Quantized redshift anomaly

More
19 years 6 months ago #12429 by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
I see clearly how the electric-magnetic aspects of astrophysics is being ignored.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> It is not so much that plasma physics is being ignored in astrophysics, but that there are flaws in the corresponding theories of plasmas that lead to errors of judgement regarding the relevant physics involved. It is therefore not only the case that plasma effects are being incorrectly neglected in many cases, but there are also many far fetched plasma effects being held responsible when in fact the explanation lies elsewhere (like for the 'coronal heating' of the sun; see my page www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm ).


www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 6 months ago #11039 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
quote:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tommy
I see clearly how the electric-magnetic aspects of astrophysics is being ignored.

It is not so much that plasma physics is being ignored in astrophysics, but that there are flaws in the corresponding theories of plasmas that lead to errors of judgement regarding the relevant physics involved.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Seems like there are always many theories, and eventually the right one emerges. The flaws get ironed out. I didn't mean that plasma is ignored in astrophysics, I meant outside of astrophysics it is unheard of. Took me a long time to find out there was something like plasma in cosmology. And I was looking...I don't see it as an alternative to the Big Bang theory though. There is no comparison. Plasma cosmology is more like a complementary to Gravitation. Big Bangers are shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring electromagnetic effects on stars.

There is an energy source INSIDE empty apace. Puthoff (1987) shows us that the ground state of the electron sustains it's radiative energies by taking up an equal energy from the source what he called the ZPE, what Planck called the ZPE what many call the Dirac Sea, what others call the quantum vacuum. This source is also inside the empty space of an atom. It is not outside in space like physical matter and fields are, as if you could touch it, or measure it, it is within our space. Some would say it is in another higher dimension. Reinman called it the fifth dimension. Maxwell thought it was the ether. It is "inside" every atom, every star, and it is inside us. It is a ground dimension. It is hyperspace. I simply think of it as INSIDE space, and let it go at that.

Of course you could, I suppose, if you please, hold to the view that every moving bit of inert matter carries around its own personal battery...

Think about it, an electron in orbit has magnetic momentum, this means it is moving and while it is moving it is radiating radiation and it does this all the time. So where is this energy coming from? THe standard answer, I love these kinds, was that the electron couldn't fall out of its orbit. Well, it is these fields that atoms use to couple. It is the electron fields of atoms that form the molecules from the elements. All elements, all molecules, all matter for that matter, is these interacting electron fields. And these fields are fed their sustaining energies from you make up a name for it.

This is not theory, or conjecture, but demonstrated by experiment, from experience. Our experience of matter shows us that it is sustained by something inside empty space. Non-locality is a fact.

So how do we connect with this "NoThing"?

Alfven makes the point about scalability. He says that plasma experiments can be scaled up, what works small works big. A lot of work is being done in the basements with plasma too, Why? Why do these fellows close themselves up in the shadows of their dark basement? They are looking for "Free energy" Most of these hane been labeled as cranks. (so says Kuhn) but some of them are for real. Morey B King is an engineer, and writes about the quest for Zero Point Energy. King writes from the bench so to speak. Seems that many are trying to use plasma to create free energy. That is, as King puts it, to tap into the ZPE. Why Plasma? Because plasma can create over-unity energies.

Plasma experiments on a small scale indicate that certain configurations demonstrate excess or "free" energy suspected of coming from the ZPE. King shows us pictures of torodial plasma which has this ability to focus and focus and focus the plasma flow such that the protons extract energy from the ZPE. This energy looks to us to be anomalous. Ordinary physics does not explain it.

<center> </center>



I found this in King's book Quest for Zero Point Energy."


also from

sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume1/issue7/story2.php

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Solar flares are produced by the sun's massive magnetic fields. Those fields are commonly seen as sunspots, "active regions" where the solar magnetic field may be several thousand times that of the Earth. As those magnetic fields twist like tightly-coiled springs, the tension eventually becomes too much and they snap, spewing the charged particles that make up a solar flare.


The RHESSI Imaging Spectrometer contains nine germanium detectors that are positioned behind the nine grid pairs on the telescope. The detectors convert incoming x-rays and gamma-rays to pulses of electric current. The amount of current is proportional to the energy of the photon, and is measured by sensitive electronics designed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Space Sciences Lab., Berkeley. (NASA photo)
Before last year's observations, solar physicists expected that the accelerated ions and electrons would be seen along the same magnetic pathways. Both gamma rays and x-rays, the scientists believed, should originate from the feet of massive loops that arch hundreds of thousands of miles across the surface of the star. However, once RHESSI's data made it home, the scientists were pleasantly surprised.

"What we found is that the electrons and ions were separated by tens of thousands of kilometers," Lin says. "We don't completely understand why that's the case, but it suggests that the particles are accelerated in different ways."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">


Plasma, for those people who work with it on a very small scale, produces anomalous extra heat. If that can be done in a basement, imagine what can be done in a star?

It should be noted that the plasma ball shown above in the picture, has been seen in many different situations. It would be a mistake to assign eveything to plasma, it is important to know what plasma does explain and where it stops. But there are many strange things going on that can be expland by the idea of a plasma ball. Balls of lightning have been observed emerging from earthquake fissures. These balls of light have been seen coming off contacts in a submarine, and floating down the passageway. They strange thing so far is the persistence of the ball of light. Balls of light have been seen around crop circles, a farmer was video taped watching one fly over his head. Crop circles, when analyzed by scientists, evidence extreme but brief heating, the drying of sooil, the elongation of nodes, the crystalization of clay, trhe fusion of iron onto plant structure, the fusion of fly wings to the plant, the increase of nitrites, all can be explained if the ball of light is a plasma ball. If there are hundreds of sightings of balls of Light around certain crop circles, there are thousands of sightings of UFO's all over the place. And the one thing that seems to me as common, are balls of light. Plasma Balls?

Tiny Suns that crop up all over the place driving us nuts.

Opps, back to the subject. Where were we, oh, redshift. Redshift, change in wavelength, change in energy level. Let's see, Photon moves for billions of years, does not show change in energy. Billions of years, does not change energy; so change of energy means billions of years?

The Asylium? Did I spell that right? Of course, in order to condust a modern study of light we need to consider the all the data and all the data includes, in Tom's words, the Asylium.

Question: What would light be, it there was nothing in its way?



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 6 months ago #12430 by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
I believe it is Elysium, that is the carrier medium for light waves. I will eventually get up to speed on MM theory.

Gravitons are pouring into all atomic structure and these buggers are the culprets that are causing the spin dynamics and wave forms being generated as photons. Light is a shock wave of the FTL gravitonic bombardment, and the separation from the opposite side of Universe is the cause of this tearing of gravitons away from the Antimatter Universe that results in a Matter Attractive Force between all Matter wave forms. However, loops of outpouring of plasmic energy and especially polar discharges are repulsive reverse spin dynamics and have an alignment that is more in tune with the Repulsive Force that is generated by Matter as Anti-Gravitons that pour towards the Antimatter Universe from the shear force and tearing between the two planes of reverse polarizational flows of Matter and Antimatter energies. I know this all sounds real bizaar, but I think it is a better theory then what I have heard so far in how this whole enchilada works. It makes zero sense how a balloon can expand space without any energy dynamics other then Gravity? Where is the repulsive force, some explosion from a Big Bang that causes space to expand in all directions? Dark Matter does not appear to exist. Where is Dark Matter? The Universe must have rotation or it would not be flat since mass is far to organized and orderly in its precessional orbits around centers. The redshifts could either be differences in the speed of light or actual expansion created by local differences in high pressure regions between galactic Elysium Fields from expolsion of Antimatter Jets that may feed the expansion.

John

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 6 months ago #12432 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">It makes zero sense how a balloon can expand space without any energy dynamics other then Gravity? Where is the repulsive force, some explosion from a Big Bang that causes space to expand in all directions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"Oh no!" They will say to you, "You don't understand, it is not an explosion of matter, it is an explosion of space. See, look at this balloon. "

The reason they say that, is because if they calculate matter from gravity, it does not do what they say it is doing. So they create a "space" because now they have something that can affect gravity but not be affected by gravity. Thus they are able to move matter without the limitations that gravity has on matter. But the same way that Einstein shows us that gravity and acceleration have the same effects, so it is that acceleration of cosmic bodies by explanding the space between them and an outside force on those bodies have the same effect. The moving away of galaxies near the speed of light due to expansion is the same as the moving away of galaxies near the speed of light. Period. Expansion of space does not nullify the effects of gravity. Saying so doesn't make it so.

If one looks at the whole picture, say any atom, we know that this atom has certain characteristics of the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. Does a single atom have gravity? Gravity obviously is an attractive force between atoms.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory of these gravitaional forces derived from equations. Observation, however, reveals that gravity is not enough. So they invent invisible stuff to make up the difference. Stuff that has the properties they want, and does not have the properties they do not want. And they plug this into the equations and they work? But not all the time.

Attempts have been made to unify the force of Gravity with the rest. But recall our initial picture of the atom that we painted. The forces of Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak forces are found in the atom. Gravity is found OUTSIDE the atom. Proof: A single atom has no gravity.

No wonder they cannot Unify the forces with something that does not exist. If the Four Forces of Nature are to be unified, it will happen as a equation which includes a pair of atoms...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 6 months ago #11045 by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
The Big Bang Theory is a theory of these gravitaional forces derived from equations<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> The point is that according to the cosmological principle (which assumes homogeneity and isotropy of matter) there should actually not be any overall gravitational force on any object in the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel. In this sense, the fundamental equations for the Big-Bang theory are already fundamentally flawed. Even if you naively compare the universe to the surface of a balloon, the resultant gravitational force on this surface should still be zero everywhere if the matter distribution on this surface is homogenous. What the Big-Bang theory does is to assume mistakenly that the gravitational force somehow transmits through the enclosed volume of the balloon, i.e. through the enclosed hyperspace of the universe.

To be honest I find it even embarassing to discuss these issues. These are philosophical problems that 15 year olds tend to have. It seems that some people never grow up.

For anyone interested, I have discussed the logical consistency of the Big-Bang theory in general and the 'curved space' concept in particular on my webpages www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm and www.physicsmyths.org.uk/discussions/cosmology.htm .


www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 6 months ago #11041 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">quote:

Originally posted by Tommy
The Big Bang Theory is a theory of these gravitaional forces derived from equations
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
(Thomas)

The point is that according to the cosmological principle (which assumes homogeneity and isotropy of matter) there should actually not be any overall gravitational force on any object in the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that as a pure model that is so. The expanding particles will continue their original direction because gravity has no effect on them. But once that logic became clear, they modified the equations to include fluctuations. Part of the problem is that we are not dealing with honest science. There is a dishonest factor that everyone seems to know about. What makes it dishonest is the intent.
It wouldn't matter what was observed, they would have to deny it or otherwise circumvent it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In this sense, the fundamental equations for the Big-Bang theory are already fundamentally flawed. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, but they won't admit it. I think that they are correct in detail, but wrong in general. I think that they have contrived a Universe based on gravity, and the equations that they have produced are correct if the Universe were based on Gravity alone. "It has to be that way" according to them. The "flaw" is in their assumptions, for the primary assumption they are making is that gravity is all of it. When gravity is all of it is what they came up with. But the only way it agrees with observation is if there is an invisible matter that has mass. And now what they are saying is that matter is not all of it. They contradict themselves. The Big Bang Theory is paradoxal.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even if you naively compare the universe to the surface of a balloon, the resultant gravitational force on this surface should still be zero everywhere if the matter distribution on this surface is homogenous. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not only that, they say that the matter doesn't expand, but matter is mostly space, so this space isn't expanding? If we point out that the rubber expands all over in a balloon, even under the glued on coins, they will tell us not to take the model too literally...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What the Big-Bang theory does is to assume mistakenly that the gravitational force somehow transmits through the enclosed volume of the balloon, i.e. through the enclosed hyperspace of the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I never thought of it that way, the inside of the balloon, what is that? Maybe hyperspace? There certainly is gravity. Let there be no mistake about that - gravity does exist. But the dynamic Universe, the process of being the Universe, involves much more than just gravity. There are Four Forces of Nature. Besides gravity, there is the force of the nucleus, and the force of the electron. They play a role in the development of the Universe, among other things.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To be honest I find it even embarrassing to discuss these issues. These are philosophical problems that 15 year olds tend to have. It seems that some people never grow up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is a lot going on that is embarrassing to discuss.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.401 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum