If Red Shift correlates to age, why so few Blue shifted obj

[Lloyd]

The electron is always the same weight, each and every one.

Arp says proto-quasars start out within galaxies with little or no mass, which is why their velocities can be so high initially, like 10% or more of light-speed. Thornhill says the galaxy acts as a plasma gun, shooting out 2 quasars at a time in opposite directions, usually polar. He has said that stars seem to be shot out in pairs also in a similar way at high velocity, though remaining within the galaxy. Arp says, as the quasars gain mass, they slow down. I asked some members privately if they think quasars gain mass by mass increase, or by scavenging local space via Marklund convection, aka electric discharge, I think. I think Upriver said he thinks particles can gain mass. Apparently Thornhill thinks so too. And, in fact, I think Dave Thompson actually considers that aether units can gain and lose mass and I think he says aether units form into subatomic particles. Feel free to correct my errors.

[junglelord]

I may be mistaken on the proper analysis of APM, I will ask Dave, ASAP.

[junglelord]

Here is David's reply

Hi Dean,

Yes, you are correct. Attributing the mass increase to electrons is ridiculous.

Mass increase in Special Relativity is strictly a perception, not a reality. By making incorrect assumptions and assuming the assumptions are absolute does not make the mass of the electron relative. The mass of the electron is absolute, just as is the speed of light for any given location in the Universe.

If you look at a marble in a swimming pool, the water causes the marble to seem to change shape by bending the light path. The same thing happens when looking at electrons and protons through distorted regions of space. In the location of the electrons and protons, even by Special Relativity theory, there is no apparent mass increase. The mass increase only occurs when looking at the electrons through a distorted medium.

The APM does not deny there is an apparent distortion, but it describes the distortion in terms of the space (Aether) being distorted. It is not caused because the objects being viewed have become physically altered in some way.

If mass truly increased according to Special Relativity, then the planet Earth should be approaching infinite mass due to all the cosmic rays flying toward us. From the perspective of the cosmic rays, our mass would be increasing since we seem to be traveling at near the speed of light.

Dave

[StevenO]

StevenO, you know I'm always confused when you talk about the "motion of space"...
Here you are saying [?] that the universe is stretching [or being stretched?] at "light speed."
Are these the same concept, and could you elaborate further in simple language... I really want to "get" this at some point before I die.

Hi Webo,

I was not talking about the "motion of space", but "motion" as the stuff that the Universe is made of. The 'zero action' motion is then motion at lightspeed. As motion has both a Space and Time aspect, it brings both of these in together. Motion comes before Space or Time and both are symmetrical and reciprocal since the symmetry point is lightspeed, not zero speed.

Since it is so hard to bring this theory into any discussion without a correct understanding of the basic concepts, I'm preparing an introductory article that explains them. It is nearly finished and I hope it can enlighten you a bit.

[webolife]

Looking forward to your article... I think... but I have to say I didn't understand anything you said in your probably quite simple reply. I'm of average brain or better, so I still have hope to "get" you at some point.

[saturnine]

Couple of questions from a new guy:
1) If red/blue shift is an intrinsic property of stars, shouldn't our sun also display this?
2) Are there any stars we see that do not show a red/blue shift?

[webolife]

Our sun shows no shift at its visual center, an ever-so-slight blue shift at its "western" limb, and ever-so-slight redshift at its "eastern" limb. Traditionally this is offered as a proof of the "redshift = motion away" view, which is certainly reasonable. My own concept of this is that it is a field pressure effect due to relative direction of motion, not related to velocity. Now distant objects need not be highly velocitized to show a diminished field pressure, hence the typical redshift of distant objects. The occasional objects which are relatively moving closer, eg the Virgo galactic cluster, show a slight blue shift, again by my model an indicator of increased field pressure. As I see it, Arp's intrinsic redshifts fit into the field pressure scenario... "new" objects exhibiting relatively less field pressure (with respect to their host/parent galaxy) than "older" objects. His remarkable quantum redshift phenomenon is apparently the result of the intrinsic geometry of the pressure field surrounding the centroid [host galaxy core]. Too much redshift nonsense has been assumed trying to demonstrate a big bang scenario. The universe demonstrates way less chaotic structure than befits the expanding universe view.

[saturnine]

Interesting, thanks!