Ranzanian Cosmic Redshift.

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?
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Ranzanian Cosmic Redshift.

Unread post by crawler » Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:43 am

Conrad Ranzan – 2014 – Cosmic redshift in the nonexpanding cellular universe. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/CosmicR ... Ranzan.pdf

Ranzanian Cosmic Redshift. Ranzan says that aether flowing towards or away from stars is stretched, & that photons are stretched with the aether. This explains much of the observed cosmic redshift. Doppler explains the remainder.

The RCR explanation is unique in that there is no longitudinal blurring of the light, in accordance with observation. Alternative tired light etc redshift theories if true would create longitudinal blurring, not in accordance with observation.

RCR also accounts for the elongation of all events & intervals, in accordance with observation. Tired light theories all fail here.

Free photons are an excitation of the aether plus an annihilation of the aether, propagating through aether at c km/s. Mass is made of confined photons (Williamson), what Jeans called bottled light. Aether flows into mass to replace aether annihilated in all mass. Aether is noncompressible, hencely the aether inflow lines converge & the aether accelerates & stretches, & photons too stretch in the aether.

Note that aether & photons stretch on approach to mass (here they have a tailwind) plus they get a second dose of stretching when departing mass (here they have a headwind), which is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand).

Einstein's Einstein-Shift gives a contraction on approach, but this is negated by a stretching on departure, hencely ES cant explain cosmic redshift. Also ES must blur light both longitudinally & transversely. ES is true, as proven by the Shapiro Delay, but ES & SD cant explain redshift.

Krafft had a stretching theory for light which didn’t involve absorption. I don’t remember the details, it might have involved gravity, for sure it involved the ether. Krafft (1963) – The structure of the atom. https://www.scribd.com/document/2394790 ... ick-Krafft
On page 8 Krafft says ..........
............. It appears that the red shift can be accounted for in a more reasonable manner by assuming that each train of light waves during its journey through space will undergo a slight expansion......... ............. it would require only an extremely small difference of velocity between the waves at the front and rear ends of the train to produce the observed red shift. (Popular Astronomy, Vol 39, No. 7, p.428.)

But Ranzan didn't mention Krafft in Ranzan's notes & references. Ranzan didn’t mention Shapiro Delay in his stretching redshift theory, but he did mention that Einsteinian gravity (ie Einstein Shift) would have zero nett effect on stretching.

RCR must also apply to light propagating near plasma (electrons protons neutrons etc) in deep space, but Ranzan doesn't mention this (he only refers to stars). RCR due to plasma must be considerable.

Conrad Ranzan – DSSU papers.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/SpRanza ... htm#Papers
DSSU validated by redshift theory and structural evidence – Conrad Ranzan (2015).
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/S4-DSSU ... Ranzan.pdf
Cosmic-distance redshift law without c and without h -- Conrad Ranzan (2007-2013)
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/D2Cosmi ... Ranzan.pdf

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest