criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

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

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby rickard » Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:44 am

Take away the concept of red "shift" and you have only stars and galaxies with different colors.
Hubbles idea, to apply the dopplereffect on the light, is just an idea. ........ that create illusions, and Hubble himself doubted that the idea was in contact with the reality
rickard
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:16 am

fencewalker wrote:are there equations or data that shows this?

Equations are maths to fill in missing data. Sometimes scientists forget that.

Anyway, here are some links with "discussions":

Redshift in laboratory -
https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmolog ... d_by_free/
Redshift on the sun -
https://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmolog ... _a_plasma/
Halton Arp - redsift of quasars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

There are some trolls there, and hardcore big bang believers.
But I want to keep some opposition to see if there is any valid criticism, which is hard
as these people are using logical fallacies all the time.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:08 am

ok, i have a tendency to sound hostile and overly blunt. try to understand that this is how i can get my words out...
while links may mention the topics of the discussion, they do not demonstrate that any understanding of the person linking them. perhaps quoting something from the link that directly applies to the topic would b more appropriate, and the link to show where the quote came from in case the reader wants to read/watch more about the source of the quote. these links are similar to linking the bible when someone mentions a single verse. plz just quote the verse, ur understanding of it, then a link to give credit to the source.
i am asking an individual for their understanding on a specific point. i've been to college, i am capable of asking more questions if necessary.
doppler shift, either red or blue, has to do with waves emitted from a source and seen by an observer.
each element appears to have it's own absorption bands that absorb energy at specific frequencies which get shifted to the red end of the spectrum when the source and or observer are moving apart from each other, blue when moving toward each other.

what makes u think that plasma affects this doppler shift in frequencies?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby nick c » Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:42 pm

fencewalker wrote:the last sentence doesn't fit with my understanding. there are standing magnetic fields that are not associated with electric currents, like in a refrigerator magnet. it is moving or changing magnetic fields that induce current.
does this need to be corrected?
The EU statement that magnetic fields are created by electric currents does not need any correction.
A refrigerator (permanent) magnet is sustained by an internal electric current generated by the alignment of sub atomic particles inside of the ferrous material. See:
The Origin of Permanent Magnets
Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom. In most atoms, these currents cancel one another out, so that the atom carries zero net current. However, in the atoms of ferromagnetic materials (i.e., iron, cobalt, and nickel) this cancellation is not complete, so these atoms do carry a net current. Usually, the atomic currents are all jumbled up (i.e., they are not aligned in any particular plane) so that they average to zero on a macroscopic scale. However, if a ferromagnetic material is placed in a strong magnetic field then the currents circulating in each atom become aligned such that they flow predominately in the plane perpendicular to the field. In this situation, the currents can combine together to form a macroscopic magnetic field which reinforces the alignment field. In some ferromagnetic materials, the atomic currents remain aligned after the alignment field is switched off, so the macroscopic field generated by these currents also remains. We call such materials permanent magnets.

In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).


Lodestones are natural permanent magnets. It is thought that they are created by lightning strikes on or near magnetite, thus magnetizing it. Again, the lodestone is a remnant of a past electrical current.


The other question is how lodestones get magnetized. The Earth's magnetic field at 0.5 gauss is too weak to magnetize a lodestone by itself.[9][10] The leading theory is that lodestones are magnetized by the strong magnetic fields surrounding lightning bolts.[9][10][11] This is supported by the observation that they are mostly found near the surface of the Earth, rather than buried at great depth.[10]
See footnotes in the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodestone
also:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 99GL900496
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Cargo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:03 pm

fencewalker wrote:are there equations or data that shows this?


Empirical evidence does not always need a math equation to explain it. Do you question the state of Water, or Air? Plasma is a state of Matter. There are many equations which can apply to the matter which is in this state. Most are Electric.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:40 am

"Empirical evidence does not always need a math equation to explain it. "

what empirical evidence makes u think plasma has to do with redshift?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:49 am

fencewalker wrote:what makes u think that plasma affects this doppler shift in frequencies?

Correction: it is not "doppler-shift", it is red-shift.
With "doppler-shift", you are already making an assumption, so it is a logical fallacy.

How can plasma cause redshift in frequencies?

I think that this effect is similar to what I call, the laser effect.
In a laser, the photons line up to form a single wave.
In a laser we have excited electrons to produce energy for this additional light.
So in the plasma of a laser, the electrons have the tendency to line up with the already
available light.
This means that the new light can also replace the original light.

To cause redshift, the light transmitted is of slightly lower energy.
This is possible due to the absorption of the momentum of the light.
Any speed that an electron gains will have some natural resistance,
and this means that it is very likely that plasma causes redshift to light.

And indeed do we see in the laboratory that this happens.

From the laboratory we learn:
The redshift corresponds with the amount of free electrons.
As a side effect, the light of the redshifted light is also slowed down, depending on frequency.

If the process is similar, then by measuring the slowing down of light,
we can measure the amount of plasma-redshift of light in space.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby crawler » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:59 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
fencewalker wrote:what makes u think that plasma affects this doppler shift in frequencies?

Correction: it is not "doppler-shift", it is red-shift.
With "doppler-shift", you are already making an assumption, so it is a logical fallacy.

How can plasma cause redshift in frequencies?

I think that this effect is similar to what I call, the laser effect.
In a laser, the photons line up to form a single wave.
In a laser we have excited electrons to produce energy for this additional light.
So in the plasma of a laser, the electrons have the tendency to line up with the already
available light.
This means that the new light can also replace the original light.

To cause redshift, the light transmitted is of slightly lower energy.
This is possible due to the absorption of the momentum of the light.
Any speed that an electron gains will have some natural resistance,
and this means that it is very likely that plasma causes redshift to light.

And indeed do we see in the laboratory that this happens.

From the laboratory we learn:
The redshift corresponds with the amount of free electrons.
As a side effect, the light of the redshifted light is also slowed down, depending on frequency.

If the process is similar, then by measuring the slowing down of light,
we can measure the amount of plasma-redshift of light in space.
I havnt bothered to read the context of your redshift stuff, but Conrad Ranzan explains cosmic redshift in his DSSU website, he says it is a kind of tired light, light being stretched as it approaches mass & then again as it departs.
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.c ... 05.11.html
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/D1Cosmi ... Ranzan.pdf

Krafft had a similar stretching theory for light.
https://www.scribd.com/document/2394790 ... ick-Krafft
(1) On page 8 Krafft's cause of redshift is similar to Ranzan's. Krafft says ..........
............. It appears that the red shift can be accounted for in a more reasonable manner by assuming that each train of light waves during its journey through space will undergo a slight expansion......... ............. it would require only an extremely small difference of velocity between the waves at the front and rear ends of the train to produce the observed red shift. (Popular Astronomy, Vol 39, No. 7, p.428.)
crawler
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:27 pm

The funny thing is that the mainstream explains redshift
with a variable Lambda parameter.
Which is just the same as not explaining it at all.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Cargo » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:58 pm

crawler, You can not just wave the magic 'Mass' around to explain everything.

fencewalker, how can plasma not be a factor, when that is the environment the action is happening in? Or do you not know that Space is 99.9% plasma.

Plasma based blue/red shifting is repeatable and verified in experiments and simulation. They even have math.

Doppler is irrelevant in Space and light in general.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:09 am

It seems to me that if redshift were a doppler effect then the mechanism of the expanding space stretching the wavelength of the light, should also be stretching the wavelength of the absorption band. ie if there is an absorption band blocking light from 400-410nm (10nm band) then doppler redshift should shift that band to 800-820nm (20nm band).

However, if redshift is loss of energy then no broadening of the band would be expected. ie the light wave =<400 would incrementally shift to =<800 and the light wave =>410 would incrementally shift to =>810.

As far as I am aware there isn't any broadening of the bands so the second option should be correct and doppler redshift (as far as evidence for expanding space is concerned) is false.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:35 am


I think that in physics there is confusion about re-emission.
In gas this light goes to all directions.
That is because the electron around an atom captures the energy of the light,
and re-emits it into all directions when it falls back.
This means that light can not simply redshift without being diffused.
We see this kind of light in the blue colour of the sky.

In plasma the electrons are not bound to atoms.
The same is true in semi-conductors.
It seems that re-emission does not work in the same way.
This means that the light does not need to go to all directions, but
goes more often into the same direction that it was going before.
The electric field of the light probably causes that.

This process of creating new light is very similar to how a
medium causes light to slow down. The dielectric causes
new waves of light that are in a slower phase than the original wave.
This causes the light to move at slower speed.
Fermi lab tries to explain this in his video:
Why does light slow down in water

In a plasma the free electrons also work as a dielectric.
But the free electrons can lose some energy in their movement through
the free space (usually magnetic breaking).
So the free electrons will move a bit slower.
The emitted light will be redshifted, because energy of the light
will be slightly less than the original light.
So in a plasma dielectric, the light will not only slow down as in a normal
dielectric, it will also lose some energy and redshift.

This does not happen in a gas where the electrons are connected to atoms,
because the electrons bound to an atom do not lose any energy.
Because of this, most astronomers think that redshift can not happen.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:05 pm

ugh. let's agree on some definitions then... this is my understanding...
1) plasma is ionized atomic particles, electrons and protons, that are energized enough to remain stable outside the environment of an atom.
2) emission spectrum is the frequencies of light that are absorbed by different atoms, commonly hydrogen.
3) redshift is the absorbed spectrum shifted to the red. the frequency is less than expected when the source is moving away from the observer. the way i understood, this is the doppler affect similar to a car's horn at it passes by.
4) lower frequency of light implies lower energy and vise versa.

5) i argue the universe is not accelerating apart, it is decelerating - cosmology is reading their data backwards because they do not understand their own words when they say 'the farther out we look, the further back in time we see.' The older velocities are faster than newer, therefore galaxies are slowing down.

6) posts have suggested that light loses energy as it travels through space and i disagree. this would mean that the blue shifted readings, like those from andromeda and a few galaxies on the edge of the vega cluster, have somehow gained energy as they traveled thru space.
7) the only ways i see that plasma, or anything else, can absorb energy is by reducing the amplitude, or intensity, of light, not by changing the frequency, OR by absorbing the frequencies that plasma might or might not absorb, creating additional absorption lines in the light.

to all who are interested: plz go thru each point and explain y u think is it wrong in ur own words WITHOUT linking what others have said. i am discussing this topic with U, not someone u link, and i would like to know ur understanding of ur statements.

my apologies if u find me rude.
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:49 am

fencewalker wrote:6) posts have suggested that light loses energy as it travels through space and i disagree. this would mean that the blue shifted readings, like those from andromeda and a few galaxies on the edge of the vega cluster, have somehow gained energy as they traveled thru space.
The loss of energy would only be evident over vast distances. The blue shifted galaxies are relatively local so their blue-shifted movement toward us would override any potential loss of energy.

What are you views on my point that the absorption lines should broaden as they are further red shifted, and there doesn’t appear to be any evidence to support this?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:35 pm

aardwolf said - What are you views on my point that the absorption lines should broaden as they are further red shifted, and there doesn’t appear to be any evidence to support this?
IIIFFF einstein is correct about the speed of light being a maximum, then the absorption lines SHOULD b farther apart in red shifts, and compressed closer together in blue shift. i have not heard of this being evident either, which i suggest is further evidence that he was wrong about the postulate of max speed. i've mentioned Run Ze Cao points out that his postulates contradict each other. one states that physics works the same in any reference frame, and the other says that c is a max, causing physics to be different in reference frames close to c (time, mass, length in direction of movement all changing by a gamma factor).
i have seen some spectral plot over frequency, but they are on an exponential scale, making it hard to see the stretch/compress of the spacing between spectral absorption lines.
is that what u were implying?
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests