Monochromatic laser light "redshifted" without relative motion?

[Jdizz]

I am looking for feedback from users who might know more or be able to repeat these experiments.

 

These experiments basically show that light loses or gains energy to a medium. I think we all note the atmosphere warming during the day.

 

Stretched out to a cosmological scale, as light travels it loses or gains energy to the intergalactic medium, and becomes red or blue shifted because of this.

 

These measurements were repeated with our sun and monochromatic laser light without relative motion.

 

R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-...isoredshift.pdf

 

 

Re: Could dark matter be nothing?

 

If it appears that the universe is not expanding, then the whole dark energy conjecture is not necessary, right???

Edited November 20, 2012 by Jdizz

[Spyman]

Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed — these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

 

 

The tired light effect was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 as a possible alternative explanation for the observed cosmological redshift. The basic proposal amounted to light losing energy ("getting tired") due to the distance it traveled rather than any metric expansion or physical recession of sources from observers. A traditional explanation of this effect was to attribute a dynamical friction to photons; the photons' gravitational interactions with stars and other material will progressively reduce their momentum, thus producing a redshift. Other proposals for explaining how photons could lose energy included the scattering of light by intervening material in a process similar to observed interstellar reddening. However, all these processes would also tend to blur images of distant objects, and no such blurring has been detected.

 

Traditional tired light has been found incompatible with the observed time dilation that is associated with the cosmological redshift. This idea is mostly remembered as a falsified alternative explanation for Hubble's law in most astronomy or cosmology discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift#Tired_light

 

 

Extinction is a term used in astronomy to describe the absorption and scattering of electromagnetic radiation by matter (dust and gas) between an emitting astronomical object and the observer. Interstellar extinction—also called Galactic extinction, when it occurs in the Milky Way—was first recognized as such in 1930 by Robert Julius Trumpler. However, its effects had been noted in 1847 by Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve, and its effect on the colors of stars had been observed by a number of individuals who did not connect it with the general presence of Galactic dust. For stars that lie near the plane of the Milky Way and are within a few thousand parsecs of the Earth, extinction in the V band is on the order of 1.8 magnitudes per kiloparsec.

 

For Earth-bound observers, extinction arises both from the interstellar medium (ISM) and the Earth's atmosphere; it may also arise from circumstellar dust around an observed object. The strong atmospheric extinction in some wavelength regions (such as X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared) requires the use of space-based observatories. Since blue light is much more strongly attenuated than red light, extinction causes objects to appear redder than expected, a phenomenon referred to as interstellar reddening. This is not to be confused with the quite separate phenomenon of red shift.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_(astronomy)

 

 

In astronomy, interstellar reddening is a phenomenon associated with interstellar extinction where the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from a radiation source changes characteristics from that which the object originally emitted. Reddening occurs due to the light scattering off dust and other matter in the interstellar medium. Interstellar reddening should not be confused with the redshift, which is the proportional frequency shifts of spectra without distortion. Reddening preferentially removes shorter wavelength photons from a radiated spectrum while leaving behind the longer wavelength photons (in the optical, light that is redder), leaving the spectroscopic lines unchanged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_reddening#Interstellar_reddening

[imatfaal]

Jdizz

Further to Spyman - and regarding your question about dark matter - tired light (or whatever name you would prefer) would not explain the weak gravitational lensing we can observe from clusters and filaments of dark matter

 

http://scienceblogs....l-lensing-show/

[Jdizz]

Zwicky proposed the hypothesis that light loses energy to intergalactic gases based on the mechanism of scattering.

 

Such a scattering origin was correctly dismissed because it would have prevented a clear view of the galaxies because scattering does not cause a redshift and other correct reasons which led to the expansion of the universe as the only plausible alternative at that time.

 

The reason I initiated this post is because I would appreciate technical comments, not on tired light which I know well, but on the new mechanism for light losing energy to a gaseous medium recently identified by various experimentalists.

 

See a summary here: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt (80mb)

 

As you can see spectroscopic measurements conducted on two continents establishes that the entire spectrum of "direct" sunlight shifts for about 100nm in the transition from the zenith to the horizon without any relative motion between the earth, the medium, and the observer.

 

This new event is called IsoRedShift (IRS) due to the new mathematics used for its derivation called Isomathematics.

 

The points on which I would appreciate comments is the redshift without relative motion as it may be evidence on the lack of expansion of the universe.

 

It is my opinion that cosmological theories have recently gone astray for too many hyperbolic conjectures.

 

Note that the IRS refers solely to direct sunlight. It is evident that some of the sunlight scatters in Earth's atmosphere creating the colors of our atmosphere, but a portion of this sunlight reaches us on a direct line.

 

This seems to be very similar to astrophysical measurements in which we have the cosmological redshift for the frequency combined with measurements of the intensity (luminosity) of galaxies.

 

I appreciate your mentioning of the extinction theory which in a scientific democracy should be considered jointly with others.

 

However, I have to emphatically stress that this extinction theory is purely conjectural with no possibility whatsoever of experimental verifications on Earth while by comparison, the lack of expansion of the universe based on the IRS mechanism is totally established via repeatable experiments on Earth.

 

Sorry, but I prefer to follow Galileo's teaching which solely suggests cosmological theories after that they have been established by experiments based on Earth.

 

Jdizz

Further to Spyman - and regarding your question about dark matter - tired light (or whatever name you would prefer) would not explain the weak gravitational lensing we can observe from clusters and filaments of dark matter

 

http://scienceblogs....l-lensing-show/

 

I'm sorry despite my best intention I did not understand your post because the effect that you refer to is purely gravitational and has no serious connection with dark matter and all that.

 

You should also know that the conjecture of dark matter is considered nowadays pure science fiction and not serious science for several reasons.

 

If a galaxy is permeated by dark matter, that galaxy should contract because mandated by Newton's gravitation, galaxies do not contract. Therefore dark matter can not permeate throughout the universe.

 

Second, if dark matter is uniformly distributed, it will cause no effect whatsoever on the dynamics of individual stars.

 

Next, to reach any anomalous behavior, of a peripheral galactic star, dark matter should be inhomogeneously distributed around that star, but then nearby stars would be completely outside of measurements.

 

Should I list a few links?

 

Science fiction is often more plausible than the extremely far fetched conjectures of dark matter, dark energy, and all that.

 

In fact, science fiction usually provides at least a hypothetical interpretation of a phenomenon while dark matter/energy provide no serious representations of the very data for which they were proposed thus being beyond the level of science fiction.

[Jdizz]

If I am reading this correctly I would expect in a 10 bar atmosphere the sky would still be blue but the disc of the sun would appear redder than the one we see on earth at zenith and the sun would appear more and more red as it left zenith and approached the horizon. Am i reading that correctly?

 

No. The IsoRedShift (IRS) is proportional to the distance of direct sunlight traveling in air at one atmosphere or alternatively proportional to the increase of the pressure for a fixed travel.

 

Therefore, in a planetary gas at 10 atmosphere, the prediction is that the sun can not be seen at all and the sky is black.

 

In fact for our atmosphere blue light shifts 100nm all the way into red light and red-light shifts 100nm all the way into the infrared. I have not done the calculations but at 10 times the pressure, I would venture sunlight could be transmuted into radiowaves.

 

As an interesting point, note the prediction in the papers in the field that sunset and sunrise are dominated by blue light rather than red light under the condition that the atmosphere is sufficiently hot.

 

In fact, measurements on monochromatic laser light show very clearly the increase of the frequency when traversing a gas hotter than 140 F.

 

See: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt

 

I would expect a denser atmosphere to contain a heavier load of particulates therefore it would make sense the sun would appear redder but the sky should still be blue or possibly blue/white. Someplace i read that the composition of the atmosphere is also important, an atmosphere containing high levels of methane would appear green instead of blue. I can't remember where I read that...

 

You are raising very interesting points that can indeed be confirmed by measurements on earth passing throughout a tube containing various gases at different pressures. (I have been told that the Santilli Foundation is offering a grant for the conduction of these measurements, but I'm not sure if they are available.) One point appears to be certain, namely that the entire spectrum of sunlight loses energy to the gaseous medium when at temperatures below 70F. It is expected that this loss of energy is different for different gases. Therefore the sun could indeed be green in a methane atmosphere in the event the IRS in a methane gas is half the IRS in our atmosphere.

 

 

I stand ready to be corrected, but I think the majority of the reddening comes from the particulates in the atmosphere. This is why, for example, there were great sunsets worldwide after Krakatoa erupted and the Tunguska bolide struck. If that is the case then I would expect a redder sun, up to a point, but thereafter a redder and dimmer sun. Logical?

 

You are of course correct because we all have observed an increase of redness over cities compared to open grounds. This is due to inelastic scattering of sunlight with atmospheric particulates.

 

By recalling that elastic scattering causes no frequency shift, your observation is confirmed by the fact that the red color of the area surrounding the sun at sunset is much more red than the direct sunlight.

 

Therefore your comments refers to the color of the atmosphere and not to the color of direct sunlight at sunset which remains unaffected by particulates according to available repeated measurements

 

See: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt

 

 

Rayleigh scattering is responsible for the blue sky and red sunrise/sunset, and is for particles much smaller than the wavelength; the scattering strongly depends on the wavelength. For larger particles it's Mie scattering, which is forward-biased. So it depends on the size of the particulates. Though I expect it's the smaller ones that stay airborne for a while and cause the coloring well after the event.

 

http://en.wikipedia....eigh_scattering

http://en.wikipedia..../Mie_scattering

 

Your views are correct to my knowledge with the clarification that Rayleigh, Mie, and other scattering theories deal specifically with the color of our atmosphere and they are inapplicable to direct sunlight.

 

In fact, in the absence of scattering, our sky would be black day and night - which is not case. By contrast, no credible scattering can be proffered for direct sunlight that is reaching us on a straight line. A colleague recently sent me a paper clarifying the above point with great clarity.

 

http://www.scientifi...sms-Gandzha.pdf

[swansont]

In fact, in the absence of scattering, our sky would be black day and night - which is not case. By contrast, no credible scattering can be proffered for direct sunlight that is reaching us on a straight line. A colleague recently sent me a paper clarifying the above point with great clarity.

 

http://www.scientifi...sms-Gandzha.pdf

Direct sunlight will have light preferentially scattered out of it.

 

(I find it amusing to see "credible" used in proximity to that link.)

[Moontanman]

No. The IsoRedShift (IRS) is proportional to the distance of direct sunlight traveling in air at one atmosphere or alternatively proportional to the increase of the pressure for a fixed travel.

 

Therefore, in a planetary gas at 10 atmosphere, the prediction is that the sun can not be seen at all and the sky is black.

 

Since we know the sky of Venus is not black even though it has a 90 bar atmosphere I doubt that at 10 bar the sky would be black.

[D H]

Moontanman, jdizz is spouting nonsense. There is no "IsoRedShift". Post #5 by swansont is the correct answer.

 

Edit

Post #5 in the original thread is the correct answer.

Edited November 22, 2012 by D H

[Spyman]

However, I have to emphatically stress that this extinction theory is purely conjectural with no possibility whatsoever of experimental verifications on Earth while by comparison, the lack of expansion of the universe based on the IRS mechanism is totally established via repeatable experiments on Earth.

I think you should reconsider, Extinction is not a hypothetical theory, it is the name for a confirmed phenomenon based on observational evidence from measurements and experiments on Earth since 1930 and by satellites in more recent times.

 

In contrast Ruggero Santilli's IsoRedShift is definitely NOT established, verified and accepted by scientific consensus.

 

You are free to retain your own opinion but the fact is that Extinction is confirmed and IsoRedShift is at best fringe science.

 

"Ruggero Maria Santilli (born September 8, 1935) is an Italian-American physicist, and a proponent of ideas, some of which have been called fringe scientific theories."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli

 

 

You should also know that the conjecture of dark matter is considered nowadays pure science fiction and not serious science for several reasons.

Once again, you can have whatever opinion you want but the true fact is that dark matter is accepted by mainstream science.

 

"Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, several alternative theories have been proposed to try to explain the anomalies for which dark matter is intended to account."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

(Bold by me)

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Jdizz,

I've split the last couple of posts from another thread you hijacked and have merged it with this one. Please know that you are not permitted to introduce speculative material into threads in the mainstream science forums. Keep your pet theory to this thread and this thread only.

Do not respond to this modnote. If you wish to discuss the issue, please use the report feature or PM a member of staff.

[alpha2cen]

I am looking for feedback from users who might know more or be able to repeat these experiments.

 

These experiments basically show that light loses or gains energy to a medium. I think we all note the atmosphere warming during the day.

 

Stretched out to a cosmological scale, as light travels it loses or gains energy to the intergalactic medium, and becomes red or blue shifted because of this.

 

These measurements were repeated with our sun and monochromatic laser light without relative motion.

 

What is the driving force of light moving?

Generally, driving force is this kind of formula.

d T/dx, dC/dx, dp/dx, etc.

[michel123456]

Moontanman, jdizz is spouting nonsense. There is no "IsoRedShift". Post #5 by swansont is the correct answer.

 

Edit

Post #5 in the original thread is the correct answer.

 

Where is it?

[Spyman]

In Astronomy and Cosmology:

 

The thread is: Sun color related to atmospheric pressure? and Post #5 there.

[alpha2cen]

This is a summary diagram for this topic.

Main stream is number 1), i.e., the Universe expansion.

[swansont]

This is a summary diagram for this topic.

Main stream is number 1), i.e., the Universe expansion.

No, this does not appear to have anything to do with the topic.

[Jdizz]

Since we know the sky of Venus is not black even though it has a 90 bar atmosphere I doubt that at 10 bar the sky would be black.

 

As I said, that was a prediction of mine.

 

I do not know yet, as I do not know the law of the dependence of the IRS on the pressure.

 

Besides, Venus' atmosphere is very hot and when viewing from the surface we may have an IsoBlueShift (IBS.)

 

The only conclusion at this moment is that we do not know and can not apply the measurements from earth to venus.

[swansont]

You're getting ahead of yourself. One must at least raise an eyebrow when the only person to have observed the effect is the one who proposed it in the first place, and in a journal of questionable reputation. On cannot proceed as if the effect is valid and correct science.

[alpha2cen]

If we can see X ray near the beginning of the Universe, the empty area in the Space, itself, will be very clean.

High energy beam can not pass through the dust or gas area without loosing energy.

http://www.redorbit....chandra-112912/

And, if the measured distance is correct, the empty space clarity will be very high.

Edited November 30, 2012 by alpha2cen