- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
19 years 6 months ago #12371
by north
Tommy
better, now i know where you are coming from, at least for now. can't disagree with what you say too much,but i will add this, that ZPE,(another name for it i think is "chiral condensate") it always reminded me of Cosmic Plasmas. because that is exactly what i think they have found, they just found out about Cosmic Plasmas in a round about way!!
i hope you took a look at the site i mentioned above, even if you just look at the photos, its well worth it, they are fantastic!!
got to get back to studying, but i'll check in periodicaly.
Replied by north on topic Reply from
Tommy
better, now i know where you are coming from, at least for now. can't disagree with what you say too much,but i will add this, that ZPE,(another name for it i think is "chiral condensate") it always reminded me of Cosmic Plasmas. because that is exactly what i think they have found, they just found out about Cosmic Plasmas in a round about way!!
i hope you took a look at the site i mentioned above, even if you just look at the photos, its well worth it, they are fantastic!!
got to get back to studying, but i'll check in periodicaly.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #12372
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
From: The Big Bang Never Happened. A Startling refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe Eric Lerner pp 39, 40.
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The test of scientific theory is the correspondence of predictions and observations, and the Big Bang has flunked. It predicts that there should not be objects in the universe older than twenty billion years and larger than 150 million light-years across. There are. It predicts that the universe, on such a large scale, should e smooth and homogeneous. The universe isn't. The theory predicts that, to produce the galaxies we see around us from the tiny fluctuations evident in the microwave background, there must be a hundred times as much dark matter as visible matter. There's no evidence that there's ANY dark matter at all. And if there is no dark matter, the theory predicts, no galaxies will form. Yet there they are, scattered across the sky. We live in one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The test of scientific theory is the correspondence of predictions and observations, and the Big Bang has flunked. It predicts that there should not be objects in the universe older than twenty billion years and larger than 150 million light-years across. There are. It predicts that the universe, on such a large scale, should e smooth and homogeneous. The universe isn't. The theory predicts that, to produce the galaxies we see around us from the tiny fluctuations evident in the microwave background, there must be a hundred times as much dark matter as visible matter. There's no evidence that there's ANY dark matter at all. And if there is no dark matter, the theory predicts, no galaxies will form. Yet there they are, scattered across the sky. We live in one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #12375
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Hey North; just thinking out loud
Listening in on the other side, I don't hear any concessions. They dismiss the quantized redshift readings as error. I saw an abstract of a paper claiming that no quantization was found. Instead of admitting that many shots were and can be fired at the Big Bang Balloon, the call it battle scarred tried and true.
I did run across a problem they are up against - the galaxy flatness problem. Seems that the estimated rotational velocity of the stars as they move out from the center of the galaxy should decrease proportional to the distance. What is actually measured is a constant "flat" velocity curve as we look at the stars farther and farther out. To explain this requires ten times as much mass as is estimated to be there in the form of ordinary matter. The solution they propose, involves a non-ordinary matter, invisible to us, but having gravitational effects.
Well, not knowing one way or another, I wonder which way the galaxies are rotating? And by that I mean are they rotating outward? Or are they rotating inward? I think the standard theory is saying that they are rotating inward, that the stars are moving toward the center of gravity. That was the impression I got.
But a rotation inward toward the center of gravity assumes that matter is being drawn into the center.
What if matter is being thrown outward at the center?
Actually I have a good reason to ask this seemingly naive question. When I look at a globular cluster of stars, I can't help but think that those stars would be sucked in the rest of the way pretty fast.
But if the stars are coming our from the center, then that is exactly what they would look like. I think.
It all goes back to the first big assumption that empty space is empty of everything, that empty space is nothing. But we know now that empty space is not "nothing", we know there is something there, and indeed have been able to not only sense it, but actually touch it. We also know it is the source of energy driving all matter.
What this means is that our first assumption that empty space is really empty is wrong. Our first assumption, in order to be consistent with the experiments of modern physics, must be that space is full. As they put it, the vacuum is really a phenum.
So if assume that inside of empty space is an energy source, and not an energy sink, then it becomes obvious, both in theory and in observation, that the stars in any galaxy are moving outward.
And I think that if they are moving outward, and they have a rotational velocity, this velocity whould remain constant unless retarded by something.
Speculation of what the center of the galaxy is could be be as simple as saying it is what we see, a White Hole.
And if that were the case, then we can see the supposed Big Bang actually happening today, right now in the center of every galaxy.
Maybe the singularity that Einstein needs if his equations are to work is at the center of a galaxy, and not the center of the Universe. If that were true, then we wouldn't have to falsify Einstein.
The Cosmic Background Microwave radiation would be source background microwave emission, there would be no need for an accelerating expansion, and a Doppler redshift to support it, and invisible matter to enable it.
Listening in on the other side, I don't hear any concessions. They dismiss the quantized redshift readings as error. I saw an abstract of a paper claiming that no quantization was found. Instead of admitting that many shots were and can be fired at the Big Bang Balloon, the call it battle scarred tried and true.
I did run across a problem they are up against - the galaxy flatness problem. Seems that the estimated rotational velocity of the stars as they move out from the center of the galaxy should decrease proportional to the distance. What is actually measured is a constant "flat" velocity curve as we look at the stars farther and farther out. To explain this requires ten times as much mass as is estimated to be there in the form of ordinary matter. The solution they propose, involves a non-ordinary matter, invisible to us, but having gravitational effects.
Well, not knowing one way or another, I wonder which way the galaxies are rotating? And by that I mean are they rotating outward? Or are they rotating inward? I think the standard theory is saying that they are rotating inward, that the stars are moving toward the center of gravity. That was the impression I got.
But a rotation inward toward the center of gravity assumes that matter is being drawn into the center.
What if matter is being thrown outward at the center?
Actually I have a good reason to ask this seemingly naive question. When I look at a globular cluster of stars, I can't help but think that those stars would be sucked in the rest of the way pretty fast.
But if the stars are coming our from the center, then that is exactly what they would look like. I think.
It all goes back to the first big assumption that empty space is empty of everything, that empty space is nothing. But we know now that empty space is not "nothing", we know there is something there, and indeed have been able to not only sense it, but actually touch it. We also know it is the source of energy driving all matter.
What this means is that our first assumption that empty space is really empty is wrong. Our first assumption, in order to be consistent with the experiments of modern physics, must be that space is full. As they put it, the vacuum is really a phenum.
So if assume that inside of empty space is an energy source, and not an energy sink, then it becomes obvious, both in theory and in observation, that the stars in any galaxy are moving outward.
And I think that if they are moving outward, and they have a rotational velocity, this velocity whould remain constant unless retarded by something.
Speculation of what the center of the galaxy is could be be as simple as saying it is what we see, a White Hole.
And if that were the case, then we can see the supposed Big Bang actually happening today, right now in the center of every galaxy.
Maybe the singularity that Einstein needs if his equations are to work is at the center of a galaxy, and not the center of the Universe. If that were true, then we wouldn't have to falsify Einstein.
The Cosmic Background Microwave radiation would be source background microwave emission, there would be no need for an accelerating expansion, and a Doppler redshift to support it, and invisible matter to enable it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #12377
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
[ <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote]<i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Hey North; just thinking out loud
Listening in on the other side, I don't hear any concessions. They dismiss the quantized redshift readings as error. I saw an abstract of a paper claiming that no quantization was found. Instead of admitting that many shots were and can be fired at the Big Bang Balloon, the call it battle scarred tried and true.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
typical, as the late Eugene F. Mallove told me (i talked to him personly about year and a half ago. he told me that, and i could not agree more that, "scietists today are technicians" they are not true scientists in the spirit of discovery and questions.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I did run across a problem they are up against - the galaxy flatness problem. Seems that the estimated rotational velocity of the stars as they move out from the center of the galaxy should decrease proportional to the distance. What is actually measured is a constant "flat" velocity curve as we look at the stars farther and farther out. To explain this requires ten times as much mass as is estimated to be there in the form of ordinary matter. The solution they propose, involves a non-ordinary matter, invisible to us, but having gravitational effects. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Cosmic Plasmas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, not knowing one way or another, I wonder which way the galaxies are rotating? And by that I mean are they rotating outward? Or are they rotating inward? I think the standard theory is saying that they are rotating inward, that the stars are moving toward the center of gravity. That was the impression I got.
But a rotation inward toward the center of gravity assumes that matter is being drawn into the center.
What if matter is being thrown outward at the center? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
a book by Halton Arp "SEEING RED"(can be bought here on Tom's site by the way) has copious examples of stars moving out from the center of a galaxy, on the whole. though there are arguments against. investigate further. i'd like to know myself these arguments,against.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Actually I have a good reason to ask this seemingly naive question. When I look at a globular cluster of stars, I can't help but think that those stars would be sucked in the rest of the way pretty fast.
But if the stars are coming our from the center, then that is exactly what they would look like. I think.
It all goes back to the first big assumption that empty space is empty of everything, that empty space is nothing. But we know now that empty space is not "nothing", we know there is something there, and indeed have been able to not only sense it, but actually touch it. We also know it is the source of energy driving all matter.
What this means is that our first assumption that empty space is really empty is wrong. Our first assumption, in order to be consistent with the experiments of modern physics, must be that space is full. As they put it, the vacuum is really a phenum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Cosmic Plasmas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So if assume that inside of empty space is an energy source, and not an energy sink, then it becomes obvious, both in theory and in observation, that the stars in any galaxy are moving outward.
And I think that if they are moving outward, and they have a rotational velocity, this velocity whould remain constant unless retarded by something.
Speculation of what the center of the galaxy is could be be as simple as saying it is what we see, a White Hole.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
blackholes-whiteholes. let me put it this way; if looked at from a Cosmic Plasma point of view(at least the way i see it, any objections or questions welcome of course) that since all rotating masses have magnetic field and that a supernova,class2, are the masses that, apparently produce a blackhole, they would would have to condense their magnetic field. therefore since the magnetic field would have to be condensed by the supernova, an extremely powerful magnetic would have to be evident. which as of yet has not been shown to me to be the case.
however, if for instance a blackhole were to be produced anyway, then i think that the magnetic field would compress to the point, that it would FLOW BACK into the Cosmic Plasma Electromagnetic energy state(high energy,non-particle). which in time, would weaken this magnetic field because the flow of Cosmic Plasma would, slowly absorb this field into its own flow, which is at a vertex point between the magnetic field and the Cosmic Plasma flow. therefore diminishing the magnetic field, in time. this then does not allow for a "whitehole" to exist.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And if that were the case, then we can see the supposed Big Bang actually happening today, right now in the center of every galaxy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
if i may suggest a more thorough examination of the site www,theuniverse.ws(especially the idea of "pinching") would sort of help here i think. i'm not thinking of the papers at this site necessarily but rather the general info presented. i've read it all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe the singularity that Einstein needs if his equations are to work is at the center of a galaxy, and not the center of the Universe. If that were true, then we wouldn't have to falsify Einstein.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
the idea is not to necessarily falsify Einstein persay but to question him(nobody is above question, nobody) and to see what this questioning leads too.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Cosmic Background Microwave radiation would be source background microwave emission, there would be no need for an accelerating expansion, and a Doppler redshift to support it, and invisible matter to enable it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
go from there.
also if you go to cosmicastronomy.com then go to>big mass two, schroll down to a little before half way, you'll see waves that Greydon describes as gravity waves, very interesting even if you don't agree with him, they are still there to explain!!
<br />Hey North; just thinking out loud
Listening in on the other side, I don't hear any concessions. They dismiss the quantized redshift readings as error. I saw an abstract of a paper claiming that no quantization was found. Instead of admitting that many shots were and can be fired at the Big Bang Balloon, the call it battle scarred tried and true.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
typical, as the late Eugene F. Mallove told me (i talked to him personly about year and a half ago. he told me that, and i could not agree more that, "scietists today are technicians" they are not true scientists in the spirit of discovery and questions.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I did run across a problem they are up against - the galaxy flatness problem. Seems that the estimated rotational velocity of the stars as they move out from the center of the galaxy should decrease proportional to the distance. What is actually measured is a constant "flat" velocity curve as we look at the stars farther and farther out. To explain this requires ten times as much mass as is estimated to be there in the form of ordinary matter. The solution they propose, involves a non-ordinary matter, invisible to us, but having gravitational effects. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Cosmic Plasmas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, not knowing one way or another, I wonder which way the galaxies are rotating? And by that I mean are they rotating outward? Or are they rotating inward? I think the standard theory is saying that they are rotating inward, that the stars are moving toward the center of gravity. That was the impression I got.
But a rotation inward toward the center of gravity assumes that matter is being drawn into the center.
What if matter is being thrown outward at the center? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
a book by Halton Arp "SEEING RED"(can be bought here on Tom's site by the way) has copious examples of stars moving out from the center of a galaxy, on the whole. though there are arguments against. investigate further. i'd like to know myself these arguments,against.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Actually I have a good reason to ask this seemingly naive question. When I look at a globular cluster of stars, I can't help but think that those stars would be sucked in the rest of the way pretty fast.
But if the stars are coming our from the center, then that is exactly what they would look like. I think.
It all goes back to the first big assumption that empty space is empty of everything, that empty space is nothing. But we know now that empty space is not "nothing", we know there is something there, and indeed have been able to not only sense it, but actually touch it. We also know it is the source of energy driving all matter.
What this means is that our first assumption that empty space is really empty is wrong. Our first assumption, in order to be consistent with the experiments of modern physics, must be that space is full. As they put it, the vacuum is really a phenum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Cosmic Plasmas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So if assume that inside of empty space is an energy source, and not an energy sink, then it becomes obvious, both in theory and in observation, that the stars in any galaxy are moving outward.
And I think that if they are moving outward, and they have a rotational velocity, this velocity whould remain constant unless retarded by something.
Speculation of what the center of the galaxy is could be be as simple as saying it is what we see, a White Hole.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
blackholes-whiteholes. let me put it this way; if looked at from a Cosmic Plasma point of view(at least the way i see it, any objections or questions welcome of course) that since all rotating masses have magnetic field and that a supernova,class2, are the masses that, apparently produce a blackhole, they would would have to condense their magnetic field. therefore since the magnetic field would have to be condensed by the supernova, an extremely powerful magnetic would have to be evident. which as of yet has not been shown to me to be the case.
however, if for instance a blackhole were to be produced anyway, then i think that the magnetic field would compress to the point, that it would FLOW BACK into the Cosmic Plasma Electromagnetic energy state(high energy,non-particle). which in time, would weaken this magnetic field because the flow of Cosmic Plasma would, slowly absorb this field into its own flow, which is at a vertex point between the magnetic field and the Cosmic Plasma flow. therefore diminishing the magnetic field, in time. this then does not allow for a "whitehole" to exist.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And if that were the case, then we can see the supposed Big Bang actually happening today, right now in the center of every galaxy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
if i may suggest a more thorough examination of the site www,theuniverse.ws(especially the idea of "pinching") would sort of help here i think. i'm not thinking of the papers at this site necessarily but rather the general info presented. i've read it all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe the singularity that Einstein needs if his equations are to work is at the center of a galaxy, and not the center of the Universe. If that were true, then we wouldn't have to falsify Einstein.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
the idea is not to necessarily falsify Einstein persay but to question him(nobody is above question, nobody) and to see what this questioning leads too.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Cosmic Background Microwave radiation would be source background microwave emission, there would be no need for an accelerating expansion, and a Doppler redshift to support it, and invisible matter to enable it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
go from there.
also if you go to cosmicastronomy.com then go to>big mass two, schroll down to a little before half way, you'll see waves that Greydon describes as gravity waves, very interesting even if you don't agree with him, they are still there to explain!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #13162
by north
supplemental:
correction;
it is the MASS of a blackhole(supernova) which is compressed to the point where the mass its self is absorbed, (not the magnetic field, since the magnetic field is not considered(erroneously i think) and converted to a high energy state, Cosmic Plasma). it is brought to a higher energy state, non-particle.
Replied by north on topic Reply from
supplemental:
correction;
it is the MASS of a blackhole(supernova) which is compressed to the point where the mass its self is absorbed, (not the magnetic field, since the magnetic field is not considered(erroneously i think) and converted to a high energy state, Cosmic Plasma). it is brought to a higher energy state, non-particle.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 6 months ago #12502
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">however, if for instance a blackhole were to be produced anyway, then i think that the magnetic field would compress to the point, that it would FLOW BACK into the Cosmic Plasma Electromagnetic energy state(high energy,non-particle). which in time, would weaken this magnetic field because the flow of Cosmic Plasma would, slowly absorb this field into its own flow, which is at a vertex point between the magnetic field and the Cosmic Plasma flow. therefore diminishing the magnetic field, in time. this then does not allow for a "whitehole" to exist. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I am thinking of a White hole in a different sense, instead of a Black hole sucking everything up into one neutron, I am thinking the opposite, that the While hole is spewing out stuff.
Keep in mind that matter, and here is where Puthoff is right, is an energy interchange with a plenum they call the ZPE.
So I am just wondering which way a galaxy is moving in real time. In or out?
Well, I am thinking of a White hole in a different sense, instead of a Black hole sucking everything up into one neutron, I am thinking the opposite, that the While hole is spewing out stuff.
Keep in mind that matter, and here is where Puthoff is right, is an energy interchange with a plenum they call the ZPE.
So I am just wondering which way a galaxy is moving in real time. In or out?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.318 seconds