects in addition to light becoming more dim before it reaches or fails to reach earth through the inverse square law and the effect of traveling through a medium as well as allegedly shifting in frequency and or wavelength and reducing in energy per photon through gravitational red shifting it experiences on the way to earth from some objects near it's path exceeding any gravitational blue shifting it experiences on the way to earth from other objects.
Someone might argue that although I listed three different sources of red shifts ( something similar to Beer-Lambert Law, Doppler, Gravitation) we can still know the universe is expanding because each source of red shift effects things in a mathematically different way and we can know which one of each type contributes to how much of each and from there calculate the doppler shift and know how fast each of the stars are moving away from the earth based on the frequency distribution a star should emit based on it's chemical composition. The problem with that is we do not know the chemical composition of stars. Supposedly every element we have tested on earth emits a unique distribution of light frequencies or wavelengths and the distribution emitted by a star is the same as the distribution emitted by the elements or perhaps chemical compounds that make it up only shifted in a precise way such that there is only one possible combination of elements or compounds that could have emitted that light frequency or wavelength distribution with not a single one to possibly be added or removed from the list mathematically determinable for that star. That however is simply untrue because we can only compare the distributions with distributions for materials found on earth and we have never flew a rocket to the sun and collected a sample of the matetial to know it is not made from something different, perhaps an undiscovered element that does not even fit on the periodic table with it's integer atomic numbers the way we currently understand it to work and maybe this element emits what looks like a shifted distribution of another element. It sounds ridiculus but theoritical astronomers claim there is dark matter that is not like any material discovered on earth but somehow eliminates their massive calculation errors if you put the right amount of this dark matter in if I am being ridiculus for claiming the stars might be made of a material not discovered on earth then they are being ridiculus for claiming outer space has a material not discovered on earth that just so happens to exist in the quantities to reduce their calculation errors from the amount that disproves their theories to an amount that excuses their theories. I am not saying the stars are made of a undiscovered or hypothetical material, I am saying they might be but to some people it is a definitive fact that 85% of the universe is made out of a hypothetical material. Here on earth I have never known a construction worker to build a building out of a hypothetical matetial, they might build something out of a material they do not know the name of but it is not hypothetical they can actually touch it, unlike the sun which has never been touched by human hands if it is so hot you will burn up before you reach it as has been claimed and more importantly if it is so high in the sky I can not build a ladder or skyscraper or climb a mountain to reach it. There is another problem than not knowing the material the stars are made out of and that is not knowing how much gravity they have which would mean not knowing how much of the red shift is from gravity vs how much is from doppler. We can know how much acceleration is caused by local gravity on earth but we can not personally know how much acceleration is caused by local gravity on the moon unless we personally go to the moon which most people can not do and therefore can not personally confirm the moon data is not fake. If the most people could go to the moon then most people could travel to the moon and take the acceleration measutements from there personally instead of going by the word of people who already have a track record of fabricating stories about dark matter. We can not personally measure the Universal gravitational constant from the earth only the local gravitational constant because the universal gravitational constant is calculated by manipulating the position of objects in a physics laboratory and carefully measuring their masses but the person who takes the observation's mass and position is not measured but worse yet the mass and position of the walls, ceilings and floors of the building next to the objects is not measured.
We do not know
1 How much of the red shift is from gravity - because we do not know the universal gravitational constant - because they ignore the mass of the building but measure the mass of the equipment inside the building) - you can take a video camera and drop an object in front of a ruler with a stopwatch also running on video and record it and measure local acceleration due to gravity but that is different than proving a Universal Gravitational Constant even exists - And no you probably have not tested it on the moon if you are reading this
2 How much of the red shift is from traveling through a medium - Because we do not know how outer space effects light over long distances involving something similar to the Beer-Lambert law - Because the common person can not fly up in a satelite and shoot several different types of monochromatic lasers through the medium outer space is made up of and take measurements. Even if we could we have not taken those measurements to make sure outer space between the star and wherever the observers atmosphere becomes outer space is the same material
3 What the starting spectrum that the light frequency distribution was shifted from - Because we do not know what the spectrum of the star would have been based on it's material chemical composition - Since we do not know what material the stars are made out of since we can not assume they are made from chemicals that exist on earth because for all we know they could be 85% dark matter, why not 85% of everything else is except things we can observe on earth
4 Once we know those three things we do not know we can calculate the doppler shift of a star based on a extrapolation of other things that have never been tested in that data range - If you do not believe in doppler you could set up a race track and take a video camera and could measure the location and time positions of the car and compare it with the doppler speed data for a wide variety of speeds less than 120 miles per hour that a commoner can afford a car to drive at but you can not drive your car at 3/4 the speed of light and take measurements.
"The primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would behave quite differently if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter"
That is not the primary evidence for dark matter that is the primary evidence of at least one of five things
1 the "physics" assumptions that led to you doing those calculations are wrong
2 You made an expertimental error collecting the data
3 You made an error doing the calculations with the data you collected
4 It's not the theoritical astrophysisicts fault some other physicist calculated G wrong they just plugged the wrong number someone else calculated into the correct equations
Although a novice would come to the instinctual conclusion that astronomers made a 85% error in how much mass is in the universe after further examination they would reslise it is only a negative 46 % error. But a true expert would say there was no calculation error at all for the mass except we put in the wrong value for G which was clearly wrong because we ignored those massive walls every time we did a calculation to figure out G
We really need to multiply or perhaps divide what we thought G was by 3.4225 to get the true value of G. Or perhaps G is another value altogether calculated a different way then how I suggested but it would not surprise me at all if G was pure fiction since g is measurable but no experiment to this day has used correct methodology to measure g that I know of taking into account the mass and position of the human being that looked into the equipment and the mass and position of any walls structures or buildings nearby. Perhaps it could be measured out doors far away from massive buildings in a region where local g measurements are consistent at several locations near the test site to make sure there is not extra density mass in a section of the ground nearby and with no wind to shift the results.
1.85 * 1.85 = 3.4225
It is theoritical that there is 85% more dark matter than expetimentally observed.
Traditional Percent Error formula based on assumption that the theory is correct and the experimental data is wrong
experimental - theoritical / theoritical
Theoritical amount of mass in universe = 1.85 * Experimental
( E - 1.85E ) / 1.85 E= - 0.85 / 1.85 = - 0.459459459459
So I made up a theory and my observed data does not match my theory, I know reality is wrong not my theory the error is in the data not the theory
Keeping it real percent error based on that the experimental observations are correct and the theory that dark matter exists is wrong
theoritical - experimental / experimental
( 1.85E - E ) / E = 0.85
5 There was never any data and this is a practical joke and the common people can not ever look into one of these expensive telescopes to find out there never were any observations just fabricated observations used as an excuse to request tax funding for research and to brag about how smart you are but humbly still not educated enough until you get more money because there is a 85% unknown missing matter mystery that needs more funding.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
http://web.archive.org/web/20220314215558/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
http://web.archive.org/web/20211126104210/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
http://web.archive.org/web/20220320133858/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
https://hubpages.com/@fatfist
http://web.archive.org/web/20220313060928/https://hubpages.com/@fatfist
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/OLBERS-PARADOX-A-Physical-Explanation-For-The-DARK-Night-Sky
http://web.archive.org/web/20210518201220/https://discover.hubpages.com/education/OLBERS-PARADOX-A-Physical-Explanation-For-The-DARK-Night-Sky
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=red+shift+not+caused+by+movement&ia=about
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=red+shift+beer+lambert&ia=web
The most absorbance is obtained when beam color is complementary to the color of solution.
https://colors-newyork.com/what-is-red-shift-what-does-it-indicate/
http://web.archive.org/web/20220323062447/https://colors-newyork.com/what-is-red-shift-what-does-it-indicate/
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://web.archive.org/web/20220321143913/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
The primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would behave quite differently if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter
http://web.archive.org/web/20220321143913/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
14 out of 54 mentions of walls
That is to say, we now accept apples as having easily measurable and verifiable gravitational attractions, but we ignore the gravitational attractions of walls weighing thousands of pounds.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20220130225907/http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
some scientists continue to work on models that might not require dark energy. Inhomogeneous cosmology falls into this class.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhomogeneous_cosmology
http://web.archive.org/web/20220322060158/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhomogeneous_cosmology
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter
http://web.archive.org/web/20220321143900/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom
http://web.archive.org/web/20220319073945/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom
No comments:
Post a Comment