- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
18 years 10 months ago #16871
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<center><b>Approaching the Big Bangers with the Evidence
A conversation with their highest mathematical authority</b></center>
"That was Then" is a series of letters posted almost one year ago. "This is Now" is a letter posted on Christmas Eve. It was deleted the next day.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<font size="3"><b><center>THAT WAS THEN</center></b></font id="size3">
Letters to Stardrive's Jack Sarfatti
disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=68326;...e=1473;show_parent=1
Thomas Mandel
Does Tifft's evidence of redshift quantization falsify BB
Fri Jan 21, 2005 19:35
64.12.116.14
I'm just curious, because if quantization of redshift does falsify the standard Doppler interpretation, it would also remove critical evidence for the Big Bang, and that would throw a wrench into much of what you have said mathematically. Remember that the scientific method does not take into any account the intellectual personality of the person typing the paper.
It is interesting that you did not reply to this earlier post, so I will repeat it here
Thomas Mandel
a falsification of standard interpretation
Tue Jan 18, 2005 20:50
64.12.116.6
It has been reported at
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
in the paper:
"Evidemce for Quantization amd Variable Redshifts in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame
W.G.Tifft
Steward Observatory,
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Abstract
Evidence is presented for redshift quantization and variability as detected in global studies done in the rest frame of the cosmic background radiations. Quantization is strong and consistent with predictions derived from concepts associated with multidimensional time. Nine different families of periods are possible but certain ones are more likely to occur...
snip
Introduction: The objective of this paper is to present current evidence for global redshift quantization and to examine some of its properties. By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;
the redshift
is not a continuous variable
as expected from
the standard doppler
interpretation..."
snip
It remains to be seen if this information is true or not, but if it is, this constitutes a falsification of the standard doppler interpretation, where does Tifft go wrong?
030
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Jack Sarfatti
quantized red shift
Sat Jan 22, 2005 13:39
68.123.28.199
This claim is uncorroborated. Even if true, it does not obviously contradict the precision cosmology.
030
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Thomas Mandel
"The claims are broadly upheld."
Sat Jan 22, 2005 20:23
205.188.116.202
It has been corroborated, see the below article:
A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims
Author: Napier W.M.1
Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 285, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)
Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Abstract:
Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.
Didn't Einstein say that when high-precision data contradicts precision theory, it is the theory that is called into question, if not discarded"
030
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Thomas Mandel
Jack Sarfatti
Missing the point
You miss the point. Quantized redshift, even if real, does not automatically invalidate all the other data of modern precision cosmology. What it may mean of course would need explanation. It is premature and you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
This data is old, and what I have presented comes from years ago. So I wonder too what has happened in the intervening years since Tifft finalized his results? Where is all this today? So far, I have found something by Setterfield. (Unfortunately, he has an agenda too, which I find highly questionable, but for what he has to say about redshift quantization I think we can look at if only "to break the silence".) So, yes, I am assuming that it is for real. It seems that at this point in time we ought to be able to proceed to the next question: Are there other instances which would be explained by redshift quantization? More specifically, are Arp's findings that two physically connected bodies sometimes have different redshifts valid?
But first, does the below lead us to the above question?
030
www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#new53103
Is the Redshift Really quantized?
Setterfield: A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.
It is at this point that Tifft’s work enters the discussion. In 1976, William Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona, started examining redshift values. The data indicated that the redshift, z, was not a smooth function but went in a series of jumps. Between successive jumps the redshift remained fixed at the value attained at the last jump. The editor of the Astrophysical Journal who published the first article by Tifft, made a comment in a footnote to the effect that they did not like the idea, but referees could find no basic flaw in the presentation, so publication was reluctantly agreed to. Further data came in supporting z quantisation, but the astronomical community could not generally accept the data because the prevailing interpretation of z was that it represented universal expansion, and it would be difficult to find a reason for that expansion to occur in “jumps”. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift survey was published, and the redshifts were not clustered in the way that Tifft had suggested. But an important development occurred in 1984 when Cocke pointed out that the motion of the Sun and solar system through space had a genuine Doppler shift that added to or subtracted from every redshift in the sky. Cocke pointed out that when this true Doppler effect was removed from the Fisher-Tully observations, there were redshift “jumps” or quantisations globally across the whole sky, and this from data that had not been collected by Tifft. In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it. The quantisation was supported by a Fourier analysis and the results published around 1995. The published graph showed over 60 successive peaks and troughs of precise redshift quantisations. There could be no doubt about the results. Comments were made in New Scientist, Scientific American and a number of other lesser publications, but generally, the astronomical community treated the results with silence."
Even today there is little more than silence. Why? That will be the real interesting question tomorrow...
Thomas Mandel
Thomas Mandel
replication by independant observation
Mon Jan 24, 2005 23:44
205.188.116.14
Here is what appears to be independant research indicating redshift quantization. Interestingly this paper does not reference Tifft's paper, is it possible they didn't know of Tifft's observations?
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
THE DISTRIBUTION OF REDSHIFTS IN
NEW SAMPLES OF QUASI-STELLAR OBJECTS
¢ÓG. Burbidge & W.M. Napier
¢ÓCenter for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and Department of Physics, University of California, Mail
Code 0424, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0424
*Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG, U.K.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
ABSTRACT
Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with
a periodic separation of ¡&SHY; 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in
these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by
spectroscopic or similar selection effects. Possible interpretations are briefly discussed.
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Jack Sarfatti
Good message
Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:25
68.123.28.199
If this data holds up it is of course important. What it means is not known as yet. I am busy on other projects now and will of course keep tabs on this. I was aware of these claims before of course.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
www.sastpc.org/internal.php?pid=104
www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/...85/00000002/05138613
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
<font size="3"><center><b>THIS IS NOW</b></center></font id="size3">
That was a year ago. This following letter, a summary of excerpts from various articles was submitted eleven months later, made it to the list, see the identification number in the heading, but within a day, without any comment, it was deleted.
Given that Sarfatti presumes he is a world-class expert on the Big Bang, it would seem that he would relish any opportunity to rebut claims contrary to what he claims. Instead of confronting the evidence, he choose to hide it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Tommy Mandel
Big Bang never happened v2.0
Sat Dec 24, 2005 23:05
205.188.117.65
The following is a summation of observtional evidence counter to the standard Big Bang theory, composed of excerpts taken from selected writings of authors presenting alternative views of cosmology. The citations are elaborated at www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm
tm
They write...
"Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe.
William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram.
By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values.
These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity.
Since its discovery nearly 65 years ago, the cosmological redshift has endured as one of the most persuasive 'proofs' that our universe is expanding.
n 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."
The terms 'recession velocity' and 'expansion velocity' were quickly brought into service by astronomers at the telescope, and by popularizers, to describe the physical basis for the redshift.
"...Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession.
Can galaxies, like atoms and mole cules, posses quantized states? And do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES; and then all of astronomy and our entire view of the universe and its history would have to be reformulated.
Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion.
In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.
In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it.
Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars.
By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;
the redshift is not a continuous variable as expected from the standard doppler interpretation..."
We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow.
Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.
According to Halton Arp, observations began to accumulate from 1966 that could not be accounted for by this conventional explanation of the redshift effect. Some extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recesson velocity.
The first quasar was discovered by Allan Sandage and Thomas Matthews, an optical and a radio astronomer working in collaboration, in 1963. Then, to great surprise, Martin Schmidt found that the initially puzzling lines were those of familiar elements but shifted far to the right. Why, when the highest redshifted galaxies had a maximum redshift of 20 to 40 percent of the velocity of light, did these stellar-looking objects suddenly appear with redshifts of 80 to 90 percent?
Rather than regard these quasars as being at lesser distances so as to give them quite modest expansion velocities, conventional theorists attempted to incorporate the redshift effect into their existing beliefs.
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.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, there are those who show and there are those who hide.
A conversation with their highest mathematical authority</b></center>
"That was Then" is a series of letters posted almost one year ago. "This is Now" is a letter posted on Christmas Eve. It was deleted the next day.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<font size="3"><b><center>THAT WAS THEN</center></b></font id="size3">
Letters to Stardrive's Jack Sarfatti
disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=68326;...e=1473;show_parent=1
Thomas Mandel
Does Tifft's evidence of redshift quantization falsify BB
Fri Jan 21, 2005 19:35
64.12.116.14
I'm just curious, because if quantization of redshift does falsify the standard Doppler interpretation, it would also remove critical evidence for the Big Bang, and that would throw a wrench into much of what you have said mathematically. Remember that the scientific method does not take into any account the intellectual personality of the person typing the paper.
It is interesting that you did not reply to this earlier post, so I will repeat it here
Thomas Mandel
a falsification of standard interpretation
Tue Jan 18, 2005 20:50
64.12.116.6
It has been reported at
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
in the paper:
"Evidemce for Quantization amd Variable Redshifts in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame
W.G.Tifft
Steward Observatory,
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Abstract
Evidence is presented for redshift quantization and variability as detected in global studies done in the rest frame of the cosmic background radiations. Quantization is strong and consistent with predictions derived from concepts associated with multidimensional time. Nine different families of periods are possible but certain ones are more likely to occur...
snip
Introduction: The objective of this paper is to present current evidence for global redshift quantization and to examine some of its properties. By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;
the redshift
is not a continuous variable
as expected from
the standard doppler
interpretation..."
snip
It remains to be seen if this information is true or not, but if it is, this constitutes a falsification of the standard doppler interpretation, where does Tifft go wrong?
030
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Jack Sarfatti
quantized red shift
Sat Jan 22, 2005 13:39
68.123.28.199
This claim is uncorroborated. Even if true, it does not obviously contradict the precision cosmology.
030
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Thomas Mandel
"The claims are broadly upheld."
Sat Jan 22, 2005 20:23
205.188.116.202
It has been corroborated, see the below article:
A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims
Author: Napier W.M.1
Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 285, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)
Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Abstract:
Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.
Didn't Einstein say that when high-precision data contradicts precision theory, it is the theory that is called into question, if not discarded"
030
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Thomas Mandel
Jack Sarfatti
Missing the point
You miss the point. Quantized redshift, even if real, does not automatically invalidate all the other data of modern precision cosmology. What it may mean of course would need explanation. It is premature and you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
This data is old, and what I have presented comes from years ago. So I wonder too what has happened in the intervening years since Tifft finalized his results? Where is all this today? So far, I have found something by Setterfield. (Unfortunately, he has an agenda too, which I find highly questionable, but for what he has to say about redshift quantization I think we can look at if only "to break the silence".) So, yes, I am assuming that it is for real. It seems that at this point in time we ought to be able to proceed to the next question: Are there other instances which would be explained by redshift quantization? More specifically, are Arp's findings that two physically connected bodies sometimes have different redshifts valid?
But first, does the below lead us to the above question?
030
www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#new53103
Is the Redshift Really quantized?
Setterfield: A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.
It is at this point that Tifft’s work enters the discussion. In 1976, William Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona, started examining redshift values. The data indicated that the redshift, z, was not a smooth function but went in a series of jumps. Between successive jumps the redshift remained fixed at the value attained at the last jump. The editor of the Astrophysical Journal who published the first article by Tifft, made a comment in a footnote to the effect that they did not like the idea, but referees could find no basic flaw in the presentation, so publication was reluctantly agreed to. Further data came in supporting z quantisation, but the astronomical community could not generally accept the data because the prevailing interpretation of z was that it represented universal expansion, and it would be difficult to find a reason for that expansion to occur in “jumps”. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift survey was published, and the redshifts were not clustered in the way that Tifft had suggested. But an important development occurred in 1984 when Cocke pointed out that the motion of the Sun and solar system through space had a genuine Doppler shift that added to or subtracted from every redshift in the sky. Cocke pointed out that when this true Doppler effect was removed from the Fisher-Tully observations, there were redshift “jumps” or quantisations globally across the whole sky, and this from data that had not been collected by Tifft. In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it. The quantisation was supported by a Fourier analysis and the results published around 1995. The published graph showed over 60 successive peaks and troughs of precise redshift quantisations. There could be no doubt about the results. Comments were made in New Scientist, Scientific American and a number of other lesser publications, but generally, the astronomical community treated the results with silence."
Even today there is little more than silence. Why? That will be the real interesting question tomorrow...
Thomas Mandel
Thomas Mandel
replication by independant observation
Mon Jan 24, 2005 23:44
205.188.116.14
Here is what appears to be independant research indicating redshift quantization. Interestingly this paper does not reference Tifft's paper, is it possible they didn't know of Tifft's observations?
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
THE DISTRIBUTION OF REDSHIFTS IN
NEW SAMPLES OF QUASI-STELLAR OBJECTS
¢ÓG. Burbidge & W.M. Napier
¢ÓCenter for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and Department of Physics, University of California, Mail
Code 0424, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0424
*Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG, U.K.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
ABSTRACT
Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with
a periodic separation of ¡&SHY; 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in
these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by
spectroscopic or similar selection effects. Possible interpretations are briefly discussed.
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
Jack Sarfatti
Good message
Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:25
68.123.28.199
If this data holds up it is of course important. What it means is not known as yet. I am busy on other projects now and will of course keep tabs on this. I was aware of these claims before of course.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
www.sastpc.org/internal.php?pid=104
www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/...85/00000002/05138613
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
<hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1"><hr noshade size="1">
<font size="3"><center><b>THIS IS NOW</b></center></font id="size3">
That was a year ago. This following letter, a summary of excerpts from various articles was submitted eleven months later, made it to the list, see the identification number in the heading, but within a day, without any comment, it was deleted.
Given that Sarfatti presumes he is a world-class expert on the Big Bang, it would seem that he would relish any opportunity to rebut claims contrary to what he claims. Instead of confronting the evidence, he choose to hide it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Tommy Mandel
Big Bang never happened v2.0
Sat Dec 24, 2005 23:05
205.188.117.65
The following is a summation of observtional evidence counter to the standard Big Bang theory, composed of excerpts taken from selected writings of authors presenting alternative views of cosmology. The citations are elaborated at www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm
tm
They write...
"Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe.
William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram.
By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values.
These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity.
Since its discovery nearly 65 years ago, the cosmological redshift has endured as one of the most persuasive 'proofs' that our universe is expanding.
n 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."
The terms 'recession velocity' and 'expansion velocity' were quickly brought into service by astronomers at the telescope, and by popularizers, to describe the physical basis for the redshift.
"...Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession.
Can galaxies, like atoms and mole cules, posses quantized states? And do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES; and then all of astronomy and our entire view of the universe and its history would have to be reformulated.
Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion.
In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.
In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it.
Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars.
By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;
the redshift is not a continuous variable as expected from the standard doppler interpretation..."
We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow.
Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.
According to Halton Arp, observations began to accumulate from 1966 that could not be accounted for by this conventional explanation of the redshift effect. Some extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recesson velocity.
The first quasar was discovered by Allan Sandage and Thomas Matthews, an optical and a radio astronomer working in collaboration, in 1963. Then, to great surprise, Martin Schmidt found that the initially puzzling lines were those of familiar elements but shifted far to the right. Why, when the highest redshifted galaxies had a maximum redshift of 20 to 40 percent of the velocity of light, did these stellar-looking objects suddenly appear with redshifts of 80 to 90 percent?
Rather than regard these quasars as being at lesser distances so as to give them quite modest expansion velocities, conventional theorists attempted to incorporate the redshift effect into their existing beliefs.
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.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, there are those who show and there are those who hide.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17158
by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Hello Tommy
So tell me:
What do you think about the universe?
Smile,,,,,,,,,,, in a few words and to the point.
I have always stated that the universe is:
1) Endless.
2) Recyclic.
3) Randomly distributed in an equillibrium state.This is more complicted than meets the eye.
4) Most of the matter is stored in high density plasma.
5) Not Expanding.
6) No Big Bang Origin.
That will do for now.
What do others think? without huge amounts of essays and maths.
Happy New Year
Harry
So tell me:
What do you think about the universe?
Smile,,,,,,,,,,, in a few words and to the point.
I have always stated that the universe is:
1) Endless.
2) Recyclic.
3) Randomly distributed in an equillibrium state.This is more complicted than meets the eye.
4) Most of the matter is stored in high density plasma.
5) Not Expanding.
6) No Big Bang Origin.
That will do for now.
What do others think? without huge amounts of essays and maths.
Happy New Year
Harry
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 10 months ago #16874
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Tommy,
This is old news. Don't you have anything new? Don't you have any of your OWN thoughts about this subject that you would like to share? (NOTE - in the past when you have expressed your own thoughts about something you have actually been interesting.)
If you are going to keep on doing the cut-and-paste thing I may actually follow through on my threat to delete some of it. (Unlike the other site where they deleted your cut-and-paste, you at least get some warning and discussion here.)
At the very least you should:
*) go back and edit the cut-and-paste so that it is <u>always</u> clear who is saying what
*) reformat any stuff like this (¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç,) with what it should have been.
Even if you are reluctant to use your own thoughts in public, you have a responsibility to make your cut-and-paste stuff understandable. Try to dig up something new (hard work, I realize), and label it as such.
Regards,
LB
This is old news. Don't you have anything new? Don't you have any of your OWN thoughts about this subject that you would like to share? (NOTE - in the past when you have expressed your own thoughts about something you have actually been interesting.)
If you are going to keep on doing the cut-and-paste thing I may actually follow through on my threat to delete some of it. (Unlike the other site where they deleted your cut-and-paste, you at least get some warning and discussion here.)
At the very least you should:
*) go back and edit the cut-and-paste so that it is <u>always</u> clear who is saying what
*) reformat any stuff like this (¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç,) with what it should have been.
Even if you are reluctant to use your own thoughts in public, you have a responsibility to make your cut-and-paste stuff understandable. Try to dig up something new (hard work, I realize), and label it as such.
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17097
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Around the time of Whitehead's organismic philosophy, a biologist by te name of Ludwig von Bertalanffy observed certain characteristics of the laboratory models he worked with. He saw that there were principles common to many different forms, common principles. Bertalanffy would go on to write his book General Systems Theory in which he brings to science the philosophy or organismic systems.
He defined a system as elements in standing relationships. His goal was to find those principles common to all systems and to generalize them into a kind of "meta-science" Meta-researchers should take not.
While classical science studied the object, systems science studies the relationships between objects, what objects are doing to each other. It is a science of interactions and connections.
To bring a new model to the science of cosmology would require modeling in terms of the interactions of objects. In this way gravity is only one of the interactions objects are subject to. The new model will include gravity as well as all the other forces objects are exposed to. These will include the electric and the magnetic. The strong force plays the role of proton integration and the weak stablizes the neutron.
Plasma is not a theory. Plasma is the fourth state of matter, the four being solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Gravity applies to solids, liquids, and gases, but it is the electromagnetic forces which are applied to plasmas. So when the standard view points to a gas, they really are pointing to a plasma. And while they assume that gravity is what is influencing the gas, it is really electromagnetic fields influencing the plasma.
The Universe is a system which works together as a whole. A system is like a family, a family of relationships among the members interacting together as a whole. An open system has relationships with the environment. Characteristic of the system are the emergent properties of the relationships. In this way plasma makes atoms, atom make molecules, molecules make tissue, tissue makes organs, and organs make us, all of them by means of working together.
Our Sun is a star in a plasma state. It too works as a system, but already it is a complex system.
The talk, in the past few decades,in scientific and philosophical circles about a "new science" is but talk of integrative systemics. To experience such a "actual" system, clap your hands together. Notice what happens.
That's how the Universe happens.
Tommy Mandel
He defined a system as elements in standing relationships. His goal was to find those principles common to all systems and to generalize them into a kind of "meta-science" Meta-researchers should take not.
While classical science studied the object, systems science studies the relationships between objects, what objects are doing to each other. It is a science of interactions and connections.
To bring a new model to the science of cosmology would require modeling in terms of the interactions of objects. In this way gravity is only one of the interactions objects are subject to. The new model will include gravity as well as all the other forces objects are exposed to. These will include the electric and the magnetic. The strong force plays the role of proton integration and the weak stablizes the neutron.
Plasma is not a theory. Plasma is the fourth state of matter, the four being solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Gravity applies to solids, liquids, and gases, but it is the electromagnetic forces which are applied to plasmas. So when the standard view points to a gas, they really are pointing to a plasma. And while they assume that gravity is what is influencing the gas, it is really electromagnetic fields influencing the plasma.
The Universe is a system which works together as a whole. A system is like a family, a family of relationships among the members interacting together as a whole. An open system has relationships with the environment. Characteristic of the system are the emergent properties of the relationships. In this way plasma makes atoms, atom make molecules, molecules make tissue, tissue makes organs, and organs make us, all of them by means of working together.
Our Sun is a star in a plasma state. It too works as a system, but already it is a complex system.
The talk, in the past few decades,in scientific and philosophical circles about a "new science" is but talk of integrative systemics. To experience such a "actual" system, clap your hands together. Notice what happens.
That's how the Universe happens.
Tommy Mandel
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #16879
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Larry) Don't you have any of your OWN thoughts about this subject that you would like to share?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Good idea Larry, here's some from the last two pages, only 13 more to go. I hope you don't mind if I cut and paste.
Here is my take on all this invisible evidence.
quote:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK
Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.
However, we are then confronted with the notion of inflation, which has been described as something having its own physics. So in this definition, then inflation would be non-physical.
Thus there is a non-physical to be found in the physical sciences.
So what I am asking is how does Maxwell's mathematics treat this "non-physical?" And isn't this "ZPF" a connection to the non-physical?
And are they perhaps the same thing? Inflation theory, which is required to get to the place where the standard Big Bang theory can work, comes from particle physics, which talks about a scalar field
Andrei Linde writes in Scientific American's book "The book of the Cosmos." excerpted here
(censored)
Well, the reason the inflationary hyothesis was proposed was because the Big Bang did not work. In the book of the Cosmos, Linde reviews "six of the most difficult problems" the origin problem; the flatness problem; the size problem; the timing problem; the disribution poroblem; the uniqueness problem. It looks to me like what inflation theory does is create the Universe and then the big bang kicks in.
But the interesting part is the scalar field.
Google says:
(Censored)
( www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField )
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.
I think what I am driving at is not so much that Maxwell's equations
can describe a ZPF field, but more so that it is obvious to me that EMFs have a source, and Maxwell did try at least to incorporate this source. There is something very suspicious going on in this regard, while Maxwell used the concept of Aether as his source, Aether is considered non-existent as evidenced by the M&M experiment interpretation and Einstein's non-use of it. And yet science has managed to come up with myriad, yes myriad versions of the Aether. What is suspicious is the total disregard for the Aether especially in the sense of "prior research" If this were a court of law, I would charge science with a crime of negligence and identity theft. The referee's should have caught this, and I am asking why didn't they?
Today, the top theory for the creation of our universe is based on a scalar field, necessary to instantaneously (almost) create the universe first, then the big bang "physics" work "better". So what is this scalar field and who first used it as a source of the energy matter uses to sustain its existence?
References:
quote:
On Quaternions in Electrodynamics
(CENSORED)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
In electromagnetism, we may use, to make demonstrations, systems which cannot exist physically, in particular isolated systems in which the EM field results only from known sources.
For instance, to define the orthogonality of two solutions (or two modes) of Maxwell''s equations, we suppose that the considered solutions are alone in the Universe; this is mathematics, physically absurd, but useful for physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I still don't understand you. Can you put it into structural terms? For example, How does an electromagnetic wave sustain it's energy while it is moving through space? So far, I hear that the electric wave produces the magnetic wave which produces the electric wave which produces the magnetic wave, and so on down the line. I understand that conventional Maxwellian equations describe it like so. And, they say, it works. At the same time I keep hearing about an energy source called by Maxwell the scalar field. I hear that scalar and vector go together, are they both just mathematical methodologies? Even so, vectors talk about something, so scalar talks about something too. It doesn't matter if the mathematics doesn't need
any more energy, it is the mathematical theory that doesn't need more energy. It is clear that a transmitted EMF is doing something, so the question is how does the wave do its thing? At least Maxwell had an idea, via displacement currents from scalar field inside the ZPE, opps, Aether...If we look to modern science for the answer I hear something like, "Oh, the equations are too complicated so we got rid of them, who will notice?"
Here's an interesting experiment - I found this paper on the web at keelynet written about the Aether. What is of interest here is the philosophy that was being considered at that time. I replaced the old word aether with the modern word ZPE for effect.
quote:
1908 - The ZPE of Space
(Censored)
There is an assumption mentioned in the above article; the assumption of attractive matter. The assumption is being made that a galaxy attracts matter and that eventually this matter collects at the center. The extreme situation is that of a black hole existing at the center of the galaxy.
However, when we look at the center of a galaxy what we see is a white hole. And when we ascertain the movement of matter in a galaxy, Oort finds that matter is streaming out from the center of the galaxy. And now, two black holes together?
So which is it? Is a galaxy a producer of matter? Or is a galaxy a collector of matter?
The answer to this question has profound ramifications. For one it would mean that the so-called "big bang" did not occur at one place at one time in the distant past, but is in fact occuring right now at the center of every galaxy. Remember that, strictly speaking, the big bang theory as an explosion of matter has been falsified. Simply put matter by itself cannot produse the Universe as it is now. As a replacement theory, a new "inflationary" theory involving not matter but space was proposed, a theory which has to violate the known laws of physics, that is, does not follow our present laws in order to attain the size of the universe today. Instead of matter expanding, space expands and carries matter along with it. Then, they tell us, the laws of physics kick in.
Interesting, Einstein's principle of equivilance, that gravity cannot be differentiated from acceleration in a free fall, doesn't seem to impress the scientists in this situation. Matter accelerating apart from each other circumvents ordinary physics because it is the space inbetween matter that is expanding. It only looks like matter is expanding...
Then they turn around and tell us that they have projected the life of the universe based on the expansion of matter...
But is the Universe really expanding? To begin with I do not see "expansion." For one, we normally would be expanding away from the center, meaning that we would see more stars behind us than in front of us. We don't. What we do see would put us at the middle, everything else expanded away from us...
But the expansion theory is only an assumption. It is an assumption based on another assumption. Expansion is observed, they tell us, in the red shift doppler effect. But this doppler effect was not itself an observation, rather it came about when Hubble added "c" the speed of light to his equations. He left it to the experts to concluded what it meant. What the experts concluded was the assumption, the taking as true without proof, that the redshift doppler effect was real. This assumption then was taken as observation of a recession speed proportunal to distance. They subsequently have seen galaxies receding at three fourths the speed of light. Their theory predicts that at some point the galaxies are receding at the speed of light. And it follows, at a greater distance, the galazies are receding faster than the speed of light. Or else they suddenly stopped...
All of this is based on the assumption that redshift is a measure of velocity. But that there is a correlation between recessional velocity and redshift is also an assmption.
What is strange, and sad, and a threat to our national security, is that the referee's will not allow evidence that redshaift is not a measure of velocity. Both Tifft and Arp introduce evidence that redshift is not a measure of velocity. Tifft show us, confirmed by many others, that redshift has periodicity, that it is quantized. This quantization of redshift frequencies would not be observable at high velocities - it would be smeared out. Arp shows us that galaxies connected together by magnetic flows of plasma can have different redshifts even though they are obviously at the same point in space.
Of course there is a lot at stake here. If it can be proven that redshift is not a measure of recessional velocity, then the assumption of expansion no longer is needed. The standard model, however, is supported by this assumption, and if the assumption is not true, then the entire scientific cosmological model falls apart.
At the time the big bang was first proposed by Gamov, there was no obvious source for all the matter observed in the universe. It had to come from somewhere, so they hypothesized that matter appeared out of nowhere long ago. Interestingly, the scientist's explanation for this anomaly is that science cannot say anything before t=0. But since that time, a source has been identified existing in another dimension which I can only grasp be regarding this dimension as existing "inside" ours. This source was confirmed by Hal Puthoff in 1987 in a paper which he shows how the electron obtains a balancing energy from the ZPE. Such a thing was also implied by Bell's Theorem which subsequent experiments verified indicating that particles communicate in a non-local way as if they are a single entity even while physically separated. The Casimir effect demonstrates an effect of the ZPE by which plates of matter in close proximity are "pushed" together.
There is a source of great energy available right now today which can explain how matter can arise without having to do so at some fantastic magical past event. There are various names depending on what aspect is under consideration. I call it the INSIDE of empty space which is where it is.
As a test of the conjecture, I submit that the present notion that matter is being sucked into galaxies is wrong. In it's place I submit that a galaxy is producing matter. This matter is a physical form of the energy coming through the ZPE probably via plasma current flows. Do we "see" plasma? Plasma has the nature of spirialing due to difference in the components of the current flow. Do we see spirialing at the cosmological scale? The answer is yes we do.
It has been noted that General Relativity requires a singularity and this led to the big bang theory. But why just one singularity? Why not a singularity at the center of every galaxy or star? If GR works at the grand cosmological level, then it must also work at the local level. And if GR works at the local level, why we do not need a grand cosmological level.
If we ignore the singularity at the grand level, we are confronted with finding it within our own galaxy, and indeed, within our solar system. Our sun would have to be a micro-galaxy. And indeed, our sun does in fact create anomalous energy. For example, the temperature od the sun's surface, the photosphere, is around 6000 degrees, Yet, the temperature of the chronosphere can sometimes reach a hundred times hotter. Gravity does not do an acceptable job at explaining this. But interrupted plasma flows would create such an effect. An analogy would be the coil in a car, when the points open, the current flow through the coil stops, the magnetic field collaspes, inducing new current flows which attain whatever voltage is necessary to jump the gap of the spark plug in your car's engine.
And so it is with our sun. Gravity may keep our planet in place, but the interaction with our sun is electromagnetic in essence.
What will it take for standard science to catch up?
I believe that I should repeat myself if only to make it clear what I am saying. What I am saying is that it appears (to me at least) the the American scientific journals are guilty of negligence of prior research and may also be criminally guilty (scientifically speaking)of falsification by ommission of the records, While Kuhn points out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that refree's will often in not always favor the prevailing orthodix viewpoint, it is not scientific to say the least to ignore evidence to the contrary. This is invokation of authority, and if you remember, our first scientist, Thales of Melitus gave birth to science (May 28 585 B.C.) specifically to go against the then prevailing view of how the universe worked.
So to invoke authority, which is what peer review does, is to revert to pre-scientific thinking.
I wish to resend a previous message just to make the point.
quote:
I wrote some time ago and I still believe...
I think what I am driving at is not so much that Maxwell's equations
can describe a ZPF field, but more so that it is obvious to me that EMFs have a source, and Maxwell did try at least to incorporate this source. There is something very suspicious going on in this regard, while Maxwell used the concept of Aether as his source, Aether is considered non-existent as evidenced by the M&M experiment interpretation and Einstein's non-use of it. And yet science has managed to come up with myriad, yes myriad versions of the Aether. What is suspicious is the total disregard for the Aether especially in the sense of "prior research" If this were a court of law, I would charge science with a crime of negligence and identity theft. The referee's should have caught this, and I am asking why didn't they?
Today, the top theory for the creation of our universe is based on a scalar field, necessary to instantaneously (almost) create the universe first, then the big bang "physics" work "better". So what is this scalar field and who first used it as a source of the energy matter uses to sustain its existence?
References:
quote:
On Quaternions in Electrodynamics
Version 2
(CENSORED)
www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
(Dark Matter or Dark Energy is not BB theory dependent in my opinion), the QSST's explanation for "How the Matter is created" has a major flaw in it...If you say that the Matter is being created from the center of the galaxies (from a singular process), how did the first galaxy get here to start that process??? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That is a very good question. It forces me to refine my original statement. Remember that the alternative view is that matter is sucked into the center of a galaxy with the extreme resulting in a black hole. In my view, the reverse is true, rather than matter being sucked in, matter is being spewed out. The model I have in mind is like comparing a sink drain which forms a whirlpool of water as it flows into the drain. This would be the conventional view. In my view, the ooposite model would be like those spinning fireworks which as they spin spew out hot gases and smoke. It also looks like a whirlpool, but is more like a spirialing.
I do not think that I want to say that it is the galaxy that is creating matter, rather that the creation of matter takes place at the center. A galaxy, after all, is a collection of stars, so we could simplify the situation and state that matter is created by a star. And that brings us to your question. If a star creates matter, what created the star?
I guess I wouldn't get away with the conventional scientific answer and claim that it simply appeared out of nowhere in a blink of an eye. So I won't even try that route.
So the question, if it is to remain a good question, really becomes
"How is matter created out of nothing? Well, matter isn't created out of nothing. Space, empty space is not nothing. It has been shown that what has usually been considered empty space is not empty. On the cntrary it is full of potential energy. This energy can be detected and has been, at absolute zero degree temperatures. They call it Zerp Point Energy or ZPE for short. This is not new, it used to be called the Ether, until our brilliant scientists decided that they didn't need it, and since they couldn't detect it, they just assumed that it was nothing at all.
So the original Big Bang theory was based on an assumption that empty space was nothing, and from this nothing, they surmised, came everything.
I like to call the ZPE, which is actually an electromagnetic thing, the INSIDE of space. That way I know where it is. This INSIDE can be detected and has been by the casimir effect, two polished plates placed together will stick together.
Maxwell believed in this INSIDE, and even derived mathematical equations to explain how electromagnetic fields propagate. But our brilliant scientists decided that his quatins were to "mystical" and difficult to work with, and since they didn't need them, they simplified Maxwell's equations to the now famous four.
So now the question becomes how does matter emerge from the INSIDE?
Let me think about this for a while...
tommy
Do galaxies suck up matter or do they spew out matter? It really depends on their rotation. If they rotate such that matter is sprialing inward much like water spirials inward toward a drain, then they suck up matter, ending up as a black hole. But there is another way of looking at it, that matter is spewing outward, from what I call a white hole (because that is what it looks like)
Of course there would have to be an explanation of where the matter comes from. Matter can come from outside the galaxy or it can come from within the galaxy. The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside.
But advances in science has shown us that matter depends on a sustaining supply of energy from the INSIDE of space (Puthoff 1987) in order to explain how atomic particles can radiate energy without an external battery pack forever almost. (atomic particles move, and they move all the time and they move forever without any evidence of slowing down over time. How do they do that? Their radiated energy is matched by an inout energy through the ZPE) So there is a source of energy which can be found anywhere in space. We don't have to go back billions and billions of years to draw energy from nothing, it can be found today everywhere and anywhere INSIDE empty space. We are not made of organized inert matter, pecks of some kind of stuff. The stuff we are made of is dynamic, it is in a constant state of movement. Shroedinger said that whe they went into the atom they did't find a "substance" instead they found shape, pure shape. This sahpe is a kind of activity and this activity goes on forever. It can do this because it is fed by energy coming from INSIDE. Galaxies, at least some types of galaxies, take advantage of this source of energy, probably by means of plasma current flows, spirialing current flows. For example, our sun has been described as a plasma star, and the the hundredfold increase of energy at the chronosphere over the photosphere is due to this plasma current flows. Plasma is a flow of electron and proton currents without a conductor. Free energy has been produced especially with plasmoids. The creation of energy from the INSIDE is not SciFi, virtual particles emerge from the so-called empty space all the time. Space isn not empty, it is, as the Chinese have always maintained, full. It is from this fullness that energy, and then matter emerges. The big bang is the production of a priest, a religion. It is being sustained today by another religion - money.
The big bang is a "con" game.
quote:
[Tommy] "The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside."
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Larry) I hope this isn't important to your ideas, because it is wrong. For as long as we have been able to measure average radial movement in galaxies, said movement has been outward. There has never been a time when the traditional view assumed otherwise.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
(Very interesting, I see, my ideas oppose yours, and since you are the moderator, I have to write what you say I should write. That's what Thomas Kuhn said happens in his book Structure of Scientific revolutions. The prevailing view is held on to and other evidence is ignored until finally the revolution happens. A shift in paradigms. Well, here we are, at the cusp of the paradigm shift, one says matter flows in, the other says matter flows out.
Well, it is important to my idea that some cosmologists either are stupid or have been bought off. Do you have references? I haven't been able to find anything on this other than Oort's claim that matter equal to one solar mass is streaming outward from the "center" of galaxies. This led Asimov to speculate that if true, galaxies could not exist to this day, prompting him to suggest that sme sort of cycling is going on.
However, I am confused, because as I understand the standard theory, matter was at one time all over the place, and ultimately collected in the form of galaxies (stars) which common sense would say that the matter is coming from outside the galaxy proper, and therefore is steaming inward.
The Big Bang theory is not based on fact, it is based on assumptions.
That redshift indicates expansion is an assumption, that expansion indicates a point beginning is an assumption, that this point "inflated" is an assumption (in order to get back to a big universe), that the CMB is a remnant of this inflation cool down is an assumption, that matter collected together is an assumption, that all matter was created only once is an assumption, and the biggest assumption of all, that the huge amounts of matter/energy being ejected, yes, I mean outflow, in the center of most galaxies is a result of matter streaming inward.
While the simplest explanation for all that is going on is that all stars are plasma stars like our Sun, and the the creation of matter in our universe is a result of plasma currents. Gravity is important for structure, but organization is ruled by electromagnetic energies.
tommy
quote:
The color spectrum depicts radiation in the form of light thus the color bouncing back is red meaning it is moving farther away; indesputable.
Very interesting, if this were true, then why don't we see red starlight? I am confused, I keep hearing about the frequency of light being shifted by velocity, but isn't it the spectral lines being shifted toward the red?
It is not indisputable that redshift means it is moving farther away, it is and always was just an assmption. Hubble himself did not believe that assumption, and Tifft's findings indicate that the redshift does not jibe with distance in the expected way. IF the redshift indicates velocity and distance, then the observations show that we live in the center of an onionlike universe,
As far as the CMB is concerned. I came across this article less than a minute before reading you comment --
quote:
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 01:43:43
Here's a link and an excerpt of a paper showing that the CMB is not a remnant of a magical expansion (During which matter didn't expand...)
On the contrary, an accurate prediction of the temperature 2.7k had already been made without the necessity of the obtruse, bloated, dark and black ( e.g. invisible) expansion invented to cloak the failures of the the first big bang theory. They only way they could do this is by inventing invisible stuff to fit it all together. From beginning to end, the Big Bang theory is about invisible stuff. It is truly the Big Black Bang theory.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
Why is adromeda on a collision course with us if the galaxies aren't moving then. You hit a marble on the floor and bam you have velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There are two issues here;
Are you sure the galaxies are coming together? Or is that only inferred? It could also be that the galaxies are flying apart. At any rate I to believe the galaxies are moving, but not because of some "expansion" of space, when the space they is inflating is non-local and doesn't have to move anywhere since it is everywhere to begin with. It is that everywhereness which inflation theory had to create in order to make everything work the way we see it work. The Big Bang theory creates this everywhereness from nothing, itself a violation of the law of energy conservation, and then expands it to more than everywhere at speeds hundreds of times faster than the speed of light. I suppose they think they can get aways with this because, they may say, there were no laws of physics then. (Or none that they would have to explain.) But this means the the beginning was random, and leads to the question where did order come from? Did it "just happen" that way?
The second issue you bring up is the marble effect. IF space is expanding, it is obviously taking matter along with it. IF matter is being moved, then the principle of equivalence applies, if matter is moving it will follow the laws of movement regardless of what caused it to move. One law of movement is that when the marble is hit, it moves in a particular direction forever unless it is perturbed by some external force/object. Considering the initial expansion force on matter in space, gravitational effects between atomic particles would be insignificant. The standard answer to this is that "quantum fluctuations" provided seeds for matter to collect. But do we see matter being drawn into stars and galaxies? What we see are solar winds, matter being spewed out from stars and galaxies. The standard explanation is that so much matter is streaming in that some of it is kicked back out. But they can't show us matter streaming in, and in fact several black holes have been found without a matter environment.
All that is based on the initial assumption that the beginning was random. There is another assumption, the assumption that the beginning was a whole. And the laws of physics were established as the whole differentiated into various forms of matter.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
I never heard about quantized red shift observations so I'm the dummy here. But, I have just read some stuff that indicates obeservation of this type is not reproduced by anyone and the topic is bogus.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Usually it is best to find the original papers which are often quite different from the conventional view.
It is very simple.
"I" do not see collaspe. I believe if the Universe were a collasping Universe we would see it.
I see emergence. I see a Universe that is emerging right now.
"MY" evidence is the flow of matter in a galaxy. A collasping Universe says that matter is flowing into a galaxy. I don't see that. I see matter emerging out of a galaxy.
As far as what do they say? They say that matter is flowing out of the center of a galaxy too. They say this is happening because matter is collasping into the center. They concede that this is only an assumption because they can think of no other mechanism which would produce the observed outflow of matter/energy.
clever
Very very clever.
It is assumed that redshift means velocity, and from this assumption it is assumed that velocity means expansion and from this it is assumed that expansion came from a point and from this it is assumed that the point was a big bang.
But that didn't work out, so they had to create the entire universe,m and more, first. They did this with unimaginable speed. Then it stopped. But even then they had to invent invisible matter and invisible energy to make things work out right.
There is no evidence that redshift has a velcity component, indeed the evidence indicates that it does not have a velocity component. it has been found to be quantized, Or even a distance component, it has been found differing from the same place. Without this redshift velocity there is no acceleration. Without an acceleration, there is no way to go backwards to a beginning.
There is only now.
The only thing with no beginning and no end. I think Schroedinger said that.
Good idea Larry, here's some from the last two pages, only 13 more to go. I hope you don't mind if I cut and paste.
Here is my take on all this invisible evidence.
quote:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remark that the definition of the orthogonality is mathematical, but has no physical meaning because in all modes, at 0K, the amplitude has the ZPF value, corresponding, in a monochromatic mode to an h(nu)/2 energy (average). As, for a given mode, the fields are given by the amplitude, a real number, the ZPF exists only at 0K, at an other temperature, there is an other, larger amplitude. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK
Could be that it is time to define physical. Probably a good place to start is physics. That which is defined by physics might be considered physical.
However, we are then confronted with the notion of inflation, which has been described as something having its own physics. So in this definition, then inflation would be non-physical.
Thus there is a non-physical to be found in the physical sciences.
So what I am asking is how does Maxwell's mathematics treat this "non-physical?" And isn't this "ZPF" a connection to the non-physical?
And are they perhaps the same thing? Inflation theory, which is required to get to the place where the standard Big Bang theory can work, comes from particle physics, which talks about a scalar field
Andrei Linde writes in Scientific American's book "The book of the Cosmos." excerpted here
(censored)
Well, the reason the inflationary hyothesis was proposed was because the Big Bang did not work. In the book of the Cosmos, Linde reviews "six of the most difficult problems" the origin problem; the flatness problem; the size problem; the timing problem; the disribution poroblem; the uniqueness problem. It looks to me like what inflation theory does is create the Universe and then the big bang kicks in.
But the interesting part is the scalar field.
Google says:
(Censored)
( www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField )
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
In mathematics, we may make hypothesis which are absurd in physics.
Here, the hypothesis is that it exists isolated systems in electromagnetism. Physically, the matter amplifies or attenuates the fields, with a minimum remaining field (ZPF), so that there is no perfect screen in electromagnetism, no insulated system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is seeming to me that mathematics can be made to do anything one wishes. I once read that mathematics was a tautology, what we get out can only be what we put in. This leaves out emergence except in retrospect.
I think what I am driving at is not so much that Maxwell's equations
can describe a ZPF field, but more so that it is obvious to me that EMFs have a source, and Maxwell did try at least to incorporate this source. There is something very suspicious going on in this regard, while Maxwell used the concept of Aether as his source, Aether is considered non-existent as evidenced by the M&M experiment interpretation and Einstein's non-use of it. And yet science has managed to come up with myriad, yes myriad versions of the Aether. What is suspicious is the total disregard for the Aether especially in the sense of "prior research" If this were a court of law, I would charge science with a crime of negligence and identity theft. The referee's should have caught this, and I am asking why didn't they?
Today, the top theory for the creation of our universe is based on a scalar field, necessary to instantaneously (almost) create the universe first, then the big bang "physics" work "better". So what is this scalar field and who first used it as a source of the energy matter uses to sustain its existence?
References:
quote:
On Quaternions in Electrodynamics
(CENSORED)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
In electromagnetism, we may use, to make demonstrations, systems which cannot exist physically, in particular isolated systems in which the EM field results only from known sources.
For instance, to define the orthogonality of two solutions (or two modes) of Maxwell''s equations, we suppose that the considered solutions are alone in the Universe; this is mathematics, physically absurd, but useful for physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I still don't understand you. Can you put it into structural terms? For example, How does an electromagnetic wave sustain it's energy while it is moving through space? So far, I hear that the electric wave produces the magnetic wave which produces the electric wave which produces the magnetic wave, and so on down the line. I understand that conventional Maxwellian equations describe it like so. And, they say, it works. At the same time I keep hearing about an energy source called by Maxwell the scalar field. I hear that scalar and vector go together, are they both just mathematical methodologies? Even so, vectors talk about something, so scalar talks about something too. It doesn't matter if the mathematics doesn't need
any more energy, it is the mathematical theory that doesn't need more energy. It is clear that a transmitted EMF is doing something, so the question is how does the wave do its thing? At least Maxwell had an idea, via displacement currents from scalar field inside the ZPE, opps, Aether...If we look to modern science for the answer I hear something like, "Oh, the equations are too complicated so we got rid of them, who will notice?"
Here's an interesting experiment - I found this paper on the web at keelynet written about the Aether. What is of interest here is the philosophy that was being considered at that time. I replaced the old word aether with the modern word ZPE for effect.
quote:
1908 - The ZPE of Space
(Censored)
There is an assumption mentioned in the above article; the assumption of attractive matter. The assumption is being made that a galaxy attracts matter and that eventually this matter collects at the center. The extreme situation is that of a black hole existing at the center of the galaxy.
However, when we look at the center of a galaxy what we see is a white hole. And when we ascertain the movement of matter in a galaxy, Oort finds that matter is streaming out from the center of the galaxy. And now, two black holes together?
So which is it? Is a galaxy a producer of matter? Or is a galaxy a collector of matter?
The answer to this question has profound ramifications. For one it would mean that the so-called "big bang" did not occur at one place at one time in the distant past, but is in fact occuring right now at the center of every galaxy. Remember that, strictly speaking, the big bang theory as an explosion of matter has been falsified. Simply put matter by itself cannot produse the Universe as it is now. As a replacement theory, a new "inflationary" theory involving not matter but space was proposed, a theory which has to violate the known laws of physics, that is, does not follow our present laws in order to attain the size of the universe today. Instead of matter expanding, space expands and carries matter along with it. Then, they tell us, the laws of physics kick in.
Interesting, Einstein's principle of equivilance, that gravity cannot be differentiated from acceleration in a free fall, doesn't seem to impress the scientists in this situation. Matter accelerating apart from each other circumvents ordinary physics because it is the space inbetween matter that is expanding. It only looks like matter is expanding...
Then they turn around and tell us that they have projected the life of the universe based on the expansion of matter...
But is the Universe really expanding? To begin with I do not see "expansion." For one, we normally would be expanding away from the center, meaning that we would see more stars behind us than in front of us. We don't. What we do see would put us at the middle, everything else expanded away from us...
But the expansion theory is only an assumption. It is an assumption based on another assumption. Expansion is observed, they tell us, in the red shift doppler effect. But this doppler effect was not itself an observation, rather it came about when Hubble added "c" the speed of light to his equations. He left it to the experts to concluded what it meant. What the experts concluded was the assumption, the taking as true without proof, that the redshift doppler effect was real. This assumption then was taken as observation of a recession speed proportunal to distance. They subsequently have seen galaxies receding at three fourths the speed of light. Their theory predicts that at some point the galaxies are receding at the speed of light. And it follows, at a greater distance, the galazies are receding faster than the speed of light. Or else they suddenly stopped...
All of this is based on the assumption that redshift is a measure of velocity. But that there is a correlation between recessional velocity and redshift is also an assmption.
What is strange, and sad, and a threat to our national security, is that the referee's will not allow evidence that redshaift is not a measure of velocity. Both Tifft and Arp introduce evidence that redshift is not a measure of velocity. Tifft show us, confirmed by many others, that redshift has periodicity, that it is quantized. This quantization of redshift frequencies would not be observable at high velocities - it would be smeared out. Arp shows us that galaxies connected together by magnetic flows of plasma can have different redshifts even though they are obviously at the same point in space.
Of course there is a lot at stake here. If it can be proven that redshift is not a measure of recessional velocity, then the assumption of expansion no longer is needed. The standard model, however, is supported by this assumption, and if the assumption is not true, then the entire scientific cosmological model falls apart.
At the time the big bang was first proposed by Gamov, there was no obvious source for all the matter observed in the universe. It had to come from somewhere, so they hypothesized that matter appeared out of nowhere long ago. Interestingly, the scientist's explanation for this anomaly is that science cannot say anything before t=0. But since that time, a source has been identified existing in another dimension which I can only grasp be regarding this dimension as existing "inside" ours. This source was confirmed by Hal Puthoff in 1987 in a paper which he shows how the electron obtains a balancing energy from the ZPE. Such a thing was also implied by Bell's Theorem which subsequent experiments verified indicating that particles communicate in a non-local way as if they are a single entity even while physically separated. The Casimir effect demonstrates an effect of the ZPE by which plates of matter in close proximity are "pushed" together.
There is a source of great energy available right now today which can explain how matter can arise without having to do so at some fantastic magical past event. There are various names depending on what aspect is under consideration. I call it the INSIDE of empty space which is where it is.
As a test of the conjecture, I submit that the present notion that matter is being sucked into galaxies is wrong. In it's place I submit that a galaxy is producing matter. This matter is a physical form of the energy coming through the ZPE probably via plasma current flows. Do we "see" plasma? Plasma has the nature of spirialing due to difference in the components of the current flow. Do we see spirialing at the cosmological scale? The answer is yes we do.
It has been noted that General Relativity requires a singularity and this led to the big bang theory. But why just one singularity? Why not a singularity at the center of every galaxy or star? If GR works at the grand cosmological level, then it must also work at the local level. And if GR works at the local level, why we do not need a grand cosmological level.
If we ignore the singularity at the grand level, we are confronted with finding it within our own galaxy, and indeed, within our solar system. Our sun would have to be a micro-galaxy. And indeed, our sun does in fact create anomalous energy. For example, the temperature od the sun's surface, the photosphere, is around 6000 degrees, Yet, the temperature of the chronosphere can sometimes reach a hundred times hotter. Gravity does not do an acceptable job at explaining this. But interrupted plasma flows would create such an effect. An analogy would be the coil in a car, when the points open, the current flow through the coil stops, the magnetic field collaspes, inducing new current flows which attain whatever voltage is necessary to jump the gap of the spark plug in your car's engine.
And so it is with our sun. Gravity may keep our planet in place, but the interaction with our sun is electromagnetic in essence.
What will it take for standard science to catch up?
I believe that I should repeat myself if only to make it clear what I am saying. What I am saying is that it appears (to me at least) the the American scientific journals are guilty of negligence of prior research and may also be criminally guilty (scientifically speaking)of falsification by ommission of the records, While Kuhn points out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that refree's will often in not always favor the prevailing orthodix viewpoint, it is not scientific to say the least to ignore evidence to the contrary. This is invokation of authority, and if you remember, our first scientist, Thales of Melitus gave birth to science (May 28 585 B.C.) specifically to go against the then prevailing view of how the universe worked.
So to invoke authority, which is what peer review does, is to revert to pre-scientific thinking.
I wish to resend a previous message just to make the point.
quote:
I wrote some time ago and I still believe...
I think what I am driving at is not so much that Maxwell's equations
can describe a ZPF field, but more so that it is obvious to me that EMFs have a source, and Maxwell did try at least to incorporate this source. There is something very suspicious going on in this regard, while Maxwell used the concept of Aether as his source, Aether is considered non-existent as evidenced by the M&M experiment interpretation and Einstein's non-use of it. And yet science has managed to come up with myriad, yes myriad versions of the Aether. What is suspicious is the total disregard for the Aether especially in the sense of "prior research" If this were a court of law, I would charge science with a crime of negligence and identity theft. The referee's should have caught this, and I am asking why didn't they?
Today, the top theory for the creation of our universe is based on a scalar field, necessary to instantaneously (almost) create the universe first, then the big bang "physics" work "better". So what is this scalar field and who first used it as a source of the energy matter uses to sustain its existence?
References:
quote:
On Quaternions in Electrodynamics
Version 2
(CENSORED)
www.aw-verlag.ch/EssaysE.htm#ED_withScalarField
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
(Dark Matter or Dark Energy is not BB theory dependent in my opinion), the QSST's explanation for "How the Matter is created" has a major flaw in it...If you say that the Matter is being created from the center of the galaxies (from a singular process), how did the first galaxy get here to start that process??? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That is a very good question. It forces me to refine my original statement. Remember that the alternative view is that matter is sucked into the center of a galaxy with the extreme resulting in a black hole. In my view, the reverse is true, rather than matter being sucked in, matter is being spewed out. The model I have in mind is like comparing a sink drain which forms a whirlpool of water as it flows into the drain. This would be the conventional view. In my view, the ooposite model would be like those spinning fireworks which as they spin spew out hot gases and smoke. It also looks like a whirlpool, but is more like a spirialing.
I do not think that I want to say that it is the galaxy that is creating matter, rather that the creation of matter takes place at the center. A galaxy, after all, is a collection of stars, so we could simplify the situation and state that matter is created by a star. And that brings us to your question. If a star creates matter, what created the star?
I guess I wouldn't get away with the conventional scientific answer and claim that it simply appeared out of nowhere in a blink of an eye. So I won't even try that route.
So the question, if it is to remain a good question, really becomes
"How is matter created out of nothing? Well, matter isn't created out of nothing. Space, empty space is not nothing. It has been shown that what has usually been considered empty space is not empty. On the cntrary it is full of potential energy. This energy can be detected and has been, at absolute zero degree temperatures. They call it Zerp Point Energy or ZPE for short. This is not new, it used to be called the Ether, until our brilliant scientists decided that they didn't need it, and since they couldn't detect it, they just assumed that it was nothing at all.
So the original Big Bang theory was based on an assumption that empty space was nothing, and from this nothing, they surmised, came everything.
I like to call the ZPE, which is actually an electromagnetic thing, the INSIDE of space. That way I know where it is. This INSIDE can be detected and has been by the casimir effect, two polished plates placed together will stick together.
Maxwell believed in this INSIDE, and even derived mathematical equations to explain how electromagnetic fields propagate. But our brilliant scientists decided that his quatins were to "mystical" and difficult to work with, and since they didn't need them, they simplified Maxwell's equations to the now famous four.
So now the question becomes how does matter emerge from the INSIDE?
Let me think about this for a while...
tommy
Do galaxies suck up matter or do they spew out matter? It really depends on their rotation. If they rotate such that matter is sprialing inward much like water spirials inward toward a drain, then they suck up matter, ending up as a black hole. But there is another way of looking at it, that matter is spewing outward, from what I call a white hole (because that is what it looks like)
Of course there would have to be an explanation of where the matter comes from. Matter can come from outside the galaxy or it can come from within the galaxy. The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside.
But advances in science has shown us that matter depends on a sustaining supply of energy from the INSIDE of space (Puthoff 1987) in order to explain how atomic particles can radiate energy without an external battery pack forever almost. (atomic particles move, and they move all the time and they move forever without any evidence of slowing down over time. How do they do that? Their radiated energy is matched by an inout energy through the ZPE) So there is a source of energy which can be found anywhere in space. We don't have to go back billions and billions of years to draw energy from nothing, it can be found today everywhere and anywhere INSIDE empty space. We are not made of organized inert matter, pecks of some kind of stuff. The stuff we are made of is dynamic, it is in a constant state of movement. Shroedinger said that whe they went into the atom they did't find a "substance" instead they found shape, pure shape. This sahpe is a kind of activity and this activity goes on forever. It can do this because it is fed by energy coming from INSIDE. Galaxies, at least some types of galaxies, take advantage of this source of energy, probably by means of plasma current flows, spirialing current flows. For example, our sun has been described as a plasma star, and the the hundredfold increase of energy at the chronosphere over the photosphere is due to this plasma current flows. Plasma is a flow of electron and proton currents without a conductor. Free energy has been produced especially with plasmoids. The creation of energy from the INSIDE is not SciFi, virtual particles emerge from the so-called empty space all the time. Space isn not empty, it is, as the Chinese have always maintained, full. It is from this fullness that energy, and then matter emerges. The big bang is the production of a priest, a religion. It is being sustained today by another religion - money.
The big bang is a "con" game.
quote:
[Tommy] "The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside."
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Larry) I hope this isn't important to your ideas, because it is wrong. For as long as we have been able to measure average radial movement in galaxies, said movement has been outward. There has never been a time when the traditional view assumed otherwise.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
(Very interesting, I see, my ideas oppose yours, and since you are the moderator, I have to write what you say I should write. That's what Thomas Kuhn said happens in his book Structure of Scientific revolutions. The prevailing view is held on to and other evidence is ignored until finally the revolution happens. A shift in paradigms. Well, here we are, at the cusp of the paradigm shift, one says matter flows in, the other says matter flows out.
Well, it is important to my idea that some cosmologists either are stupid or have been bought off. Do you have references? I haven't been able to find anything on this other than Oort's claim that matter equal to one solar mass is streaming outward from the "center" of galaxies. This led Asimov to speculate that if true, galaxies could not exist to this day, prompting him to suggest that sme sort of cycling is going on.
However, I am confused, because as I understand the standard theory, matter was at one time all over the place, and ultimately collected in the form of galaxies (stars) which common sense would say that the matter is coming from outside the galaxy proper, and therefore is steaming inward.
The Big Bang theory is not based on fact, it is based on assumptions.
That redshift indicates expansion is an assumption, that expansion indicates a point beginning is an assumption, that this point "inflated" is an assumption (in order to get back to a big universe), that the CMB is a remnant of this inflation cool down is an assumption, that matter collected together is an assumption, that all matter was created only once is an assumption, and the biggest assumption of all, that the huge amounts of matter/energy being ejected, yes, I mean outflow, in the center of most galaxies is a result of matter streaming inward.
While the simplest explanation for all that is going on is that all stars are plasma stars like our Sun, and the the creation of matter in our universe is a result of plasma currents. Gravity is important for structure, but organization is ruled by electromagnetic energies.
tommy
quote:
The color spectrum depicts radiation in the form of light thus the color bouncing back is red meaning it is moving farther away; indesputable.
Very interesting, if this were true, then why don't we see red starlight? I am confused, I keep hearing about the frequency of light being shifted by velocity, but isn't it the spectral lines being shifted toward the red?
It is not indisputable that redshift means it is moving farther away, it is and always was just an assmption. Hubble himself did not believe that assumption, and Tifft's findings indicate that the redshift does not jibe with distance in the expected way. IF the redshift indicates velocity and distance, then the observations show that we live in the center of an onionlike universe,
As far as the CMB is concerned. I came across this article less than a minute before reading you comment --
quote:
Posted - 22 Dec 2005 : 01:43:43
Here's a link and an excerpt of a paper showing that the CMB is not a remnant of a magical expansion (During which matter didn't expand...)
On the contrary, an accurate prediction of the temperature 2.7k had already been made without the necessity of the obtruse, bloated, dark and black ( e.g. invisible) expansion invented to cloak the failures of the the first big bang theory. They only way they could do this is by inventing invisible stuff to fit it all together. From beginning to end, the Big Bang theory is about invisible stuff. It is truly the Big Black Bang theory.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
Why is adromeda on a collision course with us if the galaxies aren't moving then. You hit a marble on the floor and bam you have velocity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There are two issues here;
Are you sure the galaxies are coming together? Or is that only inferred? It could also be that the galaxies are flying apart. At any rate I to believe the galaxies are moving, but not because of some "expansion" of space, when the space they is inflating is non-local and doesn't have to move anywhere since it is everywhere to begin with. It is that everywhereness which inflation theory had to create in order to make everything work the way we see it work. The Big Bang theory creates this everywhereness from nothing, itself a violation of the law of energy conservation, and then expands it to more than everywhere at speeds hundreds of times faster than the speed of light. I suppose they think they can get aways with this because, they may say, there were no laws of physics then. (Or none that they would have to explain.) But this means the the beginning was random, and leads to the question where did order come from? Did it "just happen" that way?
The second issue you bring up is the marble effect. IF space is expanding, it is obviously taking matter along with it. IF matter is being moved, then the principle of equivalence applies, if matter is moving it will follow the laws of movement regardless of what caused it to move. One law of movement is that when the marble is hit, it moves in a particular direction forever unless it is perturbed by some external force/object. Considering the initial expansion force on matter in space, gravitational effects between atomic particles would be insignificant. The standard answer to this is that "quantum fluctuations" provided seeds for matter to collect. But do we see matter being drawn into stars and galaxies? What we see are solar winds, matter being spewed out from stars and galaxies. The standard explanation is that so much matter is streaming in that some of it is kicked back out. But they can't show us matter streaming in, and in fact several black holes have been found without a matter environment.
All that is based on the initial assumption that the beginning was random. There is another assumption, the assumption that the beginning was a whole. And the laws of physics were established as the whole differentiated into various forms of matter.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
I never heard about quantized red shift observations so I'm the dummy here. But, I have just read some stuff that indicates obeservation of this type is not reproduced by anyone and the topic is bogus.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Usually it is best to find the original papers which are often quite different from the conventional view.
It is very simple.
"I" do not see collaspe. I believe if the Universe were a collasping Universe we would see it.
I see emergence. I see a Universe that is emerging right now.
"MY" evidence is the flow of matter in a galaxy. A collasping Universe says that matter is flowing into a galaxy. I don't see that. I see matter emerging out of a galaxy.
As far as what do they say? They say that matter is flowing out of the center of a galaxy too. They say this is happening because matter is collasping into the center. They concede that this is only an assumption because they can think of no other mechanism which would produce the observed outflow of matter/energy.
clever
Very very clever.
It is assumed that redshift means velocity, and from this assumption it is assumed that velocity means expansion and from this it is assumed that expansion came from a point and from this it is assumed that the point was a big bang.
But that didn't work out, so they had to create the entire universe,m and more, first. They did this with unimaginable speed. Then it stopped. But even then they had to invent invisible matter and invisible energy to make things work out right.
There is no evidence that redshift has a velcity component, indeed the evidence indicates that it does not have a velocity component. it has been found to be quantized, Or even a distance component, it has been found differing from the same place. Without this redshift velocity there is no acceleration. Without an acceleration, there is no way to go backwards to a beginning.
There is only now.
The only thing with no beginning and no end. I think Schroedinger said that.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #16880
by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Space cannot be altered by gravity or by time or by any other means.
What you can alter is matter and energy and gravity within space.
As for the word " Curve Space " this refers to forces creating the curve. Eg gravity.
Harry
What you can alter is matter and energy and gravity within space.
As for the word " Curve Space " this refers to forces creating the curve. Eg gravity.
Harry
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.344 seconds