Quantized redshift anomaly

It seems to everyone needs a model and I wonder is that is similar to having a need for a thumb? No one likes everything about any model and much time and effort is used to attack and defend models favored by one guy or another. The most anyone can say is something like any model is better than no model. Do you really need a model? Why not try to get along without a model? Explore what is and let the rest of the mysteries be what they are until at some time they become known. There is a lot of stuff that needs fixing and a lot of work.

Letter to the Big Bangers<hr noshade size="1">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tommy Mandel
last letter cut short
Fri Mar 18, 2005 21:31
64.12.116.202


Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
by Paul Marmet

In papers published about a decade ago, the author and colleagues predicted the widespr

---

Opps, Hey Jack, your software cut my letter short! Interesting synchronicity. (I hope) I was just getting to Paul Marnet, and in conclusion another quote from Kuhn about the need for an alternate theory in a scientific revolution. Then I had an introduction by Tom Van flandern to the new cosmology after which I restated my own views with references. All that was cropped out by your computer.

Allow me to present the short version...

I stated that the Big Bang theory is based on an interpretation. Actually I read that it was Hubble himself who added "c", later,to his equation thereby creating the velocity component. This is how the Doppler effect is an interpretation, and not a direct observation. Here it is [In a letter by Hubble to the Dutch cosmologist Willem De Sitter in 1931, he stated his concerns about these velocities by saying "... we use the term 'apparent velocities' in order to emphasize the empirical feature of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority." www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/expan.html ]

So you see, that the Universe is expanding is an assumption based on an interpretation of measured redshift, is not a misunderstanding at all.

The only other evidence of expansion is an assumption that the CMBR is temperature left from T = 0.

Here is the reference:

History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson(1)
André Koch Torres Assis* & Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves**


Instituto de Física "Gleb Wataghin", Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-970, Campinas-SP, Brasil, e-mail: assis@ifi.unicamp.br
** Departamento de Física, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Av. Colombo, 5790, 87020-900, Maringá-PR, Brasil, e-mail: macedane@yahoo.com



We present the history of estimates of the temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume and Eddington on the temperature of interstellar space due to starlight belonging to our Milky Way galaxy. Then we discuss works relating to cosmic radiation, concentrating on Regener and Nernst. We also discuss Finlay-Freundlich’s and Max Born’s important research on this topic. Finally, we present the work of Gamow and collaborators. We show that the models based on an Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang.
PACS: 98.70.Vc Background radiations

98.80.-k Cosmology

98.80Bp Origin and formation of the Universe

Key Words: Cosmic background radiation, temperature of intergalactic space, blackblody radiation


Introduction
In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) utilizing a horn reflector antenna built to study radio astronomy (Penzias and Wilson 1965). They found a temperature of 3.5± 1.0 K observing background radiation at 7.3 cm wavelength. This was soon interpreted as a relic of the hot Big Bang with a blackbody spectrum (Dicke et al. 1965). The finding was considered a proof of the standard cosmological model of the Universe based on the expansion on the Universe (the Big Bang), which had predicted this temperature with the works of Gamow and collaborators.
In this paper we show that other models of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion had predicted this temperature prior to Gamow. Moreover, we show that Gamow’s own predictions were worse than these previous ones.

---

Now, what do I think about all this. I'm not ready to present the alternative cosmology, so your computer did me a big favor. Meanwhile, I noticed something that is very obvious to me. Being brand new to cosmology, I had the advantage of looking at it from a different perspective from that of the experienced cosmologist or astrophysicist. Of course it came to me after only a glance at what is known, and I may be entirely wrong if it were worked through. I get the impression that "GRAVITY" is the "sole" basis of the Big Bang cosmology. I say that because that is all I hear about. Everything is in terms of gravity. Oh, and this rather strange thing called radiation. I used to be an electronic technician, and I know that "radiation" is not a technical term. It is a general term descibing all the various forms of "radiation." So when you say a star is "radiating" you really are not saying anything "scientific."

Anyway, I get the impression that the mainstream cosmology has left out ElectroMagnetic currents. You see, radiation means currents. Current flow in space is via Plasma, the fourth state of matter. Plasma is a differentiated flow of electrons and ions together in filaments which, because of their different masses, tend to wrap around eachother forming Birkeland braids. Spirials.

It is in this way that our Sun is a model of the Univerrse. Our Sun is a star, so we can learn about the stars by learning about our Sun. What they know about the Sun is that not only is there great gravity effects, there is also a tremendous electromagnetic effects going on as well. Our Sun is a Plasma Star. My point is that these electromagnetic fields are current flows. And they are large enough to play havoc with our power generating systems on earth.

I found an old book "The Universe" by Isaac Asimov in a used bookstore: Page 280 I read:
"Further investigations of this sort made the map (of the Galaxy) more intricate, but then the technique became obsolete in the light of the 21-centimeter radiation. Suddenly, it became possible to work for much larger distances with in the Galaxy and in much greater detail. Maps were prepared of the spiral structure of the Galaxy, and one could begin to think bog it, schematically, as a rather symmetrical double spiral.

Nor is the cold, neutral hydrogen gas of the Galaxy static. Studies by Oort and Van de Hulst seem to indicate that the hydrogen gas flows outward from the center to the outskirts of the system at a surprisingly rapid rate. Oort estimates that the quantity of hydrogen transported each year from the center outward is equal to the mass of the Sun. This flow of gas outward is outward along the spiral arms according to some speculation, serve to keep the arms in being, maintain their rich supply of gas and their ability to form new stars. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how the source of the hydrogen at the center persists. It should have run dry long ago, unless there is a general circulation by which the supply at the center can be replenished, perhaps at the expense of a gigantic "halo" of hydrogen gas that seems to encompass the Galaxy generally. What keeps the hydrogen circulating is not known as yet. "

---

It is not naive to suppose that matter is streaming out of Galaxies. Plasma has been shown to produce over unity heat on the test bench. Ask Moray B King. Has to do with the interactio of Protons with the ZPE.

So with all the Graivity effects going on, there are also electromagnetics going on.

So the "NEW" cosmology will not be an alternative to gravity, but a complement.

Now, Linde talks about multiple Universes in his New inflation theory. So it is not at all crack pot to surmise that if expansion is not needed, then the multiple Universe could turn out to be the multiple Galaxies. So instead of one Big Bang long ago, there are billions and billions of little bangs going on right now.

The new cosmology will be a blending of gravity and EMF. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

---

Jin, I'm thinking the same as you, the new model might not be one model after all. It does seem like there are many facets to evolution, and only by "sweeping in" those that have been determined will the new view emerge. After al, the Universe actually works by working together. Gravity is static, electromagnetics is dynamic. It works like a system as does everything else, by the interplay of the elements rather than the victory of one over the other. If gravity wre the sole determinant of cosmological evolution, then we would all still be dust in the winds of expansion...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Jim) It seems to everyone needs a model and I wonder is that is similar to having a need for a thumb? No one likes everything about any model and much time and effort is used to attack and defend models favored by one guy or another. The most anyone can say is something like any model is better than no model. Do you really need a model? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I opened Thomas Kuhn's book Structure of scientific revolutions to whatever page a while ago and read:

"Let us assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories and ask next how scientists respond to their existence. Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anolmalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of philosophy of science that is what they are. In part this generalization is simply a statement from historical fact, based on examples like those given above, and more extensively, below. These hint what our later examination pf paradigm rejection will disclose more fully; once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place.. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature...The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another...(page 77)

<hr noshade size="1">

We need a model because if we don't have a model, someone else will make up one for us. If we are trying to apoproach a subject in the scientific sense, we need a model to develop, organize and work with the characteristics of the suject of our inquiry. We need a model so that others may not only come to understand but to test out what we put into the model. We need a model so that we can teach our children about what is happening. We need a model because without one, the Big Bang model will always be the standard theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What then compels us to devise theory after theory? Why do we devise theories at all? THe answer to the latter question is simply because we enjoy "comprehending". That is. reducing phenomena by the process of logic to something already known or (apparently) evident. New theories are first of all necessary when we encounter new facts that cannot be "explained" by existing theories. But this motivation for setting up new theories is, so to speak, trivail, imposed from without. There is another, more subtle motive of no less importance/ This is the striving toward unification and simplification of the premises of the theory as a whole (that is, Mach's principle of economy, interpreted as a logical principle." Albert Einstein<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<center><u>1) STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. </u></center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Did the Universe have a beginning?
Abstract by Tom Van Flandern

ABSTRACT The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago. Such an idea had no serious constituency until Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift of galaxy light in the 1920s, which seemed to imply an expanding universe. However, our ability to test cosmological theories has vastly improved with modern telescopes covering all wavelengths, some of them in orbit. Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it. Here, we examine the evidence for the most fundamental postulate of the big bang, the expansion of the universe. We conclude that the evidence does not support the theory; and that it is time to stop patching up the theory to keep it viable, and to consider fundamentally new working models for the origin and nature of the universe in better agreement with the observations. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1">

<center><u>ON MODEL BUILDING</u></center>

Robert Rosen tells us that there are two aspects of modeling. He describes this in a model of his own called the modeling relation. On the one hand we have the formal system, and on the other hand we have the natural system. The modeling relation shows us that there must be a relationship between the Formal and the Natural. N&lt;&gt;F

What I would like to bring to our attention is the operating principles of the Natural. These principles have been established in a scientific way by the luminaries of the System Movement such a Weiner and von Bertalanffy. Bertalanffy describes in his book General System Theory, a minimal system as "elements in standing relationship"

In our case the Natural would be the actual Universe, including us. It is a mistake to create a Formal Model without including us. Even if we restrict the unit to Planck's length, we are observing it, and that includes us. And if we are looking at the Universe, what we se is what "us" is looking at.

Wholeness is the primary distinction between classical science (atomism) and Systemic (Wholistic) science. Science has taken us far by the examination of this or that element. But, as the Great Bela Banathy points out, the new emphasis is on the relationships.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The perspectives of system science has a focus on multiple/dynamic interactions, the whole and patterns of relationships. The mode of inquiry is analysis and synthesis, expansion and emergence. Reasoning is nondeterministic with purpose and meaning. The rule is observer involvement and influence with the goal of understanding." pp 7 "A systems View of Education" Bela Banathy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Basically, what the systemists are saying is that we need to look at how things work together, how they interact, and formulate theories around this interaction. For it is only through the relationships, that Wholeness emerges. (because it is only the wholeness that is familair with all the parts)

Wholeness is an emergent property of the relationship of consituent elements. For example, water is an emergent property of two gases - hydrogen and oxygen. So is rocket fuel. The difference is how they work together.

As quick as that we have established a an operating principle -- working together. The principle, in turn establishes certain empirical
statements. The very act of distinction creates two elements, and these elements have a relationship and these elements and their relationships are a Whole. One example might be positive and negative charges.

It is this ontological distinction that first occurs in the Natural system.

This principle can be stated as axioms
IF A, THEN B;
IF (A,, THEN R;
IF (A,B)R, THEN C.

This would be a description of the first operating principle of the Natural Universe in a Formal way. If one wants to do this in an actual way, clap your hands, and observe what is going on.

The "problem" of recognizing this wholeness is because the properties the Whole cannot be found in the properties of the constituent parts. Try and derive meaning from the black ink of these letters you are reading right now...Knowing all about White, and knowing all about black, will not help us even a little knowing about what they say together."The sound of one hand clapping"

Emergent properties create something else out of this and that. Just knowing this and that will not tell us what this and that together are doing....

Thus this first principle is carried forward by Nature, where positive and negative become electron and proton, and by using the same principle over and over all the elements form. These elements further interact together to form molecules. The molecules, made of resonant electron fields, interact together to form things such as DNA.

This is why mathematics works. The very first event to occur established an order, and that order established is being used over and over. Look at all the different ways!

In a pragamatic sense, a study of wholeness requires the "sweeping in" of all the relavent data. Systems interact together at all levels, on all scales, and among all domains. A study of systemic principles requires the inclusion of all relevant disciplines as integral parts of the theory. It is not easy.

This means, in a more specific way, that Gravity is only part of the picture. And the Whole picture involves much more than just gravity, it involves at the very least the interplay of positive and negative charges. Too.

And their emerge3nt properties...



<hr noshade size="1">

Note: Interestingly, gravity is not very systemic as a concept, if it were there would be attractive gravity too. So merely on the basis of this model building, one could presume that gravity is not a complete concept. Consider that a single atom has EMF, but it has no gravity. Right? Gravity kicks in in between two atoms and so on. So fundamentally gravity is not a feature of matter. Gravity does not exist in matter, it exists in between matter. (Observatinally anyhow...)

Co-operation is a good thing for sure, but the making of a model by this process will not improve or fix the basic proplem. At this time data is being distorted to suit models that people favor and that is a bad thing because it gives the data a spin that really does exist in the real universe. It is quite possible the questions everyone wants to answer through modeling will never be answered at all. The thing is there is a lot to be discovered in what is now observed and not understood because models distort reality. I'm looking forward to the next episode of the EPH saga for more about the value models.