neuvophysics.com      neuvophysics@Gmail.com

 

 

 

 

FASTER THAN LIGHT GALAXIES SHOW THAT RELATIVITY IS JUST A MYTH ?

 

Galaxies--- Noted by NASA to be Doppler shifted to faster than light status is a problem for relativity and apparently the idea of the universal reference frame non constancy of light. Under special relativity--- light speed is a constant in any given reference frame of motion and relativity could be applied to itself to solve the problem of light speed between faster than light reference frames which then makes the universal reference frame (URF) constancy relativistic and not true Minkowskian URF constancy. S-relativity wouldn't be able to apply to wavelength -allowing Doppler shifts- but it still can't deal with   accelerative   motion or any motion faster than the speed of light. It’s way out of its depth.

So out comes the metaphysical in the news: When it comes to these so called 'faster than light galaxies' this all becomes compounded by further magical ideas being proposed regarding (accelerating) space time expansion towards the edges of the universe--- Whatever that can be?-- sounds somewhat like terracentricty to me! Lunar centricity and flat Earth theories next perhaps???    

 

DISSECTING THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS    

First we should take a look at the analogy of sound and the Doppler shifts that are audible from moving objects. In that case we find that the SPEED OF SOUND IS REQUIRED TO REMAIN THE SAME or the Doppler shift would become changed or even negated if the speed of sound were to be changed in proportion to the speed of the sound-emitting-object in motion; for instance. Relative motion is treated similarly. Any idea proposing any change to the speed of sound in a defined medium would be idiotic. What about light then?    

So it is for light even with an undeclared medium! ---which medium is one of the reasons why I've also concluded that the speed of light is indeed a URF constant. If That is not declared to be the case then no sense will be able to made of anything at all relevant to this subject. That’s the only thing my theory has in common with relativity. G theory can allow faster than light galaxies near the edge of the universe. If you read between the lines it predicts it. Well galaxies are matter aren't they?

Although it is very noticeable that light hasn't changed its velocity in millions of years (in URF time), what about in the supposed distant past closer to the creation event itself? Before we answer that let's take a good look at Doppler shift.

 

Doppler shift for dummies

One simple analogy for frequency is wavefronts appearing like biscuit dough being dropped onto a conveyor belt and delivered at the other end via the oven at the same rate that they were dropped on, if nothing in the system changes.

If the speed of the belt changes AFTER they have been dropped then the frequency of arrival at the other end will be changed. This is why we assume a constant 'c' in the URF with what we generally observe. So because of what we actually observe we can call that a fact.

If we move the 'dropping machine' forward or backward at a rate relative to the conveyor belt at 'c' then we will see a corresponding change in the frequency of arrival of the cookies at the end. When the dropper is going away the frequency becomes slowed down (red shifted).

If we move the dropping machine away at the same speed as the conveyor belt; so long as the dropping machine is just dropping and not throwing forward we can still expect to see some (but fewer) lower frequency cookies arrive at the other end, and this also applies if the speed of the dropper going away is faster that 'c' i.e. the conveyor belt.

However if the dropper is going too fast and yet actually throwing the cookies forward onto the end of the belt then the speed of the dropper might be so fast we may not get any cookies onto the belt at all. This is the situation we find with build-rate emission energy wave fronts or in other words waveform type wave front 'cookies'. I.e. The wave must be able to build up for emission at faster than the speed of light for there to be any chance of a wavefront 'cookie' of even making it onto the conveyor belt.

In reality the cookies can't travel as fast as the conveyor so therefore it is not possible for emr frequency or waveform information to travel at all even if the galaxy is travelling away at the speed of light, and definitely not at all if it is faster.

Therefore observable red shifts of sufficient value can never be associated with galaxies travelling at anywhere near the speed of light unless we have 'dropping' type wavefronts requiring instantaneous build velocity of wavefronts. According to the laws of thermodynamics--- that is impossible and we also know from antenna engineering that such is not the case at all.

This can only mean one thing that light has changed its velocity in the URF over the aeons and what we see is actually slower than light galaxies from aeons ago -as per the theory of Barry Setterfield- and that can only mean that gravity was different in the past also. This conforms with the G-theory predictions already theorized in the thesis.

So It is probably stupid to conclude that anything travelling away from us at faster than the speed of light can actually be seen. It can't if c is a historical URF constant.

 

 

 

 

The relativistic analysis and explanation of this phenomenon are laughable.

 

It goes something like this--- 

1/ The galaxies are allowed to be observed as travelling faster than light but they're not really in actual fact because of the expansion of space time.

 

Or this--- 

2/ We are able to observe them because we are only seeing the light from them from when they were travelling less than the speed of light billions of years ago.

 

 Or this---

3/ We are able to observe that they are travelling faster than the speed of light now (in the present) by their observable Doppler shift.    

Ho ho ho--- and its not yet Christmas, but I needed a good belly laugh!

 

That's provable absurdity on several points.    

Response to 1/ Such a proposed expansion of space time means that the light would not be able to travel at any speed required for it to be observed ever*. Remember that the galaxies are travelling at faster than light so the space time adjustment would have to be in the negative. We could perhaps understand the argument if they were travelling at the speed of light. Oh no we couldn't--- they'd still have to be travelling at less than  'c'.

 

Response to 2/ Who said they were travelling at less than the speed of light back in the past? Oh it's because we are able to see them now. ---OK if that's your answer, then that just shifts the argument to the latter proposal which is responded to as follows.

 

Response to 3/ If you can only see the light from the past -when the galaxies were travelling at less than 'c'- then how come you can see the Doppler shifts now from the hyper speed galaxies if you can't yet see that light? The light hasn't arrived yet but you can observe Doppler shifts??? Unless the galaxies have always been travelling at sub 'c' then that's absurd!

 

If you think not then there is another real problem for SR -and many patch up solutions are bandied about in response I.e. in that suddenly the accepted wave nature of light now becomes the true sticking point. It rolls easily of the tongue to state that special relativity only applies to the velocity of light and not its frequency. I'm sure the synchrotron boys would love you for saying that--- they'll be looking for another explanation for their relativistic frequency upshift surely!   Note: refer to the -'synchrotron mechanics' tab.    

The problem is that if we treated sound the same way we treat light and apply some sort of relativistic bandaid to keep the speed of sound the same relative to motional reference frames by relativistically adjusting the speed through the air then we would actually annul the audible Doppler shift phenomenon that we are so familiar with. Therefore why is it any different for light. Why can we still even observe Doppler shifts? Oh--- I know the solution--- it's simple. "That's relativistic" is the glib repartee of the fool!    

Regardless of whether there is a known medium facilitating the propagation of light or not; the relativistic explanation is imbecilic -if you pardon the use of the word- but you relativists need to be pulled down from your ivory towers somehow. Get a grip! Stop with the arbitrary excuses and moronic explanations. If you won't listen to reason then you will be the laughing stock of the generation of physicists now being born unless you all decide to become the ones who finally saw the light. Excuse the pun.    

The whole relativistic interpretation is fundamentally based on specious assumptions about the light wave build velocity* as well as the emission velocity of such electrodynamic force fields as well as the speed of light and gravity. The fact is that none of us really knows off the 'top of our heads' so perhaps we would do well to analyse everything properly and all make reasoned judgments accordingly.  

*The laws of TD do NOT allow for instantaneity of action and this build of emr must occur at 'c' or less.   Phase and group velocities are relatively subjective and don't actually exist except in analysis of their interference interaction components, and that is nothing to do with emr build velocity.

G-theory provides a workable substitute theory for the complete paradigm and it even predicts a much lower gravity in the distant past so my interpretive agenda is simply a model fit and I'm breathing the fresh air of not having to make excuses for relativity any more.   Note: In G-theory most of the physics we have is considered to be just fine and those parts and the laws are strictly adhered to.

 

  CONCLUSION

1/Galaxies can't travel at faster than light or we won't see them at all. DUH!!!

2/ Whether they can or not; This observed red shift is still a problem for relativity as explained.

3/ It becomes conclusive that the speed of light must have changed in order to have caused such massive red shifts.

*This is proposed to be because the emission speed must be kept at 'c' between the motional reference frames. So if space time has expanded whether by space or time or both -who knows? Then the light would be slowed because of that. I.e. The light would only be travelling at 'c' within the reference frame of the expanded space time which is slower than the normal space time of our RF. In that case if we did ever see the light -then because of the sound analogy- The speed of the medium has changed so we wouldn't then see the Doppler shifts of 'faster than light' galaxies now would we?  No because the light is being emitted from galaxies that aren't actually travelling all that fast in their supposedly expanded RF. Therefore they don't actually emit light -in their motional RF- at speeds which could ever cause such an observed shift. The shift we should observe would only be the shift relative to the actual RF speed of the galaxy at that particular space time. Because relativity isn't supposed to affect observed Doppler shifts then even relativistic modification of the light speed between the RFs can't give us the Doppler shifts we observe no matter how your mind twists the paradigm to suit your fancy. Therefore the explanation involving expanded space time is pure drivel.    

Listen for all you people who can't get your head around all this stuff then please refrain from trying to explain the impossible. Relativity is now even more reasonably able to be considered to be impossibility, and G-theory offers a more tenable explanation. I.e. At some time in the past the speed of light was much greater than it is now! Gravity was likely to be also much weaker at the time in the past we are observing now because of the speed of light delay.    

That is: If the light from a galaxy moving fast in the away direction was already red shifted and if the light was also emitted at a much greater speed in the past, then as it slowed over time (conveyor belt slowing) the frequency wavelength expands to give us an even greater red shift.    

Note: I'm not explaining any of this in greater detail because this isn't a science lesson it's for physicists who already know. OK--- and dummies.

 

 

Related subject material

 

DOES TIME CHANGE IN RELATIVE MOTION RFs?    

 

According to the straight forward physics of G-theory--- time doesn't change in a moving RF relative to another RF, energy does, Thus the rate of doing work changes proportionally and we have an apparent time change only because an event in one RF will actually take longer -for instance- than in another. There's no 'apparently' about it. Energy also changes in varying gravitational fields.    

However this is very different to relativistic interpretations whereby in this case it's the difference between the speeds relative to the URF which causes the proportional relative energy change rather than the difference in relative speeds according to STR which -by the way- is something which hasn't actually been proven--- if you want to recheck your data--- for instance a high flying aircraft or GPS satellite with caesium clocks are in an altitude related different GD--- not necessarily the gravity differential but the actual density of the gravity field GS is changed for any given altitude. So any profession that these phenomena prove relativity is specious.    

So it is that the apparent time change is able to be inferred between motional RFs because they are both moving differently with respect to the URF and the resulting changes are summative according to the speed differential between them. At close to the speed of light the energy difference would be noticeable.   This will give only the appearance of S relativity as well as the expected observational relativity as per the Galilean transformation at low velocities.    

This however means that while the laws of physics might appear to be the same in each reference frame. They are   not  if the object is travelling faster than rest but this fact only ever becomes noticeable at hyper relative velocities that we don't necessarily observe*. A super high velocity galaxy for instance would be unable to support life or normal physical actions of any description except that each body and system in the universe is protected by its own local gravitational anomaly and it still has a speed limit in actuality. This means that hyper galaxy speed is only observable because the gravity differential becomes more unidirectional the closer we get to the edge of the universe which means that galaxies near the edge of the universe are literally being sucked -er I mean pushed- towards the edge of the cosmea and may then show Doppler shifts of staggering extent due to the changed speed of light near such event horizons. This is very similar to what occurs close to black holes.    

Because of this the expected energy change within the galaxy is ameliorated. The motion is relative to gravitational differential or GD which has changed.    

This all equates to the hypothesized space-time expansion towards the outer edge of the universe which is supposed to allow the motion of faster than light galaxies  and as we have seen this provides severe difficulties for the STR. I agree that they can travel at faster than light -relative to our RF- but then again perhaps we may actually be the ones near the edge!    

In relativistic thought -as always- there is never any known cause for such things as space time expansion even if it all has a nice ring about it. I must admit that 'space time continuum' sounds a lot more scientific and cool than GD. If we are into Sci Fi then that's fine but if we're into science it's not.    

By G-theory; objects don't normally travel at anywhere near the speed of light because of gravity-field-caused space drag which is the missing Newtonian inertial RF of velocity that led to the absurdity of S relativity in the first place.    

It's only because you have all got gravity operating back the front -and also without a phenomenology which recognises its dynamic force- that you are stuck with an inside out topsy-turvy relativistic paradigm. To any alien observer we must all look like a mob of morons! Time can change? Really!!! All that 'friggen well' changes is event duration and energy requirements for said event. If you were travelling in a spaceship at anywhere near the speed of light you would be flattened without any appearances about it being required at all. None of this G-theory phenomenology is required to keep 'c' constant in any RFs. 'c' is always a URF constant in similar GDs.    

This of course opens up another can of worms when it comes to 'simultaneity' observances, if light speed actually does change as we get closer to the edge of the universe for instance. This is because light itself has energy and time delayed build requirements for emission.    

*   What we do observe when accelerating a passel of hadrons in the LHC for instance is that the energy requirements for any increase in velocity have changed and this is according to the change in the rate of speed relative to gravity and not light.    

The laws of physics are able to change! There is no actual relativity of simultaneity* except for under similar gravitational conditions and low velocities and that is intuitive.    

I have developed all the gravitational energy equations in the thesis for which to calculate the energy requirements for any velocity relative to GD--- which I have done for ions in the LHC--- and that result is a statistical fit with the known facts.    

There can be no such thing as the SRT proposed relativity of simultaneity at hyper (above 'c') velocities because you run into an absurdity paradox when observing causes that happen before effects.

 

 

 

The next relating article I have inserted here just for you. It is probably the most astounding facet of G-theory. It is upon the knife edge of the outcome of the following argument that G-theory stands or falls.    

 

 

UNVEILING THE THEORIZED PROPAGATION MEDIUM FOR LIGHT     ---Is relativity and even E=mc2 destined for the dust bin of history?

Scientists such as Michelson and Morley have looked for the aether which supposedly allowed the propagation of light by attempting to detect its motion  relative to the earth as some sort of wind. The results have been essentially negative so the idea of an aether has been historically cast aside.    

However there is a proposed aether and it has been hidden in plain sight because nobody has to date understood its properties. That aether for the propagation of light is gravity acting in the vacuum. It is theorized to operate according to particle propagation statistic for light and not wave propagation statistics (WPS).   This would be defined as the gravitational stress tensor while the energy stress tensor is perhaps another yet to be discovered medium for propagation of true emr.  However it is thought that this would likely be the same medium but that isn't at all clear yet. I do thoughtfully consider that a flux such as gravity should also be able to ACT ACCORDING TO WPS.

Gravity is THEORIZED IN G-THEORY to be a hyper-velocity, omnilateral, scalar, matter transitioning flux, which exists invisibly -but definitely not undetectably- in an observably unobtrusive but perturbative dimension in the vacuum and it is deemed to have a definable interaction phenomenology with photons.* The interaction is finite and definitive and it provides light with its trademark speed and that is relative to the flux density of the gravity and nothing else.    

Michelson and Morley had the right idea to confine relativity to the WPB but unfortunately they had the wrong apparatus. There actually is a gravity wind -and it does actually provide a drag force in space* which is an idea which wasn't understood back in the day. So in that case there should actually be such a phenomenon as light speed anisotropy because of the motion of the earth through space. Such anisotropy can't however be seen in such experiments as Michelson Morley's because such an experiment involves mirrors. Also because of the herein theorized nature of light; Doppler shifts are ruled out as an analysis tool, and fringe shift analysis is annulled because of the reflection problem as well. Note: This reflection problem has been examined elsewhere in the thesis and has been noticed in light fibres.    

*Labelled by me as --- asymptotic hypervelocity inhibition

Having noted with avid interest that emr anisotropy in a coaxial cable has already been measured. I have warmed to the task in respect to light, and I have an idea regarding the post modern apparatus required to test for light anisotropy but I will need both interest in proceeding and funding- both of those in addition to the right team of scientists of course. Note: the experiment would best be carried out on the moon but for now I don't think that's an immediate possibility. It does stand that -even thought it won't be as accurate- a significant result should be obtainable on Earth.

*The complete phenomenological theory of photon- photon, photon- graviton and graviton-graviton to graviton-quark lattice interaction is unveiled in the thesis.

 

 

 

neuvophysics.com    neuvophysics@Gmail.com