For the last few decades there has been controversy concerning the existence of what appears to be distant quasars which are located in the center of nearby galaxies. This does not make sense (according to the geometry of space described by ‘classical physics'). How could a ‘high red shift quasar' be located in a ‘low red shift galaxy'. Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?. "How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?"
You may have heard about the search for the so called ‘dark matter of the universe'. The rotation of galaxies is measured by the ‘redshift', for those objects which are moving away faster in space emit radiation which is more ‘redshifted'.
...
Objects which are closer to the center of gravity orbit more quickly than objects further out from the center, as shown in the first image. However the observed orbit of the galaxies is shown in the second image. Galaxies rotate as though they were a single solid body, which then gives birth to the hypothesis of the ‘dark matter of the universe', which must compose most of the matter in a galaxy. According to this hypothesis the presence of all this dark matter then causes a galaxy to become similar to a single solid body with an anomalous observed rotation that you would expect to see if a galaxy was so full of dark matter that it would then rotate like a single solid body..
In the image above we see the expected ‘redshift curve' of galactic rotation (the dashed line) and we also the actually observed curve (the solid line). It would appear that the redshifting of light is a flat line, indicating an anomalous rotation of galaxies which then suggests that a great deal of ‘dark matter' must be present (the galaxy exhibits traits similar to that of one single solid body).
Our information concerning the ‘distance' to the center of some galaxy, or concerning the observed rotation of some galaxy comes by means of information given to us by those flying bosons, the photons (little packages of ‘free energy'). So it seems worthwhile to get a second opinion concerning the geometry of space, or how far away things are, by consulting those ‘fermions' (little packages of energy arranged in the form we call ‘matter' with the property of ‘having mass').
Both a gravitational field and an electromagnetic field have an energy distribution that obeys the requirements of the Inverse Square Law. As you move further away from the center of the field the field intensity decreases at a fixed rate determined by the inverse square of the distance. If you move 2 times further away the field intensity drops to 1/4, 3 times more distant, the field intensity is now 1/9, 8 times more distant, the field intensity is now much weaker being 1/64, and so on.
According to those bosons (quanta of energy) as field intensity increases (near the center of the field) distance increases, indicating a longer path through the field. The opposite is found to be true if we consult those ‘fermions' (quanta of mass). If we get a second opinion from a fermion, then according to that fermion as field intensity increases, the distance decreases, which then indicates that a more dense energetic field is a shorter path through the field.
You can see that this is true if you try dropping a fermion into such a field and then observe the differing rates of acceleration experienced by such a fermion when dropped into such a field. Above we illustrate different strengths of gravitational fields, and the observed effect of an increasing rate of acceleration of fermions when dropped into these fields. They fall faster and accelerate more quickly when dropped into a big field like Jupiter than they do when they drift slowly to the surface on a smaller body such as the moon. The effect his creates is the constant relative decrease in the fermion path length as field intensity increases, and this report from the ‘mass of matter' is the inverse of the report given to us by some flying boson, like that photon energy packet, which tells us that exact opposite is true.
You can see this inverse relationship once again if we consider an example a little closer to home. We drop a fermion into the earth's field and it accelerates as it falls, and the effect achieved is that this constant acceleration produces a constant relative decrease in the fermion path length as it progresses deeper into the field. If you send a boson up to a satellite, it redshifts as it leaves the dense region of the field near the earth and moves up into the low density region of the field out in space (micro-gravity). Now we are required here to dispose of such classical interpretations of a boson as the ‘particle wave duality' when we interpret a redshifted path through the field to be a shorter path through the field (a blue shifted path with a higher frequency of bouncing up and down would be a longer path through the field, for the boson must cover the same distance, and if you zig zag rather than walking in a straight line, that would be a longer path...a red shifted path, with fewer oscillations is closer to a straight line path, and thus a shorter path through the field...therefore we assume that the momentum of a photon is meaningful, which is going to be a problem if we continue to attempt to use the classical mathematics of Einstein's classical interpretation of the principle of relativity, because this implies that the ‘speed of a photon' is by definition faster than ‘the speed of light', since this speed of light is just a measure of the propagation of this wave like phenomenon, which for some reason is fixed).
Now I have just committed the most damnable heresy, by suggesting that the wave function is actually a path through the field, which implies that Einstein's ‘particle wave duality' is meaningless (it is both a particle and a wave at the same time, this being an example of the so called Quantum weirdness principle, which is alleged to be quite non-classical). However, damnable heresy though it may be, and a violation of mathematics, I would point out that our current system of mathematics is generating errors and is in question, and so therefore we must inquire as to where the heresy is to be located here (if we define ‘heresy' as error, then it is quite possible that it is ‘classical physics' with its single path through the field and its fixed notions of invariant distance and non-relative dimensions that is the real heresy here, and the root source of the mathematical errors...apparently the prevailing consensus view is that we are to leave all that non-classical weirdness to the quantum physics while the large scale universe we will assign to classical physics, and then we will leave string theorists to come up with some way to reconcile the impossible contradictions that are produced as a consequence of this approach).
This then brings us to the discussion of the ‘dark matter of the universe', for while our math equations are producing errors, it turns out that if you drop some dark matter into the universe then you can continue to use those equations some more, for the math will once again work out correctly. This will require our decaying classical physics to toss off one last trace of putrefaction in the form of our new theory of ‘invisibility'. According to this theory you can ignore observed evidence and then work with invisible evidence, this being the sorry state that classical physics has come to in our time. It just isn't very scientific anymore. It ignores real evidence and prefers the invisible stuff instead.
Dark matter is not the consensus point of view, for there is an alternative point of view, which is that there must be something wrong with the mathematics, which then implies that our understanding of the universe on the large inter-galactic scale is flawed. When we take those anthropocentric equations and use them at home, they work fine, but once you move into the galactic scales, they don't work worth a damn, which implies a flawed understanding of the universe.
It would seem to me that the correct solution to this problem would be to toss out that fictional fourth dimension of the universe, our so called clock dimension, since the only purpose of such a so called clock dimension of the universe was to fulfill the function of a leper colony for that case of leprosy known as the principle of relativity, for only by sending relativity off to some isolated island was it possible to keep classical physics going for at least one more century, since the alternative was to introduce the principle of the relativity of distance. What this means is that you would travel to the Andromeda galaxy, and according to your onboard clock, you would arrive at Andromeda in about one month, and then you would return to earth in about one month only to find your exact identical twin waiting for you at the space port because you had agreed to return from Andromeda in time for your mother's fiftieth wedding anniversary. Of course you noticed that your identical twin seemed a little bit older than you were because of the way those bosons slow down and follow a longer path in a very strong momentum field, thus generating the quantum field time effect and a slower clock on the way to Andromeda (one of the consequences of the relativity of distance) and thus allowing you to stay a little younger than your identical twin as you travel the universe.
What is being suggested here is that the anomalous curve associated with gravitational rotation displayed above can be explained if we take into account the principle of relative geometry or relative distance, for a galaxy will produce an anomalous and unexpected red-shift (moving away from us) or blue-shift (moving towards us), because those things that are farther away are also more red-shifted. We normally think of a galaxy as possessing a kind of ‘flat geometry' and so therefore the idea that the center of a nearby galaxy would be a couple of billion years ‘farther away' than the edge of the same galaxy seems ridiculous. This is the anthropocentric and very classical reaction, and it is a product of mundane human experience which has been limited for thousands of years to experience gained around the house or out in the field or around about town.
If we dispose of Einstein's clock dimension we will then need a new clock. The illustration above summarizes the concept of ‘quantum field time'. Two quantum processes are exchanging information (bosons, little packets of energy). In a stronger part of the field (bottom) the path length has increased, which means that the path is blue shifted, and therefore since all of reality is dependent upon these underlying and fundamental quantum processes, what we perceive as the passage of time slows down. Time then is just a consequence of motion and motion is a consequence of field properties, such as the attempt to move to a state of entropy and the requirement that field equality exist (when a voltage difference occurs, current flows and the current flow only stops when field equality is achieved and no potential difference exists). Time then is just a generated side-effect, and no clock really does exist in the universe. In a less dense energy field time passes more swiftly, for the path becomes red-shifted and this a shorter path.
A meter stick is defined as being such and such a number of wavelengths of a certain frequency of light. Mary measures a meter stick and then sends the results to John out in space who receives the result as being redshifted. John cannot use this frequency or the result would be that his meter stick would be to long. This implies that John exists in a dilated space corresponding to the lower energy field out in space. This also implies that the process that produced this result was blue-shifted at the source. This then implies the relativity of momentum, for two supposedly identical sources have produced either blueshifted or redshited results, with the only variable factor being the surrounding field density in which the processes took place.
Consider the Pioneer Anomaly. The two craft are decelerating at a constant rate that causes them to fall behind by about 400,000 kilometers per year, and the factor that produces this rate of deceleration is found to be mathematically equivalent to Hubble's Constant (a measure of redshift). Now as the spacecraft move into less dense space, the result for a fermion is a longer path, and this is expressed as 'deceleration'. We assume that momentum is a relative concept and therefore the two spacecraft are not 'losing momentum' as a mechanical Newtonian explanation would require, but the effect has an entirely non-classical explanation. Therefore it follows that the maximum potential velocity of the two craft must be increasing (for they would require 'more momentum' to maintain a constant velocity). A red shifted path through the field is a shorter path, which then implies that the speed of light is increasing and that therefore the speed of light is relative.
Now if momentum is relative, and if momentum is expressed inversely by fermions and bosons (when one accelerates the other decelerates) then it logically follows from this that it must be true that a process, if it is to 'conserve momentum' must produce a 'blue shifted' communication if the speed of light is slower in order to conserve momentum.
It is important to discuss this idea of the 'quantum field time' and relative momentum because it is relevant to decoding the anomalous red shift of a galaxies rotation curve which is not explained by simple 'gravitational red shift'.
It is known that Einstein's equations produce erroneous results when applied to certain quantum experiments (and therefore the mathematical errors are not confined to space and the classical universe of galaxies). This has led to some speculation concerning 'electromagnetic time dilation' which if added on, much like dark matter being added to a galaxy, would then correct the math error.
It is interesting to note that Einstein already alludes to this phenomenon of the relativity of the speed of light on page 76 of his book, Relativity...a popular exposition.
Our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the con stancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which consti tutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a conse quence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the in fluences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).
We can see examples of this relativity of momentum in nature. Let's assume that we drop an asteroid or a comet fragment into the field of Jupiter and one onto the field of the moon. The fragment that hits the moon will kick up a dust cloud and leave a crater. The fragment that impacts Jupiter will generate an explosion so powerful that it leaves a dark black scar on Jupiter the size of the earth (as you might recall from the images taken of that spectacular impact several years ago). All things being held equal the only difference here was the relative field strength in which the reaction occurred, with the reaction being stronger in a more powerful field. In the same way we assume that quantum processes also experience this relativity of momentum, and produce blue shifted results in stronger fields. It is also possible that my thinking is the exact opposite to what it should be here, and that quantum processes compensate for the slower passage through the field by red-shifting their processes (a shorter path through the stronger field) and this results in the conservation of momentum being exchanged between those processes. In any case the relativity of momentum is required to explain the Pioneer anomaly and the unusual red shifting we see in the graphs of galatic rotation, for this is not explained by the simple Doppler effect or by gravitational shifting. (This stating the obvious, for if it was explained, there would be no controversial anomaly which then required the search for an explanation).
Therefore we postulate that the speed of light is relative, and this then leads to the principle of the relativity of momentum, and the concept of the quantum field time.
This might seem like a small change. We will just get a new clock, but a theory must be consistent, and so therefore we are required to make some deep fundamental changes in the way we view the universe. Furthermore there will be mathematical problems, for if the wave function is just a relative path, this implies that photons always travel ‘faster than the speed of light' for if a low momentum (red-shifted) photon and a high momentum (blue shifted) photon both arrive at a destination at the same time while following different paths through the field, this means that photons, by definition, travel ‘faster than the speed of light'. The only photon that ever traveled at ‘the speed of light' would be a photon which produced a path we interpreted as having a frequency and wavelength of zero (a straight line).
These changes in the way we think create mathematical problems, but those math equations are producing flawed results as it is, so what is required is that we have the correct fundamental understanding of how the universe really does work, so that we can then understand what the correct mathematical equation must be, for the second follows from the first. As things stand now an attempt is being made to force the universe to conform to math equations by dumping some dark matter into the universe, which is backwards.