Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:59 am

http://milesmathis.com/arp.pdf

he would have made more progress in the margins if he
had either stuck to data, or embraced a better theory.


What was that theory? It was the 1977 theory of Jayant Narliker, that the redshifts were explained by
increasing particle masses. According to him, the data could be incorporated without doppler provided
fundamental particle masses were increasing with time.


my main reason for disliking it is that there exists a far simpler explanation which does not requiring changing
masses.


It is a unified field redshift, caused mostly by charge

---

Enjoy.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Unread postby JeffreyW » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:34 am

I think Miles and Arp were incorrect.

The redshift of quasars was caused by a doppler shift.

The quasar is moving in a transverse orientation not radial. Meaning sideways, not towards/away from us.

In other words here is the breakdown.

Establishment only accepts the doppler effect due to radial shifts, or Vr.

So naturally if the doppler effect is due to transverse motion, or VT, then they have a lot of explaining to do. I think this is the case, as outer space is 3-Dimensional.

Quasars ONLY have a Vr and not a component VT is being disingenuous. As stars themselves have both radial and transverse components, the transverse component is called proper motion.

So in other words, the proper motion of quasars is not accounted for, which is extremely high in all cases, due to them being ejected from host galaxies.

Miles' charge stuff I think is nonsense, btw. I think he can see through lots of b.s. of establishment and others, but his replacement offerings are not up to my standards, simply because they cannot be explained without resorting to your mind being turned to mush, like general relativity does.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Unread postby JaredTheDragon » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:49 am

Since GR has mushed your mind, it stands to reason that Mathis's charge theory would definitely do the trick as well. I'm not curious what doesn't mush your mind, but am curious about your transverse velocity being a factor in Redshift.


Are you stating that all quasars are moving sideways relative to us, and none are moving towards or away from us? While I agree that there is likely some lateral motion in many cases, what evidence do you have that absolutely zero quasars are moving towards or away from us?

Have you observed and logged every quasar visible? Have you tracked their transverse motions and logged those? Do you keep a nice, tidy database on every star? What instruments were you using to observe every star and quasar, that nobody else but you seems to have access to?
JaredTheDragon
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm

Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:37 pm

JaredTheDragon wrote:Since GR has mushed your mind, it stands to reason that Mathis's charge theory would definitely do the trick as well. I'm not curious what doesn't mush your mind, but am curious about your transverse velocity being a factor in Redshift.


Are you stating that all quasars are moving sideways relative to us, and none are moving towards or away from us? While I agree that there is likely some lateral motion in many cases, what evidence do you have that absolutely zero quasars are moving towards or away from us?

Have you observed and logged every quasar visible? Have you tracked their transverse motions and logged those? Do you keep a nice, tidy database on every star? What instruments were you using to observe every star and quasar, that nobody else but you seems to have access to?


That's not my problem. Fact is, out of all the information I've ever read on quasars none mention transverse velocities causing redshift.

They ALL assume that redshift in quasars ONLY happens when it is radial. You know why? Big bang. It is the only assumption that fits with an expanding universe paradigm. They all have to be moving away from us, so any transverse velocities can be ignored.

I see that a lot. Ignoring data that doesn't fit the paradigm. It is a shame. I mean, yea, sarcastic sympathy. If they want to be clueless? Again. Not my problem.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v3.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 3
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:10 am

.
Describing gravitational redshifts as non local velocities and particle expansion are not viable theories. Then again, mainstream really doesn’t have a viable theory. Mainstream lacks explanation for 95% of the universe, the so-called dark matter. Mainstream theories don’t include it. Miles Mathis explains dark matter with his Charge Field theory; dark matter is infrared photons.

quoting GBT Detection Unlocks Exploration of 'Aromatic' Interstellar Chemistry https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2018-01
Cambridge, MA - Astronomers had a mystery on their hands. No matter where they looked, from inside the Milky Way to distant galaxies, they observed a puzzling glow of infrared light. This faint cosmic light, which presents itself as a series of spikes in the infrared spectrum, had no easily identifiable source. It seemed unrelated to any recognizable cosmic feature, like giant interstellar clouds, star-forming regions, or supernova remnants. It was ubiquitous and a bit baffling.

Many scientists have noted the glow. These scientists have a theory - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). What? In every direction? Will they be able to explain dark matter as aromatic hydrocarbons? Sorry - that doesn’t smell right.

The infrared glow is undeniable evidence of the charge field - IR photons. Miles’ Unified Field theory combines gravity and the charge field. Mainstream assumes redshift is caused by Relativity, because Einstein’s equations work. Miles explains that charge has been locked in mainstream equations since Newton. Miles unlocked the charge by breaking mass into density (the source of charge), and a volume (the source of gravity). G is the transform that exists between the two opposing charge and gravity fields.

Miles goes into detail how space between the galaxies contains charge. High mass densities in the center of a galaxy such as quasars are also associated with high charge densities. Photons emitted from high charge densities will interact in increased edge-to-edge side collisions causing spin changes, red or blue.

As usual, Miles does a great job reviewing all the physics. I had no idea that mainstream believed redshift was caused by Relativity. In the second half of the paper, Miles is trying to uncover why – if Halton Arp was marginalized and unrecognized while living - did the New York Times give him full honors after his death. I appreciate seeing a bigger picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. A special instance of this is the cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth.

* http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
NEW PAPER, added 2/18/18, Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts. http://milesmathis.com/arp.pdf. Where we find redshifts aren't caused by doppler, and a whole lot more.
.
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Unread postby JaredTheDragon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:51 am

JeffreyW wrote:That's not my problem. Fact is, out of all the information I've ever read on quasars none mention transverse velocities causing redshift.

They ALL assume that redshift in quasars ONLY happens when it is radial. You know why? Big bang. It is the only assumption that fits with an expanding universe paradigm. They all have to be moving away from us, so any transverse velocities can be ignored.

I see that a lot. Ignoring data that doesn't fit the paradigm. It is a shame. I mean, yea, sarcastic sympathy. If they want to be clueless? Again. Not my problem.



"Fact is" is another way of saying you're dodging.

I do agree that their assumptions that everything is moving away from us is absurd. That would make Earth (and us) the epicenter of everything, which is preposterous of course and we know that gravity is an acceleration towards, not away from. So they want it both ways, in the mainstream.

However you haven't begun to explain how transverse motion causes a shift in observe spectra towards red, or towards blue for that matter. Hans Alfvaen and Halton Arp were much closer with their "intrinsic redshift" theories, which basically state that the light is red because it's actually red light, not because things are (necessarily) moving towards or away from us. A simplification, but it holds plenty of water.

You state that answering my questions isn't your problem and I agree, it's not your problem. Your problem here is an inability to explain redshift or blueshift, thus the need to dodge off into "not my problems" and "Fact is", despite it not being a fact at all. What you've read or not read isn't a fact, it's a postulate. You could be lying for example - how would anyone know? You could have never read anything on the topic, making your "fact" irrelevant to begin with.

On top of all that, you never say what it is about Mathis's charge theory that's "mushy" either. You said it wasn't up to your standards, but so far those standards don't appear to have any merit. What parts of Mathis's theories are you finding "mush" in, if I might ask? Perhaps I can help you unmush yourself.
JaredTheDragon
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:47 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests