particle physics in a pig's eye

[Days]

A PhD Doesn't Earn a Living Until He Is 30 Years Old. All That Produces Is Crooks, Quacks, and Crackpots

It is gibberish only to those who have been programmed by decadent escapists scientists. Selling their minds into slavery because they're too lazy to think for themselves, they compound their uselessness by becoming authoritarians against anyone with common sense. These Quantum Quacks always close whatever rational explanations they can't deal with, which is why you follow their lead and reject the conclusion that such light gets here a lot faster than we are allowed to think. So it is not 12 billion light-years away, as in my example, the vehicle was not here 2 minutes ago, but 2 seconds ago.

No matter how fast the wave is moving, it is still dissipating into the space it is filling. No matter how far all these galaxies are actually away from us, the volume of stellar wind is the same. If everything is 1000 times closer than we think, the cross winds are 1000x stronger, either way, the most distant starlight is never going to survive the journey to our telescope lens. The scientists all assume we can only detect that which reaches us, what they fail to take in account is that the light has to make that journey. They never think about the journey... they assume the journey is accomplished because they assume the light hit the lens of the telescope, but when you stop to think about it, the journey is utterly impossible.

 

[Woolleybugger]

All the physicists disagree with you, and me, and we are not wrong.

Except you are saying our telescopes travel 10 billion light years to meet the last vestige of intact starlight, which has traveled 2 billion years to that point. I have never done the math, so I'm going to agree with you, but whatever it is, it has to be the telescope traveling to the starlight because the starlight simply does not make it to the telescope.

here's why:

The Stellar Wind​

There are billions upon billion of stars out there, it is worse than that, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, each filled with billions of stars. And they are all broadcasting from the same nuclear explosion: fusion. We can detect their broadcast across a wide range of frequency, we can even listen to the stars burning if we tune into the frequency range of sound. Starlight isn't near as interesting to listen to as a wood fire is, but it is real enough, and we do listen to it. That's what that dish in Australia was doing... the one that NASA commandeered for the Apollo missions.

Okay, so realize, as that electromagnetic wave is traveling, it is expanding in every direction and it is dissipating, thinning, filling space, however you want to think of it. Now, think of all those other stars. Their electromagnetic waves are doing the same thing. Think how much cross traffic that is, and every star is emitting the same frequencies. So, as the starlight becomes very weak, which it does in short order, travel 50 million light years from an average star and it is no longer visible to the naked eye (maybe it is 100 million light years?) but the electromagnetic wave is still there, it is just getting real thin, real dilute, and it continues to dissipate. By the time the light from a star, 12 billion light years away, has reached us, that star's light has filled the void in every direction of a globe 24 billion light years in diameter. That's the same size as the known universe.

So what happens when the electromagnetic wave gets weak and gets hit by cross winds, stronger electromagnetic waves from other stars? The wave literally gets washed away. Trillions of galaxies of stars, closer to us than that 12 billion light year away galaxy, have long since washed away the light from that far away galaxy, the light never makes it to our telescope. So it must be the telescope that is traveling to the light, not the other way around.​

I have no idea what you mean by a telescope traveling through space while observing light. Makes absolutely no sense. The light that hits a telescope exists at the lens at the moment it hits the telescope. Move the telescope back or forward and the same thing occurs. Whatever reasoning you use for distant objects would also apply to nearby objects. Care to explain how the light from the moon seen by my eye is actually my eye moving towards the moon?

 

[Days]

I have no idea what you mean by a telescope traveling through space while observing light. Makes absolutely no sense. The light that hits a telescope exists at the lens at the moment it hits the telescope. Move the telescope back or forward and the same thing occurs. Whatever reasoning you use for distant objects would also apply to nearby objects. Care to explain how the light from the moon seen by my eye is actually my eye moving towards the moon?

Not sure I understand it myself. What I do understand is this; a galaxy 12 billion light years off in the distance, is not shining one photon of light onto our telescopes. Absolutely no starlight can travel 12 billion light years and still exist, there is no image on the lens that can be magnified. The idea that the lens magnification can pull you forward to a location where the image still exists sounds just as impossible to me as it does to you, but we have all seen the pics, so the telescope is capturing the light, and there's no way that image of light still existed after traveling 12 BILLION LIGHT YEARS.

Don't think of the distance in terms of years, think of it in terms of distance, think of the journey the wave of light is making... it never reaches here, it never reaches half way here, it is hard to imagine it traveling through 2 billion light years of stellar wind and surviving. If there was no other stars, then yeah, distance doesn't matter, the wave will travel out to infinity. But in the real universe, it is the exact same electromagnetic wave as all the other stars; remember physics? What happens when two electromagnetic waves of the same frequency collide? Think of radio waves. Why won't the FCC allow two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency in the same area? Yeah, the waves merge with one another. The stellar wind is going to wash that far away image away, once it gets weak the wave that is producing the image is going to be absorbed into the ocean of stellar wind. It isn't that the light is too weak to detect, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the electromagnetic wave that the image is riding on, is completely gone, it no longer exists.

We think - when we look at a star - that the light from that star is crossing through space, a total void, not hitting anything. But in that space there is electromagnetic waves shining in every direction. Look at all the stars around the star you are looking at... all of them are sending out radiation in a global expansion, all of them are crossing over the path that the starlight took to get to our eye. There is an ocean of stellar wind in the emptiness of space. When starlight travels far enough to become very weak, the cross currents of the stellar wind tear the wave apart. Physicists don't disagree with that, they just ignore it. Cuz, it seems impossible for the telescope lens to travel forward, our basic instinct tells us the light travels to the telescope lens... and we cling to that, even after we know the light never makes it to the telescope lens... so now what?

I don't know how it works, I don't know how it is possible for the lens to travel forward to the light, all I know is it must be happening, because option #1 isn't happening and there is no option #3.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Not sure I understand it myself. What I do understand is this; a galaxy 12 billion light years off in the distance, is not shining one photon of light onto our telescopes. Absolutely no starlight can travel 12 billion light years and still exist, there is no image on the lens that can be magnified. The idea that the lens magnification can pull you forward to a location where the image still exists sounds just as impossible to me as it does to you, but we have all seen the pics, so the telescope is capturing the light, and there's no way that image of light still existed after traveling 12 BILLION LIGHT YEARS.

Don't think of the distance in terms of years, think of it in terms of distance, think of the journey the wave of light is making... it never reaches here, it never reaches half way here, it is hard to imagine it traveling through 2 billion light years of stellar wind and surviving. If there was no other stars, then yeah, distance doesn't matter, the wave will travel out to infinity. But in the real universe, it is the exact same electromagnetic wave as all the other stars; remember physics? What happens when two electromagnetic waves of the same frequency collide? Think of radio waves. Why won't the FCC allow two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency in the same area? Yeah, the waves merge with each another. The stellar wind is going to wash that far away image away, once it gets weak the wave that is producing the image is going to be absorbed into the ocean of stellar wind. It isn't that the light is too weak to detect, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the electromagnetic wave that the image is riding on, is completely gone, it no longer exists.

We think - when we look at a star - that the light from that star is crossing through space, a total void, not hitting anything. But in that space there is electromagnetic waves shining in every direction. Look at all the stars around the star you are looking at... all of them are sending out radiation in a global expansion, all of them are crossing over the path that the starlight took to get to our eye. There is an ocean of stellar wind in the emptiness of space. When starlight travels far enough to become very weak, the cross currents of the stellar wind tear the wave apart. Physicists don't disagree with that, they just ignore it. Cuz, it seems impossible for the telescope lens to travel forward, our basic instinct tells us the light travels to the telescope lens... and we cling to that, even after we know the light never makes it to the telescope lens... so now what?

I don't know how it works, I don't know how it is possible for the lens to travel forward to the light, all I know is it must be happening, because option #1 isn't happening and there is no option #3.

Postmodern Physics, Like Postmodern Culture, Is Decadent and Should Be Dismissed

The friction of space, which is a substance, drags on light to reduce its velocity to c. No other substance affects it, since other forces are blocked by space itself.

How can any light from these terminal galaxies appear at all if they can be affected by anything along the way? Besides, your radio frequency analogy is inaccurate. I've been in small towns where the local station can only block the national or big-city station within the town itself. It does not reduce the volume when the bigger station comes back on the radio. So it is like a car radio being muffled by the sound of a faulty engine. Once that is turned off, the volume comes back to the original level.

 

[Days]

Postmodern Physics, Like Postmodern Culture, Is Decadent and Should Be Dismissed

The friction of space, which is a substance, drags on light to reduce its velocity to c. No other substance affects it, since other forces are blocked by space itself.

How can any light from these terminal galaxies appear at all if they can be affected by anything along the way? Besides, your radio frequency analogy is inaccurate. I've been in small towns where the local station can only block the national or big-city station within the town itself. It does not reduce the volume when the bigger station comes back on the radio. So it is like a car radio being muffled by the sound of a faulty engine. Once that is turned off, the volume comes back to the original level.

You are preaching the aether again, space is only capable of producing friction if it is composed of something. If space is composed of nothing, it isn't matter, it is the absence of matter. There is matter traveling through space but that's not the same as space being composed of matter (such as the string theory)... any theory that contends there is matter in space - no matter how small that matter is - is returning to the aether.

The light can appear as long as it is more powerful than the cross winds. You dismissed the radio waves without realizing that radio waves are electromagnetic waves, same as visible light, it is just a different frequency on the electromagnetic wave spectrum. Stars emit the entire spectrum, that's why we can look at them in the gamma ray frequency, x-ray frequency, visible light frequency, microwave frequency, and even listen to their radio waves. There's no blocking going on in space, it is an all natural universe, filled with an infinite number of stars all broadcasting the entire electromagnetic wave spectrum from the very same source: fusion. So, not only do the radio waves merge, the whole spectrum of waves merge. As long as the wave has some strength, it just strengthens it to merge with other waves; the journey is a constant voyage of merging with other waves, it is only when the wave becomes very weak that it is going to get ripped apart... the other waves will absorb it. This is very predicable, we can not see the vast majority of stars because of all the stars that block their view, but we claim to have looked at stars 12 billion light years away and I find that concept something of an enigma, it shouldn't be possible.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

Not sure I understand it myself. What I do understand is this; a galaxy 12 billion light years off in the distance, is not shining one photon of light onto our telescopes. Absolutely no starlight can travel 12 billion light years and still exist, there is no image on the lens that can be magnified. The idea that the lens magnification can pull you forward to a location where the image still exists sounds just as impossible to me as it does to you, but we have all seen the pics, so the telescope is capturing the light, and there's no way that image of light still existed after traveling 12 BILLION LIGHT YEARS.

Don't think of the distance in terms of years, think of it in terms of distance, think of the journey the wave of light is making... it never reaches here, it never reaches half way here, it is hard to imagine it traveling through 2 billion light years of stellar wind and surviving. If there was no other stars, then yeah, distance doesn't matter, the wave will travel out to infinity. But in the real universe, it is the exact same electromagnetic wave as all the other stars; remember physics? What happens when two electromagnetic waves of the same frequency collide? Think of radio waves. Why won't the FCC allow two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency in the same area? Yeah, the waves merge with one another. The stellar wind is going to wash that far away image away, once it gets weak the wave that is producing the image is going to be absorbed into the ocean of stellar wind. It isn't that the light is too weak to detect, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the electromagnetic wave that the image is riding on, is completely gone, it no longer exists.

We think - when we look at a star - that the light from that star is crossing through space, a total void, not hitting anything. But in that space there is electromagnetic waves shining in every direction. Look at all the stars around the star you are looking at... all of them are sending out radiation in a global expansion, all of them are crossing over the path that the starlight took to get to our eye. There is an ocean of stellar wind in the emptiness of space. When starlight travels far enough to become very weak, the cross currents of the stellar wind tear the wave apart. Physicists don't disagree with that, they just ignore it. Cuz, it seems impossible for the telescope lens to travel forward, our basic instinct tells us the light travels to the telescope lens... and we cling to that, even after we know the light never makes it to the telescope lens... so now what?

I don't know how it works, I don't know how it is possible for the lens to travel forward to the light, all I know is it must be happening, because option #1 isn't happening and there is no option #3.

In December 1995, the Hubble Space Telescope, high above the Earth, focused on a tiny spot of dark sky for over 150 consecutive orbits. The result was the deepest view into space we had ever had up to that time. Here we see about a fourth of that "deep field" and it shows galaxies (and only galaxies) at many different distances. The farthest among these galaxies is estimated to be so far away, its light has taken over 10 billion years to reach us. So we are seeing these galaxies as they were billions of years ago, when they were much younger. (Courtesy Robert Williams, the Hubble Deep Field Team, and NASA)

https://astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/56/deepField.html

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

No matter how fast the wave is moving, it is still dissipating into the space it is filling. No matter how far all these galaxies are actually away from us, the volume of stellar wind is the same. If everything is 1000 times closer than we think, the cross winds are 1000x stronger, either way, the most distant starlight is never going to survive the journey to our telescope lens. The scientists all assume we can only detect that which reaches us, what they fail to take in account is that the light has to make that journey. They never think about the journey... they assume the journey is accomplished because they assume the light hit the lens of the telescope, but when you stop to think about it, the journey is utterly impossible.

The journey absolutely is possible. What would lead you to this conclusion? Stars emit an enormous amount of light. The speed of light (except for certain radiation in short bursts) is the fastest and most long-lasting energy in the universe. Don't forget, the sol is the same for all observers, no matter what speed or position. This has never to date, been disproven.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

What are photons made of

As far as we know, they are elementary particles. They are excitations of a bosonic quantum field and not made out of anything.

how are they created

Through processes that involve the electromagnetic interaction in general and accelerating, vibrating or jumping electrons in particular.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/146975/is-a-photon-really-massless

 

[Days]

In December 1995, the Hubble Space Telescope, high above the Earth, focused on a tiny spot of dark sky for over 150 consecutive orbits. The result was the deepest view into space we had ever had up to that time. Here we see about a fourth of that "deep field" and it shows galaxies (and only galaxies) at many different distances. The farthest among these galaxies is estimated to be so far away, its light has taken over 10 billion years to reach us. So we are seeing these galaxies as they were billions of years ago, when they were much younger. (Courtesy Robert Williams, the Hubble Deep Field Team, and NASA)

https://astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/56/deepField.html

The journey absolutely is NOT impossible. What would lead you to this conclusion? Stars emit an enormous amount of light. The speed of light (except for certain radiation in short bursts) is the fastest and most long-lasting energy in the universe. Don't forget, the sol is the same for all observers, no matter what speed or position. This has never to date, been disproven.

You have to understand that there are quadrillions of stars in front of / closer to us. So here you are looking at light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Remember, a light year is a measure of distance. Since galaxies contain - on average - 50 to 100 billion stars, they tend to be relatively the same brightness. This means, that as the light travels from those farthest away galaxies, it has to cross stellar winds that are constantly getting stronger relative to the dissipation of their wave. Most stars emit a gas and that gas is supposedly filled with particles, so according to science, the stellar winds should be quite destructive to weakened electromagnetic waves. Think of it this way, if you drop a boulder into the ocean, it sends out a wave, but as that wave meets other waves it gets degraded and soon is gone, even a large swell is not going to travel all the way across the Pacific Ocean... and that's nothing compared to the journey starlight has to make from 10 billion lightyears away.

stellar winds (Link)​

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

You have to understand that there are quadrillions of stars in front of / closer to us. So here you are looking at light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Remember, a light year is a measure of distance. Since galaxies contain - on average - 50 to 100 billion stars, they tend to be relatively the same brightness. This means, that as the light travels from those farthest away galaxies, it has to cross stellar winds that are constantly getting stronger relative to the dissipation of their wave. Most stars emit a gas and that gas is supposedly filled with particles, so according to science, the stellar winds should be quite destructive to weakened electromagnetic waves. Think of it this way, if you drop a boulder into the ocean, it sends out a wave, but as that wave meets other waves it gets degraded and soon is gone, even a large swell is not going to travel all the way across the Pacific Ocean... and that's nothing compared to the journey starlight has to make from 10 billion lightyears away.

stellar winds (Link)​

While the link was certainly fascinating, you did not explain how the mineral-rich stellar wind destroyed light.

Light bounces off of objects - even heat can do this, but mass-less light always does.

If an object is in the direct path of a light source, only some of the light will hit the object and be reflected. the rest will 'swim' around the massive object's gravitational field and continue on its journey. .

 

[Days]

While the link was certainly fascinating, you did not explain how the mineral-rich stellar wind destroyed light.

Light bounces off of objects - even heat can do this, but mass-less light always does.

If an object is in the direct path of a light source, only some of the light will hit the object and be reflected. the rest will 'swim' around the massive object's gravitational field and continue on its journey. .

The stellar winds are not objects in the path of light (btw, light bends around objects in its path, the light that bounces is headed in a different direction or even backwards, but it is the property of bending that allows an electromagnetic wave to stay intact and keep moving outward. Remember, as it moves, it expands, hence, it dissipates)... the stellar winds are more of the same ... starlight crosses stronger starlight, hence, as the wave travels a great journey it is expanding, dissipating, and being merged with stronger waves.

Everything in a stellar wind is riding the electromagnetic wave, that's how it escapes the star. Very little mass escapes a star and the star is absorbing mass. so the nuclear fusion furnace burns a long, long time. That fusion explosion is emitting electromagnetic waves, the whole spectrum, when we look at a star, we are looking at the electromagnetic wave, we can do that at any of the frequencies present, when we are talking about starlight, we are talking about the electromagnetic wave at the frequency of visible light, but that is a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, the star is kicking out the whole spectrum, there's the whole spectrum of the electromagnetic wave and it can include gases and even particles... there's a lot more there than meets the eye.

A star that is 10 billion light years off in the distance, has filled a globe the size of the whole known galaxy with its electromagnetic wave, by the time that starlight has reached us. Think of a globe, 20 billion light years in diameter. That's the dissipation of the electromagnetic wave. In the course of traveling that distance, the electromagnetic wave is going to encounter trillions of other electromagnetic waves, and as the wave travels farther and farther and expands and dissipates, it keeps hitting strong waves from stars it passes.

If it was possible for the human mind to grasp the size of a globe - 20 billion light years in diameter - then anyone would readily understand how weak starlight becomes as it encounters the stellar wind ... and the stellar wind is mostly as strong as the electromagnetic wave was when it began, because in the course of the journey, the stellar wind is constantly being filled with stars nearby, there's trillions of stars shining their electromagnetic waves into that journey. When the radiation wave begins, it is real strong, but think how much space it fills by the time it reaches an object 10 billion light years away; how weak has the electromagnetic wave become by the time it has attempted to fill a globe 20 billion light years in diameter? Light travels 186,000 miles/second in a straight line, but just because we can measure it in a straight line doesn't mean light travels in a straight line, light is a wave and it expands globally as a wave, as such it dissipates in strength rather quickly. So, at the end of one year of travel, the electromagnetic wave has filled a globe 11.73 Trillion miles in diameter. A star that is 10 billion light years off in the distance has filled a 234.6 sextillion mile diameter globe with its electromagnetic wave and that wave has crossed trillions of stars, each emitting their own electromagnetic wave. The stellar wind is going to destroy that wave long before it expands to fill a 234,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 mile diameter globe.

I highly doubt starlight could survive a 2 billion light year journey, let alone a 10 billion light year journey. It is just my opinion, but if you look at what is happening there, if you look at the dissipating wave constantly encountering fresh strong waves - all in the same frequencies - there's no way the stellar wind isn't eroding starlight as it travels through the universe... and if it is eroding starlight, then how far can an electromagnetic wave expand before it gets washed away by the stellar wind?

 

[Days]

Okay, I love looking back at these threads, and because I am turning 64 years old next month, I am certain my mind could no longer produce these thoughts... mostly, these days, I just want to know when supper will be ready and what we are eating.

I wonder if I ever explained in this thread, why Einstein's theories of warping matter and bending time were wrong? I can't read this whole thing. Forgive me if i mentioned it already, but the whole point here was that particle physics was the gift of the great mathematicians, leading up to Einstein. They didn't have electron microscopes, their only proofs for their theories was their math.

So, if math needed to fill the universe with particles, then the universe was a great big aether, not a vacuum. That's what they taught Einstein and that's what Einstein's theories were based upon. This is why Einstein could never tie all his crazy theories together, but the gems he gave us, like the general theory of relativity, will continue to be a foundation of understanding for the physical world for a long time to come.

You know we do see giant dust clouds and gas clouds and these are likely the result of exploding stars? (my guess) But if star radiation was kicking out particles, the whole universe would be filled with those, and guess what? ... starlight travels in a vacuum but bogs down real fast in dust clouds and gas clouds, so we would not even exist in that type of a universe, planets would receive no warmth from their suns, it would be a giant cold black death, there would be no life. Just realize that the days of aether and particle storms are long past today's physics, only stupid people believe the fake news and fake news outlets, like NASA.

And about that Cassini hoax, am I the only one to notice that every single "picture" sent us by that probe looked exactly like an artist drew it? They really gave it away when they drew a pale blue dot for earth... supposedly being a picture sent by the probe. Looking at Saturn from earth, it is barely visible, it is so far away. But Saturn is much larger than earth, so we can see it. Looking at earth from Saturn, it would not be visible at all. And it sure as hell would not be blue, c'mon people, Carl Sagan was romanticizing, the earth is only blue if you are real close to it. The moon is only a quarter million miles away, so maybe it is blue if you are standing on the moon. But by the time you get to Mars, the earth appears about the same as Mars appears to us. When you get out as far as Jupiter, I doubt if we are visible, except possibly when the two planets are closest together... we might appear as faint white light at that time. Go further to Saturn, and forget it, we are never visible, and there's no way a probe is finding us with a telescopic lens... and if that miracle happened they would have bragged about it, and we still would not be a "pale blue dot". But don't worry, that miracle never happened, it was just another artist drawing.