The Redshift

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

The mysterious Veegtrón!

 

Read Wikipedia: do not know what causes the photon. I have discovered, that makes it, the same particle moving waves of mobile phones, television, radio and others.

 

How it works the Veegtrón: when it vibrates to create waves, when it shines is to create the light when heated by the Sun is to create heat, when cooled in the darkness is to create the cold when it changes color it is to change the color of the light and is a magnet for colors because he magnetized the color of an object when you move sharply.

 

The Veegtrón also does the following moves the magnetism of the Sun to keep the planets in orbit, move the magnetism of the magnet to attract the iron a little retired, move the magnetism of the planets to attract the moons and move the magnetism of atoms to create strong and weak force, nothing moves only attract an object without touching it is magic and magic does not exist. But with the Veegtrón remove the magic to be the Veegtrón between objects and the universe to be the Veegtrón between the planets and galaxies.

 

The Veegtrón also takes away the weight to the planets by immersing them in a Lake of Veegtrones. The universe is fact transparent Veegtrones us confused and makes us believe that there is a vacuum, but nothing can not be made of nothing but Veegtrones moving waves.

 

An example of the Veegtrón in operation: when the Veegtrones are light, they also produce waves, this is due to that when the Veegtrón shines, it vibrates also together. This is an example that explains the phenomenon of light waves.

 

In conclusion: the Veegtrón "Vibrates", "Shine", "Heated", "Cool", "Change color", "Carries the magnetism" and "Acts as a Lake of planets". Their existence explains some phenomena of nature.

 

Very affectionate

Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez

June 10, 2011

[Fuzzwood]

Any scientific data to support this hypothesis?

[mississippichem]

The mysterious Veegtrón!

 

Read Wikipedia: do not know what causes the photon. I have discovered, that makes it, the same particle moving waves of mobile phones, television, radio and others.

 

How it works the Veegtrón: when it vibrates to create waves, when it shines is to create the light when heated by the Sun is to create heat, when cooled in the darkness is to create the cold when it changes color it is to change the color of the light and is a magnet for colors because he magnetized the color of an object when you move sharply.

 

The Veegtrón also does the following moves the magnetism of the Sun to keep the planets in orbit, move the magnetism of the magnet to attract the iron a little retired, move the magnetism of the planets to attract the moons and move the magnetism of atoms to create strong and weak force, nothing moves only attract an object without touching it is magic and magic does not exist. But with the Veegtrón remove the magic to be the Veegtrón between objects and the universe to be the Veegtrón between the planets and galaxies.

 

The Veegtrón also takes away the weight to the planets by immersing them in a Lake of Veegtrones. The universe is fact transparent Veegtrones us confused and makes us believe that there is a vacuum, but nothing can not be made of nothing but Veegtrones moving waves.

 

An example of the Veegtrón in operation: when the Veegtrones are light, they also produce waves, this is due to that when the Veegtrón shines, it vibrates also together. This is an example that explains the phenomenon of light waves.

 

In conclusion: the Veegtrón "Vibrates", "Shine", "Heated", "Cool", "Change color", "Carries the magnetism" and "Acts as a Lake of planets". Their existence explains some phenomena of nature.

 

Very affectionate

Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez

June 10, 2011

 

Moved to speculations. None of this is supported by established physics.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

The redshift

 

This occurs because the color red weighs more than other colors. For each light produces a different wavelength, it is because each light has a different weight and Red is greater.

 

According to my theory (http://www.theory-espinoza.es.tl):

 

A wave is a vibration of the Veegtrón and the colors are different waves because they have different weights. Let us remember that the waves produces a coup.

 

The Veegtrón of the red light is attracted by the Veegtrón of blue light, but as the red light weighs more, the movement happens towards the red.

 

Very affectionate

Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez

July 25, 2011

[mooeypoo]

Light has weight?

 

Weight is the force created by mass... and... light has no mass.

 

How does that work in your theory? Also, what's "Veegtron" ?

 

Your website has no explanation or supporting evidence to any of this. Also, the fact it's all images makes it difficult to copy/paste specific claims. I'd love it if you could supply your supporting evidence and some explanation of how light can have mass without exhibiting any of the properties of having mass. So, not only is there no evidence that light has mass, there's evidence light is massless -- that is, there's strong evidence AGAINST your theory.

 

You are in need of some substantiation here.

 

~mooey

[Dekan]

A very interesting idea, that red light weighs more than other colours. Isn't it supported by observational evidence?

 

Evidence such as the appearance of the Sun. When we see the Sun high in the sky, it has a white or yellow colour. But - what about when it's low down in the sky, and close to the Earth's horizon - eg, at sunset?

 

Then we see it as red. This red colour could be explained, by the heavier red light-rays, getting "dragged down" by the proximity of the Earth's horizon. The horizon would naturally pull more strongly on " heavy" rays. Which explains why the red rays, get concentrated down at the horizon.

 

However, the horizon does not pull so strongly on the less heavy, blue rays. So these blue rays escape upwards, towards the zenith. Which accounts for the zenith still being blue, at sunset.

 

Isn't that a highly satisfactory scientific explanation of the "red sunset" phenomenon?

[mooeypoo]

No.. it's not.

 

We know how to explain the color of the sun, as well as redshift with the currently well-researched, well-supported properties of light.

 

• Different types of redshifts (and explanation): http://www.astro.vir...ry/redshift.htm
• Quick summary of observations: http://en.wikipedia....ns_in_astronomy (Also, the entire page is very informative as to what redshift is in general and how it is supported)
• Another explanation (with the mathematical support) of redshift: http://hyperphysics....tro/redshf.html

• The physics of Sunsets: http://www.physicscl...ight/u12l2f.cfm
• Another piece of information about the physics of sunsets: http://www.newton.de...00/phy00798.htm

Beyond that, the idea that light has mass makes no sense as to what we see and our current observations about photons as massless particles.

 

And finally, if light has mass, how is it that when it hits you it doesn't exert force on you? According to this idea, I should be able to move items if I shine a light one them. Blue light would move these slowly, while red light would move them a lot. And yet, that doesn't happen. How is that explained for this theory to be relevant?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And finally, if light has mass, how is it that when it hits you it doesn't exert force on you? According to this idea, I should be able to move items if I shine a light one them. Blue light would move these slowly, while red light would move them a lot. And yet, that doesn't happen. How is that explained for this theory to be relevant?

Light does exert force on objects it strikes; that's called radiation pressure, and is why solar sails work. Furthermore, that force is indeed dependent on color -- specifically, the force depends on the light's momentum, which in turn depends on its energy, which is a function of wavelength. This would of course make blue light more powerful than red light, rather than the other way around.

 

However, light does not have mass.

 

As for Dekan's explanation: no, that does not make sense. With the Sun at horizon-level, if one color were heavier than another, we'd see a smeared-out rainbow-like image of the sun. The red Sun would appear low, since the red light is dragged down; the blue portion of the sun's light would appear higher, making the Sun look like a poorly-printed newspaper whose colors don't quite line up.

 

Sunsets are already adequately explained by Rayleigh scattering.

[mooeypoo]

Light does exert force on objects it strikes; that's called radiation pressure, and is why solar sails work. Furthermore, that force is indeed dependent on color -- specifically, the force depends on the light's momentum, which in turn depends on its energy, which is a function of wavelength. This would of course make blue light more powerful than red light, rather than the other way around.

 

However, light does not have mass.

 

As for Dekan's explanation: no, that does not make sense. With the Sun at horizon-level, if one color were heavier than another, we'd see a smeared-out rainbow-like image of the sun. The red Sun would appear low, since the red light is dragged down; the blue portion of the sun's light would appear higher, making the Sun look like a poorly-printed newspaper whose colors don't quite line up.

 

Sunsets are already adequately explained by Rayleigh scattering.

 

You know, the moment I posted it, I realized this caveat. I accept your point.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Light does exert force on objects it strikes; that's called radiation pressure, and is why solar sails work. Furthermore, that force is indeed dependent on color -- specifically, the force depends on the light's momentum, which in turn depends on its energy, which is a function of wavelength. This would of course make blue light more powerful than red light, rather than the other way around.

 

However, light does not have mass.

 

As for Dekan's explanation: no, that does not make sense. With the Sun at horizon-level, if one color were heavier than another, we'd see a smeared-out rainbow-like image of the sun. The red Sun would appear low, since the red light is dragged down; the blue portion of the sun's light would appear higher, making the Sun look like a poorly-printed newspaper whose colors don't quite line up.

 

Sunsets are already adequately explained by Rayleigh scattering.

 

...and if you take weight as force affected by gravitation, then photons could be considered to have "weight", again with blue being "heavier" than red, though I'm not sure if that would be considered "weight".

 

If you had something on a scale, and it absorbed a photon it would weigh more...and more if it was blue than if it was red.

[mooeypoo]

...and if you take weight as force affected by gravitation, then photons could be considered to have "weight", again with blue being "heavier" than red, though I'm not sure if that would be considered "weight".

 

If you had something on a scale, and it absorbed a photon it would weigh more...and more if it was blue than if it was red.

 

That would be because of the mass-energy equivalence, wouldn't it? That doesn't mean the photon has mass, it just means energy and mass are interchangeable through formulas like E=mc^2 ...

[J.C.MacSwell]

That would be because of the mass-energy equivalence, wouldn't it? That doesn't mean the photon has mass, it just means energy and mass are interchangeable through formulas like E=mc^2 ...

 

Yeah, my thing on the scale gained mass...so of course it weighs more.

 

At that point I'm not really weighing a photon though...

 

Picture trying to chase one down with a scale. If you tried to time it so that you were at 99.9%c as it went by you would have redshifted most of the energy out of existence in your new frame...so by succeeding in doing this you would have lost most of what you were trying to weigh and still no further ahead!

[doG]

Red shift is just doppler shift. It doesn't mean the light is actually red, just that the wavelength of light radiated from an object moving away from you is stretched and therefore shifted in the direction of the red end of the spectrum.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

It is true, is incredible to think that sunlight has weight. (that is my explanation to each color of light has a different wavelength). What I've been thinking and I find no other explanation. A wave is created by weight.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Victor Elias Espinoza G.

[mooeypoo]

It is true, is incredible to think that sunlight has weight. (that is my explanation to each color of light has a different wavelength). What I've been thinking and I find no other explanation. A wave is created by weight.

 

The fact *you* can't think of no other explanation doesn't mean none exists. In fact, we posted a few of those explanations to various phenomena.

 

So what is the evidence that you have to show us that light has weight?

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

Light vibrate particles that produce waves of radio, television, mobile phones and others. Each color a different vibration.

[mooeypoo]

Light vibrate particles that produce waves of radio, television, mobile phones and others. Each color a different vibration.

 

You mean each color is a different frequency? This supports current understanding of redshift, not quite the idea you're proposing? Again, Victor, what is your actual evidence for light having mass, other than just one-liners?

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

That frequencies are only caused by blows. In this case the light hits and produces different frequencies. Only the weight can cause a stroke.

Light produces frequencies and is the only way to produce frequencies with weight.

[mooeypoo]

That frequencies are only caused by blows. In this case the light hits and produces different frequencies. Only the weight can cause a stroke.

Light produces frequencies and is the only way to produce frequencies with weight.

 

Viktor, it's very hard to discuss this theory with you if your statements are vague and use non-common terms. What is 'blows'? What do you mean by that? blows made by what? Light hits what to produce these blows, do you mean it's moving in a medium? That's also against the mainstream current thinking, so that, too, will require you produce evidence for.

 

Also, I would like you to explain if when you speak of light you refer to *all* the electromagnetic spectrum or just the segment of visible light. Do radio waves (which are outside the visible spectrum) have mass too? If so, how would you propose we see the effects of them having mass, and if not, then the fact they too have energy might prove as a problem to your idea.

 

 

Finally, Victor, we're not a sound-stage, we're a scientific forum. I think you should go over our "So you have a new theory" sticky post, it has a lot of points for you to take into account if you wish to convince us of the validity of your theory. We ask that you substantiate your statements, and making a repeated claim that has no proof attached to it (or evidence of any kind) is not considered substantiation.

 

Your idea stands against current theories that are well established with evidence and observation and repeatable experiments. The only way for you to convince anyone of the merit of your claim is if you produce counter-evidence. One-liner empty claims won't do.

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

You are trying to say that the light has no waves!

 

I I mean blow when we hit a wood and then runs a frequency for the wood. The same happens with the light, the light hits the universe and produces frequencies that are muven throughout the universe.

 

Many experiments say that light has waves, but no one had asked why is the light produces waves. I say that it is by weight.

 

You and what you say so that light can produce waves? We add new ideas to the experiments on the light.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Victor Elias Espinoza G.

[mooeypoo]

You are trying to say that the light has no waves!

I said no such thing.

 

You seem to say that these waves "bump" or "hit" something, which means that these waves are moving in a medium. Is that your claim? I simply ask that you clarify, because if this IS your claim, you need to bring forth an explanation and evidence for this.

 

I I mean blow when we hit a wood and then runs a frequency for the wood. The same happens with the light, the light hits the universe and produces frequencies that are muven throughout the universe.

If that's the point, then light hits *something*. Our current understanding (which has evidence and repeatable experiments and proof) is that light does NOT require a medium to move in, even though it's a wave.

 

You propose different.

Bring up evidence.

 

Many experiments say that light has waves, but no one had asked why is the light produces waves. I say that it is by weight.

 

You and what you say so that light can produce waves? We add new ideas to the experiments on the light.

 

I'm not arguing that light isn't a wave. I want to see your evidence that these waves move in a medium and "bump" the medium.

 

When light is emitted from the sun, it moves in space before it hits the atmosphere. Is it "bumping" anything along the way, or just in the atmosphere? If it does, "bump" things in the atmosphere, then I recommend you go back up and read the Rayleigh scattering effect and the links I posted, since this is *explained* without the necessity of adding mass to the light.

 

You make claims, Victor. You need to bring the proof for these claims.

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You are trying to say that the light has no waves!

 

I I mean blow when we hit a wood and then runs a frequency for the wood. The same happens with the light, the light hits the universe and produces frequencies that are muven throughout the universe.

What exactly does it hit? Objects? "The universe"? Air?

 

How does light propagate through a vacuum?

[Victor Elias Espinoza G.]

I have come to the conclusion that the vacuum does not exist, but that the universe consists of a particle that moves the waves of a Galaxy to another and have called you Veegtrón. www.theory-Espinoza.es.tl

 

Or http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58697-the-mysterious-veegtron/

 

Nothing can not be composed of nothing!

Edited July 27, 2011 by Victor Elias Espinoza G.

[mooeypoo]

I have come to the conclusion that the vacuum does not exist, but that the universe consists of a particle that moves the waves of a Galaxy to another and have called you Veegtrón. www.theory-Espinoza.es.tl

 

Or http://www.sciencefo...rious-veegtron/

 

Nothing can not be composed of nothing!

 

As was mentioned before,your site doesn't have a single proper piece of evidence. It only offers a lecture-type series of images that provide no explanation as to the current phenomena we know explained by current theories, or your evidence for ANY of your claims.

 

We're not here to promote your site. We are here to discuss scientific data and scientific theory. Can you provide ANY sort of evidence at ALL ?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nothing can not be composed of nothing!

Why not?