Thursday, August 22, 2024

Twinkling Stars And Cosmology

Have you ever wondered why stars appear to "twinkle" but planets shine with a steady light? Or why a flame appears to "flicker" but electric lights shine with a steady light?

Both are optical illusions. We know that stars do not really twinkle. It cannot be caused by the atmosphere because if it was then planets would twinkle too. The answer is actually rooted in cosmology. 

In my cosmology theory the particles of matter, such as electrons, are actually very long strings in four dimensions. We perceive them as strings because we can only see in three of the four dimensions, the fourth dimension we perceive as time. Electromagnetic waves, such as light, are produced by the movement of these strings and can be modeled as two-dimensional sine waves. The reason these strings of matter produce electromagnetic waves is that both matter and space is composed of the same near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is an alternating pattern of the charges and matter is like charges held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. This is why the fundamental particles, such as electrons, tend to have an electric charge. The energy holding the like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. 

I won't go into detail about the cosmology theory because there is an abbreviated version of it in the posting "Cosmology Theory In Diagrams", January 2024.

What this means is that the electrons in the atoms in your eyes are one-dimensional strings. Our eyes, as well as camera equipment, operate by electrons being knocked out of atoms by the energy in electromagnetic waves. These loose electrons form a current and that is how we see.

Electromagnetic waves, such as light, are two-dimensional waves that can be aligned in any direction in space, perpendicular to the direction in which they are moving. If you look at the face of a clock, some waves might be aligned 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock. Others might be aligned 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock, and so on. These alignments, relative to the direction the light is traveling, are known as polarities. Light is ordinarily a mixture of all polarities. If the polarities of light are all lined up then the light is referred to as "polarized". 

In lasers the light must be polarized, as well as all of exactly the same wavelength. This is why lasers can exert force. The energy in light can be modeled as a sine wave and the force that each wave exerts on an object is dissipated by each wave striking an object at a different point on each wave. A laser exerts force because all of the waves are of the same polarity and wavelength and so are all pushing together.

The light from stars would be unpolarized, aligned in all different directions. We know that light is partially polarized when it is reflected off a surface. This explains why stars "twinkle" but planets, which are reflecting starlight, shine with a steady light. The steady light is at least partially polarized while the twinkling is unpolarized. 

There can be only one logical explanation for the twinkling of stars. Our eyes cannot tell if light is polarized or not. But what our eyes can tell is if the polarity is changing. The light from a star is a mix of all polarities that is continuously changing. This causes our eyes to perceive the star as "twinkling". 

The only way to explain this is if, as my cosmology theory holds, the electrons in our eyes are really one dimensional strings, which means that each must be aligned in a particular direction. This wouldn't be true if electrons were particles in three dimensional space. When an electron string is aligned in a particular direction it will receive light waves that are polarized in the same direction. If the polarity of light is continuously changing then the electron strings in our eyes that are receiving the waves will be continuously changing, and we perceive that as the twinkling of a star or the flickering of a flame, and it shows that my cosmology theory must be correct.

No comments:

Post a Comment