The "redshift" debate

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:44 pm

David said: My own published papers have primarily involved use of the Tully-Fisher relation to calculate distances. The TFR utilizes the relationship between the rotational velocity and absolute magnitude for spiral galaxies. As absolute magnitude increases so does the rotational velocity. Since the rotational velocity is a distant independent measurement whereas the value of the apparent magnitude is a distance dependent measurement --- the farther a galaxy is the fainter it appears --- all you need is a Cepheid calibration of the relationship, a measured rotational velocity, a measured apparent magnitude, and a measured inclination angle to calculate the distance to a galaxy. For completeness you also need to correct the apparent magnitude for galactic and internal extinction.

* Do you disagree, then, with this recent TPOD at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110519cepheid.htm, which says in part as follows, regarding Cepheids being unusable for determining distances?
When Cepheids are used as indicators for the distances to nearby galaxies, a necessary assumption is that mass is invariant throughout the universe. But if mass varies with charge, each galaxy—and therefore each star in it—could have a different charge distribution with respect to the intergalactic plasma. Each galaxy could have an idiosyncratic period–luminosity relationship for Cepheids, rendering them unusable for determining distances to other galaxies.
- Halton Arp’s discoveries of connections between high-redshift quasars and low-redshift active galaxies have already brought “ultra-luminous” objects at great distances back to being “normally luminous” objects at much closer distances. The objects may even be “under-luminous” and located at nearby distances. With both redshift and Cepheids thrown into doubt, astronomers are left with no reliable way to determine distances to galaxies. Astronomy is once again open to new fundamental insights.

David, you also said: The Fingers of God are an example of meaningless nonsense. They don't prove redshift = distance. They don't prove redshift does not equal distance. The only thing they show is how redshift values are distributed on an segment of the sky. Since the plots reveal no information about actual distances they are worthless in my opinion.

* And do you disagree with this TPOD at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm, which says in part as follows?
The image to the right shows what happens if we try to force the same galaxy cluster into a redshift-equals-distance relationship. The cluster becomes distorted. What was once a sphere becomes an elongated bubble. The central dominant galaxy drops to the front of this bubble, followed by a spike of low-to-medium redshift galaxies stretching away from the earth and "bubble and void" of high redshift objects.
- ... Without the redshift-equals-distance distortion, a new picture of galaxy clusters and the universe itself is revealed. The age of the universe is no longer known, because we no longer have a constant expansion to backtrack to a bang. The size is also unknown. Most quasars and some galaxies that we see are closer than we thought they were, because they have been distorted by the Fingers of God.

* You don't think the Fingers of God disprove redshift equals distance? I'm not saying either you or the TPOD authors don't know what you're talking about. Experts have disagreements. Don't they?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:16 am

Jarvamundo wrote:
David Russell23 wrote:For spiral galaxies researchers use primarily the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) and the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TFGB) methods ...


I wonder how much the Electric Star - Glow discharge model will affect these measurement techniques? David, wondering if you might be somewhat familiar with the initial postulations of the EU interpretation of HR-diagrams?, and what they may mean with regard to these measurement techniques.

eg1: Rotational velocities of a Peratt style spiral, will luminosity and rotation be more dependent on energy density of the feeding Birkeland current?

eg2: TFGB: If a glow-discharge spectrum seems to be of no relation to fusion-fuel/Mass, how might these assumptions effect the distance measurement.

TB-ers: Here we can see a few challenges ahead of us all, if we are to start confronting the existing techniques, with electrical interpretations.

I suppose we may need to reach out the Electrical Theorists on some of these, but would appreciate any insights you may have here, if you are familiar somewhat with the EU literature.

J


The best answer I can give you is that the empirical relationships used to determine distance may be relationships that EU theory would need to be able to explain, but in themselves the relationships are largely independent of theory. They are pretty much straight empirical relationships.

For example, if you take a sample of galaxies within a cluster and make a redshift cut so that presumably they are all at the same distance (whether redshift = distance or not we can in general assume that a clustering of galaxies with small angular separations and very small redshift range should for the most part be at nearly the same distance. For the cluster you can plot the observed rotational velocity against the apparent magnitude and you will see that as rotational velocity increases, apparent magnitudes become brighter.

So no matter how far away the galaxies actually are ... and no matter what is actually causing the rotation of the galaxies ... and no matter how the stars in the galaxy are generating their light, there is an empirical relationship such that the faster a galaxy rotates the more luminous it is.

I've printed out the EU HR diagram link you posted and will read it over. I think the biggest thing that everyone here needs to pay attention to is the distinction between empirical results and theory. Empirical relationships are empirical relationships and a theory does not disprove an empirical relationship - such as the Tully-Fisher relation for example. A theory should attempt to explain an empirical relationship. I will have more to say on this when I comment on Lloyd's TPOD links.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:42 am

Hi Lloyd,

Thanks for the links. I do not agree with everything stated in either one of those TPOD links and I'll explain why in this post.

I'll start with the Fingers of God article from October 18th, 2004. In the first paragraph the note states that "Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance." The mainstream research community has clearly oversimplified the reality of the redshift-distance relationship by suggesting there is a tight redshift-distance relationship that all objects follow. However, the TPOD article is oversimplyfying reality by suggesting the converse of the mainstream position.

Here is a critical point that people on both sides of this debate seem to miss: Halton Arp's model is consistent with an underlying distance redshift relationship. For a sample of galaxies that are the same age - Arp argues that they should follow a tight Hubble relationship in which the more distant galaxies in the sample have a higher redshift which results from a Hubble constant of ~55 Km s-1 Mpc-1. In Arp's model the younger an object is at a given distance relative to the Milky Way, the more excess redshift it has above the redshift predicted for H0=55 km s-1 Mpc-1.

So as I said in my post yesterday, there is an underlying redshift distance relationship upon which any intrinsic redshifts (if they in fact exist - and I feel the evidence supports they do) would be superposed.

Now the TPOD note is correct in this statement: "The image to the right shows what happens if we try to force the same galaxy cluster into a redshift equals distance relationship. The cluster becomes distorted."

Yes this is correct - and this is the problem with the mainstream treatment of the fingers of god diagram. But mainstream researchers attribute this effect to peculiar motions which would in fact cause the same effect. The problem I have with the fingers of god diagrams is that they don't really tell us anything useful. Who knows how far those galaxies and whatever other class of object actually are. You need redshift independent distances.

The reality of redshifts is more complex than it is generally being treated. Does redshift = distance. Well that depends. How much scatter are you willing to grant the redshift-distance relation before you consider it violated? Are you willing to acknowledge that there may be variations in the redshift-distance relation for different classes of objects?

Here's my take: There is an underlying redshift distance relation that contributes to the observed redshift of all objects in the universe. This underlying redshift is found as follows:

CZ = H0r

where CZ is the redshift velocity; H0 is the Hubble constant with a value of 58-62 km s-1 Mpc-1 and r is the distance to the galaxy. This is the cosmological component of redshift.

Upon this cosmological component of redshift some objects may have peculiar motions and some objects may have an intrinsic redshift component (perhaps generated by a mechanism that EU could explain). So the observed redshift (CZ) then is:

CZ = H0r + Vpec + Vintrinsic

For normal galaxies the intrinsic component will range from negligible to perhaps (based upon my research) about +/- 4000 km s-1 of the observed redshift. For objects like small companion galaxies the intrinsic redshift may be the dominant part ofthe observed redshift and be perhaps up to 30,000 km s-1. For quasars the intrinsic redshift dominates the observed redshift such that the cosmological component is the negligible part.

So if you choose normal galaxies as your sample, you will see a redshift vs. redshift independent distance plot shows a trend of increasing redshift with increasing distance, but with a large scatter -- and that is what is observed.

For quasars you would not expect to see any relationship between redshift and apparent magnitude - and that is what is observed.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:02 pm

If quasars and galaxies (with greatly different redshifts) are physically connected then that disproves the notion that redshift is neccessarily a result of "recessional velocity". Arp has hundreds of examples.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:12 pm

"There are really two important questions that must be answered by astronomers:
Is the redshift phenomenon a useful tool in measuring the recessional velocities of stars and galaxies?
Is recessional velocity the only cause that can produce a redshift?
It has become clear that the answers to these questions are: 1) Yes, provided that you are careful about how you do it, and 2) an emphatic no. Astronomers have only concentrated on the first one. They ignore the second."
(Quote from "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott, 2006, p.198).
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:47 pm

David Russell23 wrote:So no matter how far away the galaxies actually are ... and no matter what is actually causing the rotation of the galaxies ... and no matter how the stars in the galaxy are generating their light, there is an empirical relationship such that the faster a galaxy rotates the more luminous it is.


Thanks David,

Agreed, and i also agree with your previous post in another thread, in that as to be understood by mainstream we must look to address existing empirical measurements in existing mainstream nomenclature where we can.... as they too place limits on every theory.

I suspect that the plasma universe will also have some extra explanatory ability with regard to acceleration, or deceleration of spin rates and luminosities. Whilst we'd need a few billions years to test, we might have some explanations for 'spreads' on existing measurements, and regions of 'activity'.

As a further example of the dynamic explanatory ability natural to EU, see the H-R diagram page of Electric Sun, particularly 'tests' that might eventuate for the stars which experience complete 'spectral changes'. If we could link some of these measurements to new techniques such as gyrochronology we might be able to discern if the entire mass of the star accelerates, or perhaps it's more viable for a surface discharge (pinch) to accelerate, which if this acceleration action happens is far more probable that a surrounding plasma accelerates and not the 'massive body' . (i guess in these general speculations... i'm just trying to alert to the dynamic nature available to EU, via plasma's natural ability to twist, spin, oscillate, violently interrupt as you turn the power up under and EU interpretation)

Welcome to TB by the way, it'll be *very* valuable to TB-ers to have your contributions. I'd like to extend a friendly >nudge< that your NPA paper or related work might also make it's way to one of their online video conferences, always alot of fun.

J

PP and others, i invite you to go read Davids papers, you'll find things are not as divided as they may seem.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby MosaicDave » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:16 pm

Hi David Russell--

Thanks very much for your input and contributions to the discussion here. I would also be very interested to know, whether you have come across Ari Brynjolfsson’s works in relation to what he calls "Plasma Redshift" - and of course what thoughts you may have about any of it.

In case any reading this have not come upon this material before, Brynjolfsson has a website more or less devoted to the subject, and furthermore containing a list of articles here: http://www.plasmaredshift.org//Article_Archive.html. Particularly, one article that introduces the subject matter succinctly is here: http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420. Rather than attempt to paraphrase, I'll simply quote this article's abstract:

A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics, without any new assumptions. The calculations are only more exact than those usually found in the literature. When photons penetrate a cold and dense electron plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, through Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and through Raman scattering on the plasma frequency. But when the plasma is very hot and has low density, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift, which is an interaction with the electron plasma. The energy loss of a photon per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon’s energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron. This energy loss (plasma redshift of the photons) consists of very small quanta, which are absorbed by the plasma and cause a significant heating. In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the solar corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating. Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma. Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the redshifts of the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding. The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons’ classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons. This means that there is no need for Einstein’s Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, everlasting and can renew itself forever. All these findings thus lead to fundamental changes in the theory of general relativity and in our cosmological perspective.

To my way of thinking, the effects that Brynjolfsson is writing about may relate critically to a discussion of redshift in the context of EU & PC concepts.

Regards--

--Dave
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:57 am

It does not seem Brynjolfsson addresses intrinsic redshift.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:25 am

Hi Lloyd,

I didn't get a chance to follow up last night with the reply to your question about the Cepheids.

I don't agree at all with the conclusions in the article titled "Eclipsing Cepheid Falsifies Stellar Evolution Theory".

The actual research article published on this result is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0231

The article is worth reading. The "embarrassing" problem is that the mass of Cepheid variables predicted by stellar pulsation theory is 20-30% smaller than the mass predicted from stellar evolution models.

The authors found from their data that the mass of the Cepheid matches that predicted from stellar pulsation models - which means the masses predicted from stellar evolution theory is incorrect.

Here is the problem: The Thunderbolts article does not mention that there is a very reasonable explanation for why the stellar evolution model predicts more mass than the now determined mass which matches that predicted from stellar pulsation models. If you only read the ESO press release you do not get that explanation because the press release doesn't mention it. However, if you read the research article linked to above you will see the hypothesis explained in the conclusion:

"The overestimation of Cepheid masses by stellar evolution theory may be the consequence of significant mass loss suffered by Cepheids during the pulsation phase of their lives - such loss could occur through radial motions and shocks in the atmosphere." (Pietrzynski et al 2010).

So it is not valid when the TB article says "That the result confirms teh stellar pulsation theory necessitates that it falsifies stellar evolution theory."

I don't see anything unreasonable about proposing that the pulsation of a Cepheid variable would result in mass loss. Obviously they will need to try to confirm it, but stellar evolution does not have to be scrapped because of this. Frankly, this mass loss explanation seems very reasonable to me - much more reasonable than the dark matter, dark energy monstrosity that is mainstream cosmology.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:32 am

PersianPaladin wrote:If quasars and galaxies (with greatly different redshifts) are physically connected then that disproves the notion that redshift is neccessarily a result of "recessional velocity". Arp has hundreds of examples.


I'm quite familiar with Arp's hundreds of examples. And his examples don't disprove the possible existence of expansion. This point was made to me by Morley Bell about 7 years ago. He pointed out to me that it is possible you could have expansion of the universe and still have intrinsic redshifts:

CZ = H0r + Vpec + Vint

H0r is the cosmological component and that could be from expansion, or it could be from the Narlikar&Arp variable mass effect, or it could be from some "tired light" mechanism. So expansion is not invalidated by Arp's observations.

The trick is you have to recognize what tests are capable of disproving a hypothesis or theory. You also have to be accepting of modifications to existing hypotheses - and not just mainstream models - and scientific hypothesis/model can be modified when new observations require it. You only scrap an idea in science when a well verified observation cannot be possible if a theory is "correct".

Unfortunately where redshift anomalies are concerned the mainstream has gone backwards on that reasoning. They are using their theory to deny the observations.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:33 am

PersianPaladin wrote:"There are really two important questions that must be answered by astronomers:
Is the redshift phenomenon a useful tool in measuring the recessional velocities of stars and galaxies?
Is recessional velocity the only cause that can produce a redshift?
It has become clear that the answers to these questions are: 1) Yes, provided that you are careful about how you do it, and 2) an emphatic no. Astronomers have only concentrated on the first one. They ignore the second."
(Quote from "The Electric Sky" by Donald E. Scott, 2006, p.198).


I can live with this quote by Donald Scott - but what are the conclusions we should draw from it. See my previous post.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:03 am

Jarvamundo wrote:
David Russell23 wrote:So no matter how far away the galaxies actually are ... and no matter what is actually causing the rotation of the galaxies ... and no matter how the stars in the galaxy are generating their light, there is an empirical relationship such that the faster a galaxy rotates the more luminous it is.


Thanks David,

Agreed, and i also agree with your previous post in another thread, in that as to be understood by mainstream we must look to address existing empirical measurements in existing mainstream nomenclature where we can.... as they too place limits on every theory.

I suspect that the plasma universe will also have some extra explanatory ability with regard to acceleration, or deceleration of spin rates and luminosities. Whilst we'd need a few billions years to test, we might have some explanations for 'spreads' on existing measurements, and regions of 'activity'.

As a further example of the dynamic explanatory ability natural to EU, see the H-R diagram page of Electric Sun, particularly 'tests' that might eventuate for the stars which experience complete 'spectral changes'. If we could link some of these measurements to new techniques such as gyrochronology we might be able to discern if the entire mass of the star accelerates, or perhaps it's more viable for a surface discharge (pinch) to accelerate, which if this acceleration action happens is far more probable that a surrounding plasma accelerates and not the 'massive body' . (i guess in these general speculations... i'm just trying to alert to the dynamic nature available to EU, via plasma's natural ability to twist, spin, oscillate, violently interrupt as you turn the power up under and EU interpretation)

Welcome to TB by the way, it'll be *very* valuable to TB-ers to have your contributions. I'd like to extend a friendly >nudge< that your NPA paper or related work might also make it's way to one of their online video conferences, always alot of fun.

J

PP and others, i invite you to go read Davids papers, you'll find things are not as divided as they may seem.


Thanks for the welcome J,

I think you made an important point. EU researchers should not be looking at it from the point of view of scrapping everything the mainstream has studied. Empirical relationships such as the Tully-Fisher relation, Cepheid period-luminosity relation are empirically established. Explaining and applying these empirical relationships is the job of the theorists.

That is why EU researchers really need to be careful not to denigrate the empirical relationships. It would be inappropriate to claim the mainstream ignores observations such as Arp's and then do the same by ignoring the well established empirical relationships such as the Tully-Fisher relation.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby David Russell23 » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:05 am

Dave, Ari's work may be relevent to the intrinsic redshift issue. The challenge for anyone seeking to explain intrinsic redshifts is to come up with an explanation that is flexible enough to not rely on explaining just the cosmological redshift. Most alternatives to expansion I've seen attempt to explain why redshift increases with distance. However, as I've pointed out - there is scatter in that relationship that can allow for an intrinsic redshift. If you have a tired light mechanism that causes redshift to increase with distance, then can it also account for two interacting galaxies that have very different redshifts - such as NGC 7603.
David Russell23
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby jjohnson » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:07 am

Hi, David Russel23 - I second Jarvamundo's welcome. I've been reading your posts and think that they are intelligent and well taken and indicative of someone who has done his homework. Redshift is hardly my long suit, but I am familiar with Arp's books and some of his papers and his web site, and the general subject of redshift.

I, too, agree that it is not necessarily useful to try to tear down the entire science edifice, which occasionally appears to be the point of view here. For me, I just want to know how things work. Whether or not that involves a few tweaks here and there or wholesale re-scaffolding is immaterial to the goal of better, more fundamentally closer to the correct way of interpreting observations in science.

One thing I've observed is that the vocabulary used in the EU explanations is not always well correlated with that used in mainstream astronomy and astrophysics. That causes problems of talking past each other when there may actually be fairly close agreement on the phenomenon itself. There is a quickness, or lack of deliberateness, on both sides to too easily dismiss discussion points or lines of reasoning on the other. This is too bad, because there is no lack of bright, well-trained people in both camps who might be better off having supper and a beer together before seeing what the other has to say.

Nobody has the knowledge market cornered, at least not yet. I hope that you will add a useful perspective and a pragmatic approach to understanding some of the parts of the fabric we are all looking at and trying to decipher in an honest and intelligent way. Where you can, bring in some math and rigor, too. This is a side of the EU that I want to see improved, and essential to the paradigm's being better accepted so that it might contribute to the progress of science. That would help us be more sure of what we are doing from the broader perspective, and make testable the ideas that we suggest as alternatives to the huge and complexly interrelated body of existing speculation, hypotheses, theory, and mathematical models and measured data. Welcome to the middle of things!

Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: The "redshift" debate

Unread postby PersianPaladin » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:48 am

David Russell23 wrote:Hi Lloyd,


The reality of redshifts is more complex than it is generally being treated. Does redshift = distance. Well that depends. How much scatter are you willing to grant the redshift-distance relation before you consider it violated? Are you willing to acknowledge that there may be variations in the redshift-distance relation for different classes of objects?


Forget about "scatter".

If there are clear physical connections (and interactions) between galaxies and quasars of greatly different redshifts - then it clearly constitutes a falsification of the ASSUMED NOTION of "REDSHIFT = DISTANCE" assumption/equation used so much by the mainstream. Yes, redshifts can probably be used for all sorts of things - including arguing that low-redshift objects may simply be just fainter objects or smaller objects at any distance. They may just be related to the electromagnetic fluxes around galaxies as the energy-input waxes and wanes. Who knows?

Of course...the mainstream will deny this and conjure some other ad hoc theoretical (to support the "expanding universe" religion) and we will go round and round in circles....forever.
User avatar
PersianPaladin
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests