Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Cosmological drag?

Expand Messages
  • c.h.thompson
    Dear Aleksandr ... Yes, I agree. ... Yes, I too have found a limited need to think about these boundary areas. I was trying to account for the fact that
    Message 1 of 7 , May 26, 2001
      Dear Aleksandr

      > The nonlinearity of deep space in relation to
      > propagation of electromagnetic waves is the reason " of red
      > displacement " and other changes of frequency.

      Yes, I agree.

      > Space and boundary areas (nonlinearity) between units of space
      > The universe, observed by us,
      > is derivated by infinite hierarchies of planetary
      > systems of a various physical nature. Each of stationary (planetary)
      > system generates the its own unit of space. The hierarchies of these
      > units of space generate space of the Universe. Between units of space
      > there are boundary areas ...

      Yes, I too have found a limited need to think about these boundary areas. I
      was trying to account for the fact that Dayton Miller detected an aether
      drift of only about 10 km/s instead of the 300 km/s that might have been
      expected due to the motion of the Solar system. I think there can be fairly
      sudden changes in aether velocity at boundaries such as the heliopause.

      > The red shift
      > 1. One from properties of boundary area between gravitational
      > stationary (planetary) systems is the transformation of frequency
      > of an incident electromagnetic wave (analog of Raman's effect for
      > gravitational systems).

      Could you possibly remind me what the Raman effect is? I have no text books

      > ... for far systems we do not know theirs true positions
      > in space.

      Agreed! We know really very little. Even the red shift itself could be
      partly an experimental artifact (for example if the velocity of very very
      weak, very incoherent, light in glass if not the same as that in laboratory
      conditions), or the result of biased "corrections" to the data.

      > There are others otherwise-minded conceptual approaches:
      > http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep3-17.htm

      I found this just what I wanted! I have recently read a biography of Hubble
      and it told me nothing compared to this essay. It did point out that Hubble
      tried always to say "apparent velocity" when talking of the red shift, but
      it did not tell me that it was Einstein and his followers who actively
      distorted history, attributing the whole expanding universe idea to him!

      > http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep4th2.htm

      Yes, we should assume that the aether is moving in ways that we don't know
      because ever since Einstein and Shankland rubbished Miller's results we have
      not been looking!

      See www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.