The "redshift" debate

[sjw40364]

MJV Paper
* Michael, I didn't want to register at the website where your paper is in order to read it. Can I see it somewhere without registering?

I didn't have to register when I first went there and saved it, does it require registry now?
http://gsjournal.net/files/4590_Vaicaitis.pdf

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

There are not two types of quantum particle.

With particle field (aka aether) there is not effect of gravity with just one object. Only when two objects come into proximity is the effect produced and for this to happen the particles of the field have to be very small and moving - this is really just classical aether gravity theory. Electrons and protons spin, so when field quantums collide with them they are emitted, in the case of the electron, or deflected, in the case of the proton, back into the field.
The difference is that field quantums are moving from all directions entirely randomly, whereas charge quantums are emanating from electrons and protons. The PRESENCE of bulk matter in the field produces the effect of GRAVITY. The OPERATION or SPIN of bulk matter in the field produces the effect of charge. Electrons and protons are effectively converting gravity into charge. Obviously, charge quantums simply merge back into the field and become field quantums again.

I have read some of Miles Mathis. I like his approach and his critiques are excellent, but I found myself becoming more and more disillusioned with some of his ideas: expansion field (including expanding empty space), stacked spins, spurious use of the Dalton and others. I rejected all of his ideas when starting my investigation and was in fact quite surprised when my analysis revealed a charge field very similar to his.

(when I say wavelength=c, I mean 3x10^8metres, not 3x10^8m/s)

Lloyd,

[Lloyd]

* Okay, that link, http://gsjournal.net/files/4590_Vaicaitis.pdf, is for the paper. The previous link I think went to the site where the paper is available. It had Register and Log In buttons and I assumed one had to register to get to the papers there. I copied the paper and may get to read it some day. I suggest reviewing Kanarev's and Santilli's findings, as they may offer additional or alternative info.

[Sparky]

Sparky,

There are not two types of quantum particle.

With particle field (aka aether) there is not effect of gravity with just one object. Only when two objects come into proximity is the effect produced and for this to happen the particles of the field have to be very small and moving - this is really just classical aether gravity theory. Electrons and protons spin, so when field quantums collide with them they are emitted, in the case of the electron, or deflected, in the case of the proton, back into the field.
The difference is that field quantums are moving from all directions entirely randomly, whereas charge quantums are emanating from electrons and protons. The PRESENCE of bulk matter in the field produces the effect of GRAVITY. The OPERATION or SPIN of bulk matter in the field produces the effect of charge. Electrons and protons are effectively converting gravity into charge. Obviously, charge quantums simply merge back into the field and become field quantums again.

I have read some of Miles Mathis. I like his approach and his critiques are excellent, but I found myself becoming more and more disillusioned with some of his ideas: expansion field (including expanding empty space), stacked spins, spurious use of the Dalton and others. I rejected all of his ideas when starting my investigation and was in fact quite surprised when my analysis revealed a charge field very similar to his.

(when I say wavelength=c, I mean 3x10^8metres, not 3x10^8m/s)

Michael, thank you....i have some more questions about your theory, compared to other's, so would you like to start a new thread, focused on examining your theory?

edit: whooops,, see you have done that already....

[PersianPaladin]

And I believe the CMB data is about as accurate as the description of a black hole is. The CMB data just as readily supports a static universe as well as an expanding universe. The equipment was flawed from the beginning and its data based purely upon wishful thinking. It's useless to rely on it for anything and anything based upon it is just as useless. The great wall of galaxies show just how flawed the experiment was, matter is not homogenous and not enough time has existed to form the structures we now see.

Then you would want to use redshifts corrected for the rotation of the galaxy - the local standard of rest (LSR). Those would be the only redshift values that you would probably not be suspicious of. The next correction applied is to the centroid of the local group of galaxies which is dependent upon inferred local group motions (Vlg). Then there is a correction for Virgo Cluster infall - again relying on interpreting doppler motions for the gravitational pull of the massive Virgo cluster on the local group (Vvir). The correction to the CMB reference frame is just another correction.

In the end it doesn't really matter too much what redshift frame you use for purposes such as calculating the value of the Hubble Constant.

I personally would never trust redshift distances for any objects. Using redshift as a distance indicator can lead to serious errors.

Just found this thread again. I think redshift is a complex issue and it's often misrepresented by both sides, as this debate has highlighted.

However, I am curious as to the reason Mr. Russell rejects redshift distances for any object - given that he did say that correlation of distance can be seen in certain cases.