Redshift at Arp's quasars.

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

Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by crawler » Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:15 pm

I have been thinking about possible causes of the high redshifts of some quasars found by Arp -- Arp showed that these were not due to Doppler, hencely zero Bigbang. Arp introduced a fishy concept involving young atoms & old atoms, but i reckon that the causes might be as follows.....

Einsteinian (ticking) Redshift (1). If photons are emitted (created)(i mean re-created) near the surface of a quasar (a super massive star say), then here the hi gravity (or whatever Einstein called it) slows light, & also slows atomic processes (Einsteinian ticking dilation), & hencely the emitted photons are immediately redshifted during creation (compared to photons emitted at ordinary stars). This redshift does not cause dispersion.

Larmorian (ticking) Redshift (2). During (1) The hi speed of the aetherwind flowing towards the quasar (where aether is destroyed) slows atomic processes by the Larmorian factor (Larmorian ticking dilation)(in addition to the Einsteinian ticking dilation in (1)). No dispersion

Einsteinian (gravity) Redshift (3). The nearness of mass slows light, hencely photons stretch as they propagate away from the quasar. The head of each photon is accelerating faster than the tail. There is a little longitudinal dispersion if photons are propagating directly away from the quasar, & when propagating at an angle then higher frequency photons will be bent towards the quasar hencely giving transverse dispersion. I know that Einstein Shift will not produce dispersion of any kind, but (3) is not due to Einstein Shift even though my naming names Einstein, & the true cause can produce longitudinal dispersion &or transverse dispersion but i wont explain here.

Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. Imagine the head of the photon, this propagates at c km/s in the aether, & the head accelerates in the direction of propagation (according to an observer on the quasar) because the aether inflow is slower at greater distance. Imagine the tail of that photon, this accelerates more slowly than the head, hencely the photon stretches. Krafft wrote about this kind of stretching in 1963. There is no dispersion

Ranzan's (cosmic) Redshift (5). Photons propagating through the cosmic cells of our infinite universe are stretched due to (4) as they approach micro mass (eg electrons) & also as they approach macro mass (eg stars). Plus they get another dose of stretching due to (4) as they depart micro mass & macro mass. This double whammy of stretching (ie firstly during approach & secondly during departure) is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand), but if u think about it u might get it. Aether stretches on both approach & departure, & the photons stretch with the aether. Handy hint -- think of what happens to the head & tail of photons. It produces stretching of photons, & bending of light, but does not produce any dispersion due to frequency, ie all frequencies are stretched by the same %, & all frequencies suffer the same amount of bending (ie contributing to lensing).

Mainstream (faux) Redshifts (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Other doses of cosmic redshift in accordance with old tired light & new tired light theories etc (none of which impress me). And they would all cause lots of dispersion.

Doppler Redshift (11). The genuine Doppler effect due to a quasar's velocity with respect to an observer.

Arp's redshifts of quasars are i think explained by (1)(2)(3)(4), & of course (11). Although there are some exotic complications identified by Arp which i haven’t considered yet.

After (1)(2)(3)(4)(11) have done their job in the vicinity of the quasar, then we get further redshifting due to (5), (5) being the one & only true cause of cosmic redshift. Here i don't count (11) Doppler as being a cosmic redshift, (11) is due to what happens at the quasar & what is happening at the observer, it isn't affected by what happens in the cosmos.

(3) is a potential cause of cosmic redshift, but if u think about it u will see that it produces blueshift on approach to mass, & redshift on departure, the two negating. Ranzan mentions this.

LENSING. (3) does however contribute to lensing, probably in equal measure to the lensing produced by (5). This is indicated by the 1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun, of which 0.87 arcsec is due to (5)(sometimes called the Newtonian bending), & 0.87 arcsec is due to (3). (3) produces bending because photons are slowed on their nearside to the Sun, & hencely veer towards the Sun.

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

Re: Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by crawler » Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:47 pm

Gallucci – The plausibility of quantised redshift – march 13 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4wVGhS72xU

I had a look at this footage yesterday. Gallucci discusses Arp's theory that the masses of electrons (in or near quasar's) change with time &or distance, the electrons having one of 6 possible masses, to explain the 6 quantised levels of redshifts found at quasars in general. I don’t like the idea that the true masses of elementary particles can change. However i do have a theory re micro & macro particles having an additional mass which i call quasi mass, the quasi-mass being due to spin or orbit, but i don’t think that this much helps Arp's theory.

True mass is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into particles where the aether is annihilated.

Quasi mass does not involve the annihilation of aether. Aether flows in at the equator due to the centrifuging action of the spin or orbit, & aether is spat out at the poles. Quasi mass is a 1/r thing (in the near field)(1/rr in the far field), whilst true mass is a 1/rr thing in all fields.

Gallucci mentions Su's theory re Arp's problem, & it doesn't include varying electron mass.
And Gallucci gives his own sinusoidal math for the 6 quantised levels, but he doesn't mention any new possible causes.

I haven’t given the 6 redshifts much thought. But they could arise if the emissions occurred at 6 different major locations relative to the quasars, as the quasars gradually age & move & slowdown & expand & develop into new galaxies.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2553
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by nick c » Fri May 01, 2020 12:26 am

Thornhill's position is that mass is a variable function of matter. There is no creation of matter but the same amount of matter can have different masses depending on electrical conditions.
Thornhill wrote:This concept applied at the atomic level also provides a simple solution to the quasar redshift puzzle. Arp and others have shown that the redshift of any object is made up of an intrinsic component and a velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The intrinsic redshift is a property of the emitting atoms in the object. It decreases with time in discrete or quantized ‘jumps.’

Quasars appear to be ejected, deficient in electrons, from their parent active galactic nucleus (AGN). The lightweight electrons remain tangled in the AGN plasmoid for much longer than the heavier protons and uncharged neutrons. As a result, the quasar has lower initial charge polarization compared to matter on Earth and, from the principle of E-MOND, all subatomic particles in the quasar have lower masses. Therefore, the emitting atoms also have lower masses, and their radiation has lower energy. The result is the observed intrinsic redshift of atomic emissions from quasars and their relative faintness.

Like the atom itself, the constituents of each atom—the protons, neutrons and electrons—can be viewed as resonant systems of charge, capable of exchanging electromagnetic energy for quantum jumps between stable resonant states. The quantum jumps over time to lower redshift values occur as electrons from the parent galaxy’s jet arrive at the quasar and increase the quasars’ charge polarization. As its mass increases, according to E-MOND, the quasar slows from its high ejection speed at ‘birth,’ due to conservation of momentum. When the intrinsic redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back toward its parent, while continuing to decrease in redshift. Eventually it becomes a companion galaxy. Arp has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Many can be traced to three and four generations of ejecting objects.

https://www.holoscience.com/wp/cosmolog ... sis-again/

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

Re: Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by crawler » Fri May 01, 2020 10:45 pm

nick c wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 12:26 am
Thornhill's position is that mass is a variable function of matter. There is no creation of matter but the same amount of matter can have different masses depending on electrical conditions.
Thornhill wrote:This concept applied at the atomic level also provides a simple solution to the quasar redshift puzzle. Arp and others have shown that the redshift of any object is made up of an intrinsic component and a velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The intrinsic redshift is a property of the emitting atoms in the object. It decreases with time in discrete or quantized ‘jumps.’

Quasars appear to be ejected, deficient in electrons, from their parent active galactic nucleus (AGN). The lightweight electrons remain tangled in the AGN plasmoid for much longer than the heavier protons and uncharged neutrons. As a result, the quasar has lower initial charge polarization compared to matter on Earth and, from the principle of E-MOND, all subatomic particles in the quasar have lower masses. Therefore, the emitting atoms also have lower masses, and their radiation has lower energy. The result is the observed intrinsic redshift of atomic emissions from quasars and their relative faintness.

Like the atom itself, the constituents of each atom—the protons, neutrons and electrons—can be viewed as resonant systems of charge, capable of exchanging electromagnetic energy for quantum jumps between stable resonant states. The quantum jumps over time to lower redshift values occur as electrons from the parent galaxy’s jet arrive at the quasar and increase the quasars’ charge polarization. As its mass increases, according to E-MOND, the quasar slows from its high ejection speed at ‘birth,’ due to conservation of momentum. When the intrinsic redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back toward its parent, while continuing to decrease in redshift. Eventually it becomes a companion galaxy. Arp has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Many can be traced to three and four generations of ejecting objects.
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/cosmolog ... sis-again/
EMOND is then (12).

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2553
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by nick c » Sat May 02, 2020 3:17 pm

Just as a note:
Arp often uses a phrasing like "the creation of matter" or " new matter" or similar; but he is not referring to creation ex nihilo.
This is shown by the following quote from Seeing Red.. p 228
So when we speak of creation of matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean the transformation of previously existing mass-energy.

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

Re: Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by crawler » Sat May 02, 2020 10:32 pm

nick c wrote:
Sat May 02, 2020 3:17 pm
Just as a note:
Arp often uses a phrasing like "the creation of matter" or " new matter" or similar; but he is not referring to creation ex nihilo.
This is shown by the following quote from Seeing Red.. p 228
So when we speak of creation of matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean the transformation of previously existing mass-energy.
Yes i have been wondering about exactly that. Yes we have say creation ex nihilo (of fundamental particles, ie mass or matter), & we have say some kind of possible re-creation (some kind of change).
Hencely i was wondering whether Arp meant new creation or just some kind of recycling. And if recycling then this might require a larger stretch of the imagination to produce varying mass (of electrons &or atoms).

However me myself i believe that each cosmic cell of our one & only infinite universe has areas of creation & areas of extinction of aether & energy & photons & particles & mass, ie a recycling system.

Yes i agree there is nowhere else, ie our one & only universe is infinite. But in our universe we have our quantum world & we have a sub-quantum world (ie which is in effect a nothing)(made up of aether)(aether being merely a process, ie a vibration, of the fundamental praether)(praether cant be destroyed, aether can).

So how might recycling work? I have seen theories re creation, but i don’t remember anything about some kind of atomic recycling (except for recycling into the sub-quantum aetheric world). Of course we have the smashing of atoms to form different atoms. And we have the smashing of elementary particles to form different elementary particles & photons (quasi-particles). But Arp probably meant some deeper kind of recycling. I will have a think.

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

Re: Redshift at Arp's quasars.

Unread post by crawler » Tue May 05, 2020 12:04 am

Gallucci – do quasars & redshifts break BB theory – 13:49 – 16981 views – 169 comments – feb 26 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rRmXzruFzY
I had a look at this today, it is in effect Part 1. I should have looked at this before looking at Part 2 which i looked at last week. I think i liked Part 1 better than Part 2. Gallucci calls them Part 1 & Part 2 but they are not officially such.

It seems me that Gallucci's explanations re possible causes for the intrinsic redshifts at quasars accords with my explanations (1)(2)(3)(4). He says that they are mainly due to Einstein (gravitational) Shift (my name), which is my (3).

However in this here thread i don’t have much to say about possible causes of the actual quantisation of the say 6 quantised levels of redshift that apparently exist, but neither does Gallucci. He says that the Einstein Shift reduces as the mass of the core reduces, the mass reducing due to shedding of matter. But he doesn't say exactly how shedding etc might be quantised.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest