From VBGYOR to ROYGBV, to ROYGBVBGYOR, and then to their implicative extensions Part 4.

On the mysterious decrease of waves' frequency in the conventional universe, on the quintessential principle that's ruling absolutely in my own, and finally on Olbers' paradox, quasars, and those marvellous Type IA supernovae

Two days ago, I had decided to look online for conventional accounts of the patterned evolution of waves that might have been observed freely in nature or maybe in some specifically targeted experiments that might have been conducted in the recent past. That decision was fuelled, as I said on the previous page, by my hitherto continuing torment and anxiety that have for so long marred my understanding of the wave phenomena. Within a minute of starting my search two words grabbed my attention: frequency downshift. With a sudden invasion of butterflies in my stomach I quickly changed the parameters in google and in short time a typical list of millions of sites containing the two magic words I had just discovered filled my screen. And thus, it began one of the most exciting days in my life of the last seven or eight years. For a few hours after that I read abstracts and some of the more accessible paragraphs from the myriad of papers that have been published on the subject in the last half a century or so. Invariably, the language in the vast majority of the sites I visited was too abstruse for my complete and satisfying comprehension, but little by little the underlying message of all those works was nonetheless getting increasingly clear in my mind: the patterned evolution of wave propagation showed a definite propensity to decrease in frequency with time and distance travelled. I was astounded. And ecstatic, needlessly to say.

The frequency downshift in wave evolution turns out to be quite proliferative. Indeed, it appears to be manifest in an ever-increasing number of phenomena--from ultrasounds to water waves and from seismic events to electromagnetic transfers of energy. This is of course a most pleasing observation for my Greek mind. So much so that until a moment ago I was planning to express that pleasance with a number of citations on that matter, which I had specifically downloaded on my Desktop for that very purpose. But in the meantime, I have changed my mind. Instead of crowding this page with dry and boring excerpts written by physicists for themselves, I will restrict that part to a single, amiable, yet most comprehensive, representative. The work I have selected comes in the form of a quite introspective account on the phenomenon of frequency downshift written by Dr. Norden E. Huang, a Goddard Senior Fellow with an extensive experience in the subject. The work in mention carries a truly relevant title (The problems in wave studies), for when it comes to the subject of frequency downshift in wave propagations one thing is absolutely certain: that not much on the topic is understood at the present time.

The problems in wave studies begins by posing right on the first page some most eloquent questions that are begging for answers as we speak.

Some simple questions

How to define the frequency of the waves? (How do waves grow longer? What is the mechanism for frequency down shift in the wave spectral evolution?)

What should be their governing equations? (What assumptions are reasonable?)

What data can reveal? (Data reveal the true physics!)

It becomes immediately obvious from these simple questions that, as I said, not much at all is known about the subject. For instance, it is manifestly evident that in the establishmentarians' quarters nothing is known from the theoretical perspective of reason and logic, nothing is known about any mathematical algorithm that might be able to describe and quantify the wave phenomena, and nothing is known (still) about the physics that the data should indeed reveal to the astute observer. When I read the questions above for the first time I couldn't help a feeling of internal satisfaction, as well as one of a healing and pacifying vindication. But those were quickly pushed aside by a much stronger and instinctual realisation (or perhaps belief) --that I would be quite willing to offer some input into trying to answer those unanswered questions myself, in the unlikely case I'd be asked. But until then let me cite for you a couple more points of importance from Dr. Huang's account.

The assumptions used in the classic wave theory might not be attainable. Coupled with the fusion of waves, we might need a new paradigm for water wave studies. Waves actually fuse. They act like particles.

Conclusions

Most people studying waves are actually studying mathematics rather than physics. But it is physics that we should understand. We need a new paradigm for wave studies.

Before anything else let me outline what factors I have always based my understanding of the wave evolution on. From very early in my life I thought I understood (instinctively, like a God-given gift) the fundamentals of physics, as a scientific discipline and human quest, and the nature of the reality as its subject of investigation. One of those fundamentals, for example, which is highly relevant to our current topic, involved the distribution of energy in the Universe. It made beautiful sense to my mind that the observed energy distribution (in all objects and systems that made out the Universe) showed a kind of nonlinearity that my mind was most comfortable with and most willing to accommodate. (The reason for saying "a kind of nonlinearity" is due to the fact that I am not entirely sure that the nonlinearity of my understanding is fully identical--in principle, in scope, in treatment, in effects, in consequences--to that of physicists' and mathematicians'.)

Take as a first example the distribution of stars in a galaxy. It appeared most comfortable (and logical, coherent, natural) to my mind that the stellar density was highest at the centre of the galaxy and decreased in (my kind of) nonlinear fashion with the increase in distance there from to the galaxy's outer boundaries. Or take as a second example the distribution of the charge density in a particle. Or, as a third, the distribution of matter in a planet (from its core to its atmospheric layers) or a star (from its centre to its corona, and beyond).  In fact, the number of similar examples that are ready on offer seems to be unlimited in number, and diversity, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, this manifestly ubiquitous state of affairs must, to my mind, carry within a commensurate degree of relevance, which, in turn and most likely, must also be part of other physical states, or entities, or events. or laws, or phenomena. "What is then", I have asked myself, "that fundamental trait (quality, aspect, feature, attribute, etc.) that's underlying it all?" Yeah, to my mind that absolutely crucial question was this: What is the quintessential attribute of the Universe that would ultimately govern, and be fundamentally manifest, in all physical phenomena? For me, the answer to this question is superlatively and uncompromisingly eloquent and clear. But before laying it down for your consideration I want to tell you what I have done in the last four weeks--for everything written thus far on this page dates from then.

On September 11 (today is the 8th of October) I decided to send the following question to a number of those "Ask a physicist" sites that are quite common on the Web.

I have been fascinated lately by the pattern of the waves created by a waterfall in my town. Specifically, the pattern shows a gradual decrease in the density of the waves as they travel away from their point of origin. Now, I'm aware of the dispersion of water waves, which is a consequence of the higher velocity of longer wavelengths, but I know that in this case that explanation is inadequate (for obvious reasons I won't bother you with). My question is if that particular distribution of the waves could be the result of frequency downshift, about which I know a little, even though to the best of my understanding even that appears rather suspicious.

Thank you.

Until today I received three answers to my question, and although one of them is rather too long for my present liking, I've decided to show them all to you in full.

My explanation is that the origin of the waves is located where the waterfall's mass has been accelerating toward the earth and coming into contact with the beginning of the rest of the stream. This constant bombardment of massive force usually erodes the ground level under the waterfall over time. The erosion is most pronounced at the center of mass of the column of water falling from the falls above, and displaces the bead to a lesser extent as one moves outward from that point (in a generally circular pattern although he makeup of the ground may alter this pattern to different degrees for different falls obviously!). 

Now, if you consider that the original wave pattern is the strongest point that ha had the least counter forces applied to it yet (friction, size, interference patterns from the reflected waves, etc.) AND it is the deepest area to, meaning that the waves will be the smallest relative amplitude added to it there, and the longest wavelength (that's also the shortest frequency), and as the waves emanate outward from this area the ground creates a smaller depth so increase the amplitude, decrease the wavelength but increase the frequency that the wave move at, you can see that the waves will decrease their "wave density" (you can think of this as an accelerating wavelength size also) since the increased frequency has overcome the speed necessary to separate the waves visually more and more noticeable farther away from the falls. 

The increase in strength or amplitude has allowed them to remain visible rather than fade away before the effect has been seen by someone observant looking into the water and admiring its appearance for a few minutes. The general effect might be likened to a tsunami, when the water is deep the wave is long and barely noticeable y someone that is not familiar with the effect, but the anomaly becomes very different and more pronounced in the same manner as I just described as the wave enters shallower water. 

It's important to understand all the previous ideas you have mentioned to understand about the wave-pattern effect generated in the water still all apply like they normally would bout the effects combine to produce the final effect you see, so there can be a rather complex phenomenon at play in reality, my explanation is just a generalization with the information I have to go with. 

I hope this helps make the pattern make a little bit more sense for you. Thanks for asking the question.

The answer above comes from someone who signs as a professor. And now the other two answers I've been offered.

One would expect a decrease in the amplitude of a wave as it moves out from the origin. If the energy in the wave is constant, as the radius of the distance of the wave from the origin increases the area over which this energy is spread increases as the radius (this wave is spreading out over the surface of the water so it is 2-dimensional). Since the square of the amplitude is proportional to the intensity of the wave, one would expect the amplitude to be proportional to the square root of the radius. This description ignores all other causes of loss of energy in a wave, some of which are already mentioned, and ignores possible interference effects.

These sorts of things always turn out to be weird wave-packet effects. The best guesses I have are:

1) The high-frequency components are losing energy to heat faster than the low frequency components. This effect is (in part) responsible for why relatively high-frequency waves created by wind over the ocean becomes ultra-low frequency waves at the shore (where they're called "waves").

2) Something else. This guess seems more likely.

Which [sic] I could give you a more definite answer. Hope that helps!

-Physicist-

Now, in regards to the first answer, there is one thing that I find astonishing above all. You see, the fact is that what the Professor offered as an explanation is totally irrelevant. Why? Because the pattern of the water waves in question is not at all particular to the waterfall image that he so conspicuously had in mind. (In fact, the so-called "waterfall from my town" that was supposedly the centre of my question was just an imaginary prop I had used.) What matters most in Professor's answer is the obvious fact that he/she either has no idea (or, worse, has failed to consider) that virtually all waves produced by a water disturbance display the same pattern-distribution as the one described in my question. As I said in the previous page, wiggle a finger in the same spot in a body of water and you will see the same reduction in the frequency of waves with distance, or create a "waterfall" by turning on your tap in a half full bath tub for a similar effect. And that's not all. It is even more distressing that a physicist fails to see that "all..." ideas I'd had mentioned could not possibly "still apply like they normally would", for what should be a pretty obvious reason to anyone with an average understanding of the issues involved and with an ordinary brain in his skull, I'm afraid.

What about the other two offerings? Well, there's not much to say about either, although point 2 in the last answer is worthy of a mention. I'm not being sarcastic here, not at all. That point is worthy of a mention because the person behind it is quite aware that the current conventional answers that could be invoked in the matter are greatly deficient in credibility. This reality is perfectly encapsulated in my earlier citation of Dr. Huang about the frequency downshift observed in the evolution pattern of water waves. For instance, compare the two answers above with Huang's eloquent question: How do waves grow longer? This is the $64,000 question, and only by answering this question real progress in our understanding of wave propagation can be achieved. Alas, in spite of a considerable amount of effort and resources being invested in this quest no mentionable results have been obtained in all the years that have passed since the beginning of the race for answers on the issue of wave evolution. And this, as far as I'm concerned, is a reality with far and deep-reaching implications and consequences--from rational ones to physical (and indeed to beyond those too).

Physicists, as you know, come in two major varieties: theorists, and experimentalists. Both varieties are of course necessary, if our understanding of the physical reality is to continue. I will not elaborate unnecessarily on why both theorists and experimentalists are equally needed in scientific investigations, and neither will I spend any time on talking about their roles in the whole scheme. There is only one thing I want to remind you about, and that is the fact that at any point in time only one of the two types finds itself at the forefront of relevance in physics in any given subject. For example, when it comes to particle physics until a few weeks ago the theorists in that particular field had for a long time been ahead of experimentalists. But that situation is about to change, since the apparent discovery of that seemingly last piece of the matter-puzzle, called the Higgs boson. In effect, then, subject to that discovery being comprehensively validated, after many years experimentalists have finally caught up with the theorists in that field (of the conventional world).

Now, in general theorists are ahead of experimentalists at any given time, in all fields of physics (after all usually theorists propose first and then experimentalists confirm or refute later). There is one particular field, however, in which experimentalists are well ahead of theorists--and have been so since virtually the creation of that particular field of research. The field I am talking about is that of the frequency downshift that is observed in so many wave transfers of energy from one place to another. That this is a fact it is nowhere more evident than in The mathematical theory of water waves, written by John D. Carter, in which at page 50 you will find the following statement: No satisfactory mathematical justification of frequency downshifting exists.

To my mind this state of affairs that has been embarrassingly reigning for decades now is a great messenger that even the seemingly most rationally sound belief (like that fundamental to the modern era--that experiment is the crux and the creed of all scientific investigations) is still conditioned by, and subjected to, an equal and opposite potential reaction--that which is the effect of a lack of wisdom. And I, I must confess that on some level I feel a certain kind of Greek satisfaction when I see that. All on behalf of those whose enormous contribution to mankind's evolution has been derided and rebuked by the modern believer in the infallibility of learning the truth from experiment. Remember: God is subtle, not malicious.

When it comes to the wisdom and philosophy that is supposed to guide any investigation into the nature of truth there's no doubt that as in all other human endeavours those are things of a highly idealized and intangible reality, and which therefore can--and by and large are--unsurprisingly canted by most and rarely implemented by any. A direct consequence of this fact will therefore always be a potential effect lurking in the darkness for a future in which it will more than likely one day become reality. And I say that in the case of the phenomenon of frequency downshift that potentiality has already been part of the material reality for quite a few years now. Why do I say that? For a reason most simple, yet most telling. When I learned a few days ago about the frequency downshift in the movement of most energy waves I was amazed at the incredible level of scrutiny and the sophistication of the arsenal used to monitor the events and analyse the data gathered by those engaged in that field. Yet, in spite of all this enormous amount of help they've enjoyed over the years, I was quite disturbed to learn that no commensurate progress had been achieved for so long. The only way to somehow reconcile the reality of this aberration is to suspect that other factors, of a more subtle nature, must be at work in the shadows. Most of those factors are no doubt of a human nature, although some must surely be rooted in a genuine ignorance and lack of understanding of some vital clues and aspects of the waving phenomena.

It has always been my belief that waves ought to behave like waves regardless if they are made out of air, water, light, or anything else, for that matter. This is of course in total contrast to the conventional view, in which all waves behave differently, as if they all were the subjects of different masters and laws. Now, you must surely realise that when I say that in my view all waves ought to behave like waves, I certainly do not imply that they are all, all the same. Waves are different in many ways, assuredly, in my understanding too, but to my mind they all share a common underlying principle which is far more important and influential in their overall behaviour than their apparent differences. But what is that common principle that is the underlayment of all waves?

What is the quintessential attribute of the Universe that is fundamentally manifest in all physical phenomena?

My answer to that question is this: The quintessential attribute of the Universe (or at least of my universe) is Its dichotomous nature, which is preponderant in all Its manifestations. (In fact, the dichotomy that is prevalent in the physical Universe is just as essential in the metaphysical one too.)

Now, as I see it, in the physical Universe the superlative manifestation of the preponderant dichotomous nature of reality is most eloquently encompassed in Newton's third law of motion. Indeed, I say, what could express more convincingly the dichotomous character-nature of the Universe than the understanding that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction! As far as I'm concerned, nothing. (When I was a young man and I first learned about Newton's third law I wasn't at all surprised or excited though. A little while later, however, when I learned how that "too obvious " insight explained in a beautifully coherent manner why a coin and a sledgehammer hit the ground at the same time when dropped from the same height I was stunned. After all, until then I had been totally unable to figure out how that could really be so.)  Newton's third law is the most eloquent manifestation of the Universal dichotomy firstly because it most conspicuously expresses not only its duality, but also its totality (its wholeness). Indeed, one should never forget that dichotomy is not only an expression of duality; It is also (equally) an expression of oppositeness. Secondly, Newton's third law is the most eloquent manifestation of the dichotomous nature of the Universe because it is a readily observable expression of the beauty that extends between the duality and the oppositeness of the dichotomist principle. (About this I'll let you think alone, in the freedom of your own mind.)

The dichotomous nature of the Universe is as I said the preponderant attribute of the physical reality, and therefore no one should fail to see it at work. See it for instance in the manifestation of the magnetic polarities, or in the wave-particle nature of matter, or in the fabric of spacetime--or in the billions of the other dually-opposite physical entities, laws, and events that make up the Universe. At this point, however, I would like to direct your attention to one dichotomic manifestation which is probably less conspicuous than those I mentioned.

To my mind it appears rather obvious that the Universal dichotomy is also actively at work in the phenomena we're currently scrutinising--that of the propagatory evolution of waves. In effect, the dichotomic principle of my understanding is manifested in the two typical types of wave propagation: longitudinal and transversal. Moreover, it is my view that the preponderant influence of the dichotomic principle is embedded even deeper in the wave phenomena--by exercising its authority upon the two spectral displays that have been at the core of our more recent discussions.

One of the main reasons behind the conventional physicists' inability to see that the two spectra, ROYGBV and VBGOYR, are not only legitimate manifestations of the electromagnetic optical field, but also indispensable physical attributes of the light waves, is the establishmentarian belief that light waves are strictly transversal propagatory entities. That is a monumental handicap for those with conventional beliefs, and you have had the privilege to see how monumental that handicap is when you have become witnesses to the terribly embarrassing attempts of some to 'explain away' the VBGYOR spectrum by trying to suggest that it is merely a mirage effect of their own (and one and only) candidate for the job, called ROYGBV, and proposed by Newton almost 400 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind (and there will be no doubt to those of the future) that this handicap has been so monumental in character and consequences that it has managed to virtually blind those in the conventional headquarters to such an extent that they have not been able to see even the most eloquent and trustworthy testimony on the subject--that offered by an absolutely candid picture that sits naked, right there, in front of their noses.

Moreover, that kind of blindness typically affecting the conventional humanoids has been the main cause also for the long drought in the other fields dealing with wave phenomena. Even in those fields considered to be dealing with supposedly well understood subjects it is with visible discomfort that physicists have little choice but to confess that there are still too many dark corners in those too, to truthfully proclaim that they are understood. To look no further take a look at the following fact. If you remember physicists have proudly declared that when it comes to the observable attributes of capillary waves, they can explain them all by plotting into mathematical equations a few numerical data related to mostly the surface tension of the water particular to any observation. Now this is certainly no trivial achievement. However, in stark contrast to all that achievement the truth is that there's not much more comparable in kind to provide further lead and better understanding in other types of water waves behaviour. It is rather incredible to be forced to admit to this failure, considering how many minds, and for how many years, have looked, recorded, measured, talked about, reasoned, about all kinds of conceivably imaginable water waves with nothing really worth writing to your mum about. There's one thing, and one only, that is missing from this saga in order to ensure a happy ending: We need a new paradigm for wave studies--and I shall say amen to that.

As you well are aware by now, in my universe all my waves are virtually all the same--in kind, as well as in behaviour. (The key note of this statement is in virtually, of course.) I want to give you now a token that is representative of my statement.

Remember in my previous page I gave a couple of illustrative examples about how the physicists with conventional beliefs see wave propagations in different media. One such example was concerned with sound movement, and to that end I gave you two typical conventional depictions of the kind. But now I need to do it yet again, for there are certain things I said nothing about then because the time, and the place, weren't quite right. You'll see why in a moment, but first I want to let you know in advance that I will drop below those two conventional illustrations I gave you on the previous page, and that next to them there will be one other graphic depiction of the same phenomenon, which will be mine. I'll ask you to take a good look at them, and then to try to beforehand from which direction, and with what kind of message, I will try to fulfil the promise I made above this paragraph.

There is an obviously great difference between my illustration and the other two, but I sincerely hope that you can see a bit further beyond than what appears immediately obvious to everyone's eye. And I have to admit, that's strictly for a selfish reason, which is connected to my lack of desire to have to spend too much time on the relevant subject. To put it now as simply as it really is, the fact is that in sound propagation--as in a coiled spring, somewhat surprisingly, but true--the dynamic undergoing of the air-medium does never really bear any resemblance, either qualitatively or from quantitative perspectives, to what's portrayed in the conventional illustrations. Instead, what happens in reality with sound movement (and in coiled springs) is pretty much identical in manner to what is illustrated in my picture. Without getting into too many details, when air is subjected to the forces deployed by some sound emission it undergoes a sequential process of movement and density alteration which develop (relative to both space and time) in the manner illustrated in my picture from the left to the right. Basically, what takes place is very much an alternating changing patterned effects which happen, in time and in space, as it is described from left to the right with each following coil in the spring. That's all I'd really like to say on the matter (although, on second thoughts, I should perhaps make one extra suggestion: see the coil that is the leading one, right at the front of the first part of the spring, from the left? In the sequential process I have described that coil advances next from its point under the first violet line in the spectrum to the red line in front of it--and so on from then on to each next coil in the front).

Now, what is the most important aspect of the issue that is at present my latest bone of contention, is that when it comes to the physical morphology of all waves relative to their direction of travel there is impossible to have symmetrical attributes appearing in both directions--forward, as well as backwards in time! A most blatant and obvious contradiction of that law (my law, as far as I know, and I care about) is the conventional illustration above in the middle.

Enough of that apparent attribute of the sound waves. Let us go back now from these illustrations to the one I had shown you earlier, without much explanatory clues or notes--mysterious by deliberation, I confess. One thing is certain, though, as far as I'm concerned: That isn't just a pretty picture. Anyway, let us go back to it for a moment now, to see if the exclusive symmetry law I have mentioned is manifested and respected in that case as well.

It should be easy for most people, I believe, to notice that after only a short glimpse at that picture there is a distinct pattern of concentric circles visible to the naked eye, even though there is certainly nothing of the kind physically drawn in the picture itself. But that's a subject for another time. For now, spend just a short minute or two confirming to yourself that my law is manifestly evident and validated in that illustration too.

On to the subject of light waves from here is obviously my next destination. And on the same note to that I have used thus far I'll start by showing you a picture I have drawn about how I see the waves that travel from an object radiating light to the naked eye of a Greek observer after my own kind and liking.

This picture needs to be accompanied by some qualifying notes and a number of explanations to assist in furthering one's understanding of my view on the nature of reality. First, for example, I'd like to point your attention to the spectral distribution extending from the centre of the radiating object outwardly to the eye of the observer (and further to the imaginary boundaries of its electromagnetic field). Identically to the other two cases we have covered the named spectral display shows the same pattern from one end to all others. This is a spectral distribution of the VBGYOR kind, which is most evident and familiar to those who have looked at light directly through a prism, of course. At this time, it is most important to see that my law of absolute prohibition of a dichotomic symmetry along the axis parallel to light's travelling direction from its source into the far-depths of space and time is manifestly present and obeyed.  Conspicuously, the law does not forbid all symmetries along that vector of energy propagation. One particular symmetry, for example, is visibly tolerated and indeed it is duly present all along. This unprohibited symmetry is of a spectral form, and it is of a unidirectional extension. Specifically, this symmetry consists of a long (very long) row of this particular display of spectral colours: VBGYORVBGYORVBGYORVBGYORVBGYORVBGYOR ... Finally, there is one more thing that needs to be mentioned here. The spectral display, and the symmetry that is particular to the specified axis of extension, carry all hallmarks of one particular type out of the two that are defining the propagatory directions of all waves: that with a predilection to wave longitudinally.

Now, I think you must have also noticed without too much effort that there's another spectral symmetry present in my picture. This symmetry however is radically different, on all fronts, from that we have just discussed. First of all, unlike to the previous one this symmetrical spectral display is extending on an axis running along a direction perpendicularly oriented to the previous. And this means, of course, that the spectral display in this case, along with its symmetry and patterned distribution, is clearly a manifestation of the transversal aspect of waves' propagative directions. Secondly, it is readily obvious that unlike in the previous case of the unidirectional display of the patterned spectral colours, in this particular case the spectral display is clearly dichotomic in extension, running symmetrically in two different directions, both equally and diametrically opposed to the other. At a first sight this may seem to be a violation of my law. However, upon further examination you'll find a pacifying reassurance that nothing with calamitous consequences, either theoretic or empirical, is a real possibility worth worrying about and over. I will explain a little later why indeed so must be the case, but before that there are still a couple of issues I want to touch on. Take a good look at the observing eye, which is positioned right on the path of a white ray of light. I'm sure you have already noticed that detail without my help, but I wonder if you have asked yourself what is the meaning, the reason, the justification, and the explanation for that particular artifact. If you have done so I hope you have also found some satisfying answers to those questions. For all intents and purposes though I will next try to convince you that the artifact in question is an offspring of logic and empiricism, and thus justifiably valid and worthy of defending.

To the unaided eye a ray of light entering it after being emitted and travelling from its source to the observer's retina will appear to be white in colour (in principle, of course). This is, by and large, the conventional picture on the matter, and as a basic concept and idea this is--generally speaking--pretty much identical to my own view of the subject. Nevertheless, when it comes to the physics that makes that ray of light look white (to the unaided eye, remember), my own understanding of the process is dichotomically opposed to the conventional one. Starkly, thus, to the conventional eye-brain system the spectral colours that make a ray of light look white are achieving that feat by merging together into a single point from different points of the wavefront of light, whilst in my understanding the spectral colours that make a ray of light look white travel from their point of emission to the point where they land on my retina along an identical direct line of sight. In effect that dichotomic difference is one of propagatory direction--transversal vs longitudinal.

Interestingly, from my point of view, for a long time I thought that I was the only person in the world who nurtured a belief in a longitudinal motion of light waves, only to find out (relatively recently) that there are others like me out there. That was a rather pleasant and unexpected surprise, and one which becomes even more so as I am slowly learning that the reasons behind other peoples' belief in a longitudinal propagatory manifestation of light are different than my own. To my mind this is another pacifying discovery indeed, for I had never really felt that my own reasons were sufficient enough to demand that longitudinal motion on their own--even though my conviction had always been pretty strong in that respect. After all I had seen with my own eyes that longitudinal spectral distribution, and furthermore I had seen both its empirical manifestations and its theoretical need for existence with my reason. Nonetheless, the fact is that in spite of all the evidence I have seen there are still quite a few things related to this subject that are playing a cynical game with my mind. Let me give you some concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

You have had access to prima facie evidence about the inability of the conventional understanding regarding the nature of light and colours in prismatic experiments to explain a great number of observational anomalies in that field, and you have also had ample opportunity to see that by a slight adjustment to the Newtonian perspective we can provide coherent explanations to all conceivable prismatic observations. But let's leave all that aside for a while, and let me ask you this question: Have you never seen a spectral display like that in the picture above? Come on, line up your eye with the centre of the picture, look at it for a little while, and then answer: Have you never seen a spectral display like that with your own unaided eyes? Well, I have. Many a time. You may be tempted at this point to think that I am probably associating the depiction of the longitudinal spectral display in the picture with Newton's rings (the resemblance is quite obvious, after all), and that perhaps that's how I can answer that question so firmly in the affirmative. If you had thought so you have been partially correct. But with that in mind let me now ask you again: Have you never seen (freely and directly with the naked eye, not through a lens) a spectral display akin to Newton's rings? Well, I have. Many times, with the last being only two days ago. In spite of this being a truth, however, it seems that (once again) I am a lone believer in a matter that otherwise should be common knowledge. And this apparent fact does trouble me, indeed somehow even more than on other occasions. (I'll stop short of going into what and why, though. Instead at this point I'll urge you to try and see for yourself that the spectral display I'm talking about is freely available for observation. All you have to do is find a quiet spot on a dark night about a football pitch distance away from a street light, which shouldn't be too bright. Take your time and don't look directly at the light. Instead try to capture its beam somewhere in your peripheral field of vision. With a bit of patience, you'll learn pretty quickly where to look for the display in question.)

There is one more thing on this topic that also continues to trouble me, and which I want to share with you. If you have never seen freely with the naked eye a spectral pattern like that we're discussing, how about a filmed one? What I mean by that is to try to recall from your memory if you have ever watched some piece of footage filmed on a sunny day in which that chromatic display becomes a distinct, even if briefly, visual feature of the landscape. But if your answer to that is negative, I'll have this final question for you. How about recalling if you have ever seen a filmed beamlet of light in which the spectral colours are repeatedly and symmetrically arranged in a long continuous row which clearly appears to extend longitudinally from some point afar to some near point at the periphery of the visible landscape. Now, in regards to this question I'm willing to place a decent wager that a visual memory like this you'll have little trouble retrieving from your brain's archives. And if you've managed that, there's one other little thing I'd like to ask you next: to try to explain it by using the conventional wisdom. Good luck.

Although the issues above come with some real personal concerns, to my mind there is a cohesively coherent line of reasoning that complements the reality of the visual observations I shared with you (and this is worth talking about too). Consider this. According to my understanding a beam of light observed through a prism unravels its chromatic composition because by its very nature the prism lifts into the view of the observer that longitudinal third dimension, which is otherwise inaccessible to the eye. Indeed, that's why, I contend, only through prisms the chromatic composition of white light is revealed to the observer--as is evidenced by the total absence of any colours when the observation involves a rectangular block of glass, in contrast. In a cohesively coherent line of reasoning, then, it should be expected that the possibility of being able to see a spectral display like the one I mentioned above ought to be theoretically valid. That's of course because the human eye employs a biconvex lens in its service, which in itself is just another type of prism, essentially. And there is even more weight coming in support to that reasoning. Lenses are to a significant degree rather baneful tools, marred by a number of visual aberrations. Conspicuously to my interests here one of those aberrations is a chromatic one. Moreover still, in addition to all that it is certainly not a trivial fact, or an accident, that in an effort to try to correct those aberrations it's been discovered that by using different types of lenses in combination those aberrations have been, if not completely eliminated, at least greatly reduced. To my mind the most telling effect of that saga, however, is that all those combinations of lenses managed to almost eliminate those aberrations by forming optical objects with an almost rectangular shape (breadthwise)! (Oh, isn't God subtle!? Remember, there's a perfect corollary to this--Newton's those two inversely orientated prisms, which, lo and behold, rendered no spectrum...)

Let us return now to the picture of the electromagnetic field of my understanding. You have heard me championing thus far only the case of the longitudinal manifestation in the propagation of light (which is represented by the VBGYOR spectrum, must I add). But that particular aspect of an electromagnetic field is only one half of the story, as it's graphically depicted in my illustration and verbally in the second paragraph following it. The other half is thus concerned with the transversal manifestation of light, and this particular aspect is, in principle, represented by the ROYGBV spectrum. Why did I say "in principle"? Because in this case the true spectral representative of light's transversal manifestation takes on, more accurately, the form ROYGBVBGYOR. (And, of course, this spectral distribution is entirely relative to the observer's line of sight.)

In my universe all waves are subject to a very similar evolutionary pattern in both time and space, which--at fundamental level--is marked by two main effects: gradual degradation and eventual dissipation. I've believed in this since I first began thinking. To my mind there could be no other way to a reality such as that invariably displayed in the true Universe. That the conventional physicist cannot see, for a most simple and clear example, that there just isn't any possibility in the Universe for either zero or infinity to find, or define, anything that is part of It... I'm completely at a loss to comprehend. But that is not the most disturbing thing, as far as I'm concerned. Not by a long shot. It is far more disturbing, to my mind, to hear the cacophonous extensions that followed that monumental gaffe.

If you remember in one of my very early pages, I took a swing at the so-called Olbers' paradox, which still continues to be paraded as a logical explanation for the mostly black night sky. Today I'll take a second one, and this time from a much more direct angle. So, here we go.

In 2003-2004 the Hubble telescope took the furthest-ever view into the Universe, through a long exposure photo that revealed the most distant objects in space and time from our here and now. This picture came to be called XDF (eXtreme Deep Field), and if you're not familiar with it you can read about it here.

"The XDF is the deepest image of the sky ever obtained and reveals the faintest and most distant galaxies ever seen," Garth Illingworth of the University of California at Santa Cruz, principal investigator of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2009 program, said in a statement. "XDF allows us to explore further back in time than ever before."

The photo reveals a wide range of galaxies, from spirals that are Milky Way-lookalikes to hazy reddish blobs that are the result of collisions between galaxies. Some of the very tiny, faint galaxies could be the seeds from which the biggest galaxies around today grew.

Below is a copy of the photo in question.

Now, the most important aspect of this story is that Hubble obtained the picture above by collecting all the light coming from that patch of the sky over a period of 2,000,000 seconds. In effect, that amounts to a time exposure of 555.55 hours, or over 23 days! In view of all these facts, then, can any physicist of conventional leanings explain how the so-called Olbers' paradox could still be allowed to be part of the establishmentarian parade? Think about that. Carefully. Think about the conventional wisdom that photons travel forever without changing their wavelength-frequency, and think then if a human eye would have had any chance to get even a very dim glimpse of the same landscape as that in the picture above, from the same point in space. Think about all these things and remember that the human eye needs no more than a stream of about six photons to create an image for the brain.

There is hardly any subject in the conventional physics that is not riddled with paradoxes. This is the present truth, and only the most fundamentalist would be foolish enough to deny it. "But that's because Nature is crazy", says he (in a manner typically dealt with in psychiatry). For more than a century our physicists have been strictly preoccupied with patching the ever-increasing number of holes in the conventional ermine. But rest assured, they cannot do that forever. Sooner or later there will be more holes than matter in their universe, and then they will be pushed unceremoniously into ignominy. Not because they got it so wrong--because they have been so unwise for so long.

Let me tell you a story now, a story whose absolute reality I can bear witness to, for indeed I have lived it. A few years ago, I was convinced that it will not be very long before some cosmological observation--clear, direct, persuasive, unambiguous--shall bring with it enough data and new information to finally convince enough numbers in the conventional establishment of physicists to warrant at least the beginning of a change in the paradigm that has been, for a century or so, ruling the world of physics with absolute authority and unchallenged power. Alas, it turned out in the end that I had still underestimated the human trait, ability, weakness, or whatever else is used, employed, or invented by those whose only and final determination is to maintain and preserve the power, fame, perks, privileges, and all other things that are bestowed to those who're dictating, in one way or another, the events and the directions others have no other choice but obediently accept and ultimately follow. The specific events I'm referring to are those whose effects and consequences have materialised in the relatively new belief that the expansion rate of the conventional universe instead of slowing down, as it had been originally predicted and expected, was now in fact undergoing a completely different expansionary process--in total contrast to the previous prediction, one of acceleration, instead. The evidence brought forward by the new observations of the so-called Type 1A Supernovae, it's been officially declared, is so categorical and certain that in no time at all those that have conducted the observations have been promptly awarded with Nobel Prizes. When I first heard this news I burst in a certain kind of laughter, one I reserve for what I see as very special cases in the history of scientific evolution.

According to the mainstream understanding the Type 1A Supernovae are perfects candidates to use as visible yardsticks of the Universe. But in the year 1997 new observations showed that the named supernovae appeared distinctly fainter in our telescopes, and this was one thing at total odds to the conventional theories and the mainstream understanding. This aberrant observation did not remain so for too long, however, for quickly it was so concluded that the dimmed images of the Type 1A Supernovae were evidence of a universally accelerating rate of expansion, which in short time became the new credo in the conventional physics. This new shift in the reigning paradigm was easily decreed, adopted and incorporated without any opposition into basically the same framework and understanding of the conventional theories in physics. This change that took place in the mainstream dogma of the conventional physics was not new, or exceptional, for in a previous but similar change of act the redshifts extracted from a number of quasars was just as easily accepted as evidence for the existence of celestial objects that could display characteristics of receding speeds that could exceed the speed of light itself. There's nothing remarkable or paradoxical about that, the mainstream physicist declared before proceeding with the presentation of some hazy sort of explanation that apparently proved and justified the emphatic declaration that nothing was remarkable about a celestial object whose redshift implied velocities exceeding that of light. Naturally, when I heard that I could do nothing else but laugh as copiously and heartily as in other previous or subsequent occasions of the kind.

Within the boundaries of my universe, however, quasars as well as the Type 1A Supernovae are strong evidence for totally different physics. Quasars, for instance, do not even exist as such in my understanding of the Universe. As far as I have always been concerned the objects called quasars in the conventional physics in my own model of the universe were basically stars whose redshifts were indicative of special, unusual, or extreme, energy dissipation and mass-material activity whose direct and correlated side-effects were the true factors behind the high redshifts shown by this kind of stars. As far, again, as I have always been concerned, a wise, smart, and imaginative thinker should need very little--if anything at all--beside that I will describe next.

Consider listening to the verbal depiction of a quasar a mainstream physicist could offer for others and ultimately argue on behalf of. A quasar is

...any of a class of rare cosmic objects of high luminosity as well as strong radio emission observed at extremely great distances. The term is also often applied to closely related objects that have the same optical appearance but that are radio quiet—the so-called QSOs, which stands for “quasi-stellar objects.”

A quasar has many remarkable properties. Although it is extremely small (only the size of the solar system), it emits up to 100 times as much radiation as an entire galaxy.

Schmidt's discovery raised immediate excitement, since 3C 273 had a redshift, whose magnitude had been seen theretofore only among the most distant galaxies. Yet it had a star like appearance, with an apparent brightness (but not a spectrum) in visible light not very different from that of a galactic star at a distance of a few thousand light-years. If the quasar lay at a distance appropriate to distant galaxies a few times 109 light-years away, then the quasar must be 1012 times brighter than an ordinary star. Similar conclusions were reached for other examples. Quasars seemed to be intrinsically brighter than even the most luminous galaxies known, yet they presented the point like image of a star.

A hint of the actual physical dimensions of quasars came when sizable variations of total light output were seen from some quasars over a year or two. These variations implied that the dimensions of the regions emitting optical light in quasars must not exceed a light-year or two, since coherent fluctuations cannot be established in any physical object in less time than it takes photons, which move at the fastest possible speed, to travel across the object. These conclusions were reinforced by later satellite measurements that showed that many quasars had even more X-ray emission than optical emission, and the total X-ray intensity could vary in a period of hours. In other words, quasars released energy at a rate exceeding 1012 suns, yet the central machine occupied a region only the size of the solar system.

In any case, there now exists ample evidence for the validity of attributing cosmological distances to quasars. The strongest arguments are the following. When the strong non stellar light from the central quasar is eliminated by mechanical or electronic means, a fuzzy haze can sometimes be detected still surrounding the quasar. When this light is examined carefully, it turns out to have the colour and spectral characteristics appropriate to a normal giant galaxy. This suggests that the quasar phenomenon is related to nuclear activity in an otherwise normal galaxy. In support of this view is the observation that quasars do not really form a unique class of objects. For example, not only are there elliptical galaxies that have radio-emission characteristics similar to those of quasars, but there are weaker radio sources among spiral galaxies (called Seyferts after their discoverer, the American astronomer Carl K. Seyfert), which have bright nuclei that exhibit qualitatively the same kinds of optical emission lines and nonstellar continuum light seen in quasars. There also are elliptical galaxies, N galaxies, and the so-called BL Lac objects, which have nuclei that are exceptionally bright in optical light. Plausible “unification schemes” have been proposed to explain many of these objects as the same intrinsic structure but viewed at different orientations with respect to relativistically beamed jets or with obscuring dust tori surrounding the nuclear regions or both. Finally, a number of quasars—including the closest example, the famous source 3C 273—have been found to lie among clusters of galaxies. When the redshifts of the cluster galaxies are measured, they have redshifts that bracket the quasar's, suggesting that the quasar is located in a galaxy that is itself a cluster member.

A thinker of the kind I like should quickly realise that the full conventional description of quasars is fully based on one crucial and most dangerous assumption: that the redshifts displayed by quasars show their distance and receding velocity. Now, as far as I'm concerned, the conventional faith in the validity of that assumption shows certain zealotry and blindness whose unquestionable possibility of being wrong is much too risky an investment to corrupt one like me in putting absolutely everything on a total belief in that assumption. A thinker, to my mind, should instantly show a degree of caution from this point on. Moreover, a thinker of my liking would rightly reason next: "A conventional quasar has the size of a solar system if, and strictly if, the conventionally stated distance to quasars is indeed in the billions of light-years bracket. What would the size of that quasar be if the real distance to it is somewhere in the millions of light-years bracket instead, then? From such distance that solar-system size of the conventional quasar will diminish considerably--perhaps somewhere in the bracket of ordinary stars, like that of our own sun, for instance. And there is more--much more in fact. If those objects called quasars are habituating instead at distances characteristic to galactic sizes, as I must consider as a possibility, their extra-extra-extraordinary luminosity and radiation would also be greatly diminished, as greatly as perhaps to the quite ordinary levels seen in normal stars. As in regards to the conventional arguments in the last paragraph, they are truly irrelevant to the main issue at stake here.

And there is more--a lot more still--to be considered by a mind of the Greek kind. There is no doubt that quasars are copious emitters of radio waves, which is a trait beautifully falling in my court. If the radiation of the electromagnetic kind does propagate and dissipate in space as I have, and will continue to discuss, then radio waves would definitely be expected in some cases, and from certain objects of the stellar kind. The x-ray and also the optical varieties of radiation should also be observed in the so-called quasars of the conventional kind. When all things are eventually considered, a thinker of my liking should offer with some degree of confidence a picture of the so-called quasars closely related to the one below.

The object conventionally called a quasar is, to my mind and in my model of the Universe, a young and rather massive star whose internal activity is running at a very fast pace and whose emitted radiation is commensurate in character and level with the entire structure of this star. This kind of star follows the "live fast die young" philosophy. Their high redshifts are a direct consequence of that kind of existence, and it is due also to the same factors that the very high redshifts in their spectral signature are direct products linking rapidly dissipating levels of energy with the distance from which such observations are conducted.