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 Cargo » Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:31 pm

A light source moving in the same direction at X speed 1,000ly away, or at 1,000,000ly away should have the same shift. Yes?
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 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:31 am

Cargo wrote:A light source moving in the same direction at X speed 1,000ly away, or at 1,000,000ly away should have the same shift. Yes?
No because redshift is not a real doppler effect as would be expected from a fixed velocity, the redshift is supposedly caused by expansion stretching the actual wave of light as it crosses empty space. Hence redshift would be cumulative the further it travels.

However, my point is if that's true then the absorption band should be similarly and cumulatively stretched, of which there isn't any evidence, so expansion caused redshift is falsified.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:57 am

fencewalker wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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 agree Einstein was probably wrong about max c but I don't think this has a real bearing on the redshift issue. Light frequency and light speed are not necessarily directly related.

fencewalker wrote: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?
Yes but I'm pretty sure the absorption lines only shift a short way along the spectrum (see example below), not across large frequencies, so they should be evident to some degree. Can you link the spectral plot you mentioned?

Image
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby MotionTheory » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:02 am

Aardwolf - excellent reasoning however need to address

More mainstream magics:
1. space expansion is accelerating which explained why observed close to fixed rather than cumulative redshifting over distance.

2. only Infrared is observed for long distance galaxies because visible spectrum were eaten and lengthened by cumulative redshifting dog.

EU magic substances as cause for redshift:
1. plasma
2. EM field

=====
When above magics (and a few others) are falsified and all known affects are account for (such as doppler, scatter, tired, etc..), what remain supposed to be: redshift map from all directions would shows varying redshift depend on motion of external galaxies. reflect galaxy moving or edge of galaxy rotate relative toward and away from observer. No, it won't be so.

FWIW Simplest answer - the observer is inside a filter(Milky Way), which redshift all incoming EM by the similar amount (however deviate slightly depend on milky way shape and location of observer from galactic axis of rotation) regardless of EM source distance.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:25 pm

from cargo - A light source moving in the same direction at X speed 1,000ly away, or at 1,000,000ly away should have the same shift. Yes?

yes, when u only consider doppler shift. ppl here r suggesting some kind of plasma redshift, which i have not seen data/equations/explanations for, so i have yet to accept it's validity,

aardwolf - could u explain plasma redshift?
also, i had the sprectal lines on a logarithmic scale linked, but can't find it, probably deleted. frequency is often plotted this way. r u sure ur examples are actual data or just a demonstration/model? just a quick web search did not show what i was referring to. my bad.
i think u mentioned something similar to this - the redshift would have to b significant to notice the separation between absorption bands.
i'm sure there is some math that could better explain it.
i also tried searching for plasma absorption lines and just found a bunch of things i wasn't willing to invest time in. do u have decent data or even modeled graphs?

mtiontheory - my argument is that the universe is not accelerating but decelerating - check my previous posts in this thread. older data = faster galaxies = younger in universal time, acceleration over distance is deceleration over time.
by 'magic' i assume u mean theoretical. do u have data/equations/explanations for plasma/EM field redshifting? i think if light loses energy through these, it would appear as additional absorption lines and loss in amplitude/intensity, not loss/shift of frequency.
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:00 pm

aardwolf - i found a site that might lead to what we are looking for.
http://voyages.sdss.org/launch/cosmos/redshift-launch/
the plots at the bottom of that link seem understandable, and they talk about a science archive server, so they might have more data samples for us to peruse.
i'm assuming from the plots, the overlaid rainbow spectrum is visible light, and the black bar has the at-rest lines for hydrogen (my guess). the titles are galaxy and star, but the galaxy does not have distance or velocity. it appears to be a 'test question' for the viewer to determine the distance/velocity.
heh, at the bottom i submitted the question of the length between spectral lines changing at large redshift...
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:19 am

fencewalker wrote:aardwolf - i found a site that might lead to what we are looking for.
http://voyages.sdss.org/launch/cosmos/redshift-launch/
the plots at the bottom of that link seem understandable, and they talk about a science archive server, so they might have more data samples for us to peruse.
i'm assuming from the plots, the overlaid rainbow spectrum is visible light, and the black bar has the at-rest lines for hydrogen (my guess). the titles are galaxy and star, but the galaxy does not have distance or velocity. it appears to be a 'test question' for the viewer to determine the distance/velocity.
heh, at the bottom i submitted the question of the length between spectral lines changing at large redshift...
Looking at the spectra associated with the database items I couldn't any evidence that there were any exponentional movement of the bands. They just move into the near infra red. However, looking at the distant objects I could find it becomes apparent that the signal just appears to become too weak and there are so many I'm surprised they have any real ability to determine where the bands have shifted to, as the peaks/troughs seem no bigger than the noise. I doubt there is enough definition at those distances to test the theory. At extremely large distances I doubt they can use absorption bands at all.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:43 pm

what do u think of the dark energy? do u seethe galaxies accelerating or decelerating? check my first post in this thread...
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby jacmac » Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:01 pm

Fencewalker:
do u seethe galaxies accelerating or decelerating?

My response would be: perhaps neither.
Halton Arp has falsified the belief that Redshift always indicates movement away from us and distance.
His lifetime of published astronomy should be the start of anyone serious about investigating Redshift.
When you see objects in distant space connected by plasma that have striking different Redshift numbers you know something is not right with the standard theory.
This article in the N Y Times about his death might be a good place to start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/scie ... at-86.html
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby fencewalker » Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:44 am

@ jacmac - imnsho, hubbla and arp are both partly correct.
hubble's V=HD applies to the centers of galaxies. since we are not observing from the center of our galaxy, nor are we observing the centers of other galaxies, the data will be off the line (search hubble 1929 graph).
since arp is observing quasar ejections from the galactic centers, they will not share the centers' velocity/red shift.
my guess is that the quasars are generated by clouds of matter being hit by the gamma bursts from the center of the galaxy. it is also my guess that spiral galaxies are formed by gamma bursts from galactic cores that are spinning in multiple directions. the primary axis represented by the gamma burst, the secondary axis forms the disc shape of the galaxy.
also, could u explain what u think plasma red shift is? i have yet to see/hear/read a decent explanation of it.
fencewalker
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 11:03 am

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread postby orrery » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:15 am

Doppler Redshift is moronic and anyone who believes in it is an idiot.

The emission of light is much like the frames in a movie. Light is emitted such that you can think of each measurement of spectrum as a frame. Each light emitting diode emits light in a digital instantaneous and binary fashion.

The redshift phenomenon is an attribute of the "spectral frame." Because it is an attribute of the 'spectral frame' and not the product of a "spectral video" then it can not possibly be a Doppler Effect. It fails even the most basic dimensional analysis.

Take a picture of a ball in the air - with a single picture - you do not know if the ball is going up, down, left, or right.

Motion can only be determined via a dz/t (change in redshift / time). This is the most basic equation for motion - bell, it's chapter 1 physics most people learn in elementary school.

Are you measuring a change in redshift over time? No. If not, then you aren't even performing the most basic action for measuring motion.

Redshift can be discerned as a property of a single frame. There is no "frame drag" by which redshift emerges as a property of observing multiple frames over a length of time.

Do you understand? Redshift is not an emergent phenomenon that manifests over time. It is an attribute of a single frame - it is part of the quantized instantaneous data packet. It is not dependent on the past or future emissions.

Waves are a temporal phenomenon. Waves exist only in time. Waves do not exist in quantized instances of time.

Again, it is quite simple to understand - video vs picture.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests