<earthshrink@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> It's no trick. I've shown that the variation of grating
> intervals exactly amounts to a continuously
> changing time scale of the receiver.
The same "grating" is used and detects different red shifts from
distant objects. The detected redshift agrees with the duration
of events at those objects, their subtended angular size (where
available), and the intensity of the light from the source.
Clever how the "grating" agrees with the rest of the data.
> The receiver's physical scale is not expressly
> represented in standard relativistic notation -
> Einstein's notion of scale was based on thinking
> of space as the possible set of extensions or
> relocations of an object (see "The Meaning of
> Relativity", chapter 1, first few pages), and he
> didn't, evidently, think too much of the measuring
> instruments except as being absolutely constant
> for the scope of observations at hand.
I doubt that he was that naive. He was well aware of
experimental error, and how that can derive from instrumentation.
> Attention to instrument effects and error from
> the observational process itself only came later
> with Heisenberg's principle and quantum theory.
Not at all. "Attention to instrument effects" started as early
as Galileo, and his attempt to measure c.
> What I've pointed out is that the
> spectrum analysis process needs to be
> considered further for systematic errors.
Have you done any research into what was actually done? I mean,
before you claim everyone else in Science has their head up their
> To make a fair comparison with relativistic theory,
> you'd need to represent the receiver (or
> spectrometer)'s physical scale expressly in the
> FRW metrics - I did that exercise some years ago
> and showed that the correction in fact amounts to
> hitherto unobvious additional terms in the
> equations of the metric representing the first order
> rate of change effects.
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0005014 .
> These first order effects happen to be proportional
> to the source distances,
How does your "grating" know how far away these objects are?
> whereas our notions of photons doesn't allow for
> such information except in more obvious ways
> like 1/r^2 attenuation and simple parallax, so the
> big question was where's this source distance
> information coming from.
> The needed theoretical breakthrough in 2004 was
> that it lies in the spectral phase gradients of all
> real signals. This has been peer reviewed by
> and is being field verified, appropriately, by
> signals folks, as mentioned.
Good luck then.
> The carrot for us
> signals-types is that it would, if found workable,
> allow us to overcome Shannon's bounds on
> channel capacities in ways unimaginable before,
> and other good stuff, including, per my
> calculations, realizable separation of radio
> signals with precisions of a few metres without
> depending on modulation at all!
> So whether the effect really does exist - the
> equations being damningly hard to avoid (to
> many very top radar/signals eyes in this
> country) - is a moot question for all of us,
> and whether it does the trick for Type 1a SNe
> is somewhat of an academic question given
> the terrestrial applications.
Your claim starts as if *all* red shifting with distance is a
result of a hitherto unaccounted for error in simple instrument
analysis. Such is a tall order, and is contraindicated by type
> My object in publicising this here is to
> hopefully motivate verification from the astro
> field (I'm already doing this in the general
> physics at the APS), given that we seem to
> have gone through signals and radar
> [Incidently, re: the Type 1a SNe, I had
> informally predicted the Lambda, and the
> specific value of q, to several of my
> colleagues at IBM including the late
> Landauer in ca. 1995-96 based on a hunch
> of this problem, but none of those I knew
> knew where to look for tests of the hunch.
> So the 1998 discoveries got me revisiting
> this favourite spectrometric problem of mine
> from my undergrad (77-82) days. I was
> fortunate to then get a very good mentor
> within IBM to look at the Type 1a SNe time
> dilation and numerous other aspects of
> astrophysics. In retrospect, it shouldn't
> matter if the effect falls short of explaining
> the Hubble redshifts - it's a basic
> systematic error issue and needs to
> be checked.]
Yep. You have been warned what you will come up against. Your
effect will need to be "in the error bars" of Hubble red shift,
or is already falsified. Therefore must also be undetectable on
terrestrial time and distance scales.
David A. Smith