questions from a noob

[Panurg3]

I have a couple of questions that I'd like to pose to the forum. First, let me make a few introductory remarks. I first got introduced to EU ideas about ten years ago by reading Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened. Although I was excited at the time, I hadn't done much further reading on EU (because Intellectual Inertia) until a few months back, when I began reading various things on Thunderbolts. I find these ideas exciting and generally much more plausible than an increasingly puzzling picture presented by the mainstream. I also appreciate the fact that EU ideas are more visualize-able (disclosure: I am an artist by profession, although I have been interested in science since the age of 8).

But, OK, Questions: (concerning yardsticks)
I realize that parallax is probably our most accurate measurement for astronomical distances, yet it is limited to only a few hundred LY.
If redshift cannot be used as an accurate measure of distance, what could possibly replace it?
How useful is apparent size of galaxies (segregated by type) as an indicator of distance (& how does that jive with redshift measurements?
According to EU theory, to what degree IS redshift useful as an indicator of velocity (via Doppler effect)?
Or, alternatively, how can redshift be separated into extrinsic and intrinsic types observationally?
Has intrinsic redshift been demonstrated in the lab, and if not, what experiment could demonstrate it?

I think that's enough for now. Links to more detailed information on these questions would also be appreciated.
Thanks youse guys.

[LongtimeAirman]

Hi Panurg3,
Welcome. Normally, I wouldn't answer a question without some confidence that I knew the answer. I do know that the redshift question is a very popular one her at TB. Do a search on this site for "redshift" and you'll get 24 pages of its mention, more than enough to get you started. Enjoy.
REMCB

[Panurg3]

thanks Airman, will do! One of the attractions of EU ideas is their suggestiveness for further research. It's like a whole new day and i think that science needs this. I suppose that even if current standard candles and cosmic and temporal yardsticks are shown to be failures, and we lose the precision of how old or how large the universe is, we can still gain from an increased understanding of current (get it?) processes of what we can see here and now.

[D_Archer]

I started some answers yesterday, but they are really good questions and i was typing way too much for my liking. I will just point in one direction for further research.

If redshift cannot be used as an accurate measure of distance, what could possibly replace it?

Extended parallax, use parallax method for nearby objects and catalague the light properties, size etc. Then use the light/size parameter on more distant objects to compare... maybe, this could be its own thread.

How useful is apparent size of galaxies (segregated by type) as an indicator of distance (& how does that jive with redshift measurements?

It can be useful; a comparative methodology should at least give an indication of the distance. Andromeda if visible in the sky would be 6 times larger then the moon, we know it is our closest neighbouring "star system" because of that. This would seem to indicate that the distance standard cosmology gives is completely wrong. (&question: 2.5 million light-years is Andromeda away from us, does this jive with you after knowing the apparent size of Andromeda?)

According to EU theory, to what degree IS redshift useful as an indicator of velocity (via Doppler effect)?

To no degree at all really, even in standard cosmology it is admitted that galaxies can have a redshift and should be moving away but then they say it is really not moving away from us only the space in between is expanding! Well that sounds ridiculous. In EU redshift can be used as in indicator of age, ie young objects (quasars) are more redshifted than their parent galaxies.

Or, alternatively, how can redshift be separated into extrinsic and intrinsic types observationally?

This may be possible, but i think we lack the knowledge of the complete field. In EU there is intrinsic redshift, intrinsic redshift is proven to exist by experiment.

Has intrinsic redshift been demonstrated in the lab, and if not, what experiment could demonstrate it?

See above. And Thunderbolts thread: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=6305

Regards,
Daniel

[Panurg3]

good pointers!

[David Bailey]

I am also new to the electric universe, so I would like to ask:

1) Does the fact that some neutrinos are coming from the sun, indicate that some fusion is going on - even if it doesn't provide all the energy?

2) Is the energy contained in the electrified plasma being slowly used up? Does this give an indication as to how long the universe might continue to be hospitable?

3) Are EU theorists abandoning Special Relativity as well as General Relativity, and/or switching to Lorentz's alternative theory?

David

[Steve Smith]

@David Bailey, here's some information that will answer your questions about neutrinos: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neu ... is-solved/

There's no indication that plasma is being used up. The Universe in 99.99% plasma. Since redshift is an unreliable, if not outright wrong, method of measuring distance, we have no idea how big it is. Let's assume that its radius is 13.7 billion light years. That gives a hyperspherical volume of 9.2 X 10^30 cubic light years. That leaves room for a lot of matter and a long time for it to remain "viable". However, that's a blatant assumption.

Since redshift is not an appropriate measuring tool, there's no way to know how "big" the Universe is -- it could be virtually infinite.

Relativity theory assumes reified abstrations, such as warped space. On that basis, alone, I didn't "abandon" Einstein's ideas, I just never adopted them.

[fractal-geoff]

Hi Panurg3
I don’t speak for EU but will try to answer all your questions in 1.
Big Bang is a finite universe scenario. All finite universe concepts have starts where a universe comes from nothing and then is just set running with entropy towards an eventual run down time.
I do not support such ideas or most of the ideas that are layered on the original supposition.
Red shift associated with Doppler concepts is a provable fallacy but is one of the most common arguments for an expanding universe.
Red shift is explained by the “old light theory”.
The faults in the Doppler argument center around differences in properties of different types of waveforms and misinterpretations of the words, ‘frequency, wavelength and interference patterns’; that is in regards to these different waveforms.
This problem only affects particle waveforms and not most other types of electromagnetic waveform that we can measure.
There are many tools available if distance were the only interest.
Using the’ old light theory’ as a guide to distance rather than some “Law” means some of the observations, normally expressed as faults’, take on new meaning