Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Earl Sinclair wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:06 pm Is it just me, or does EVERY SINGLE OBSERVATION by mainstream science always get attributed to collisions?

Collisions are a GREAT shortcut to NOT explaining anything, because collisions - by their very nature - produce results that can't be predicted very well, if at all. You ram two things together and "stuff" flies in all directions, bouncing and spinning and slamming into each other like multiple pinballs that really can't be predicted at all.

Two galaxies run into each other ( allegedly ) - ANY subsequent formation can happen ( and does, apparently ). You don't need no stinkin' physics degree for that.

Earl

We identify shell structures in the Milky Way for the first time. We find two shells in the Virgo Overdensity region and two shells in the Hercules Aquila Cloud region using Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Gaia, and LAMOST data. These shell stars are a subset of the substructure previously identified as the Virgo Radial Merger (VRM). Timing arguments for these shells indicate that their progenitor dwarf galaxy passed through the Galactic center 2.7 ± 0.2 Gyr ago. Based on the time of collision, it is also possible that the VRM is related to the phenomenon that created phase-space spirals in the vertical motion of the disk and/or the Splash and could have caused a burst of star formation in the inner disk. We analyze phase mixing in a collection of radial merger N-body simulations and find that shell structure similar to that observed in Milky Way data disappears by 5 Gyr after collision with the Galactic center. The method used to calculate the merger time of the VRM was able to reliably recover the correct merger times for these simulations. Previous work supports the idea that the VRM and the Gaia Sausage/Gaia–Enceladus Merger are the same. However, the Gaia Sausage is widely believed to be 8–11 Gyr old. The disparate ages could be reconciled if the larger age is associated with an infall time when the progenitor crossed the virial radius; we do not constrain the time at which the progenitor became bound to the Milky Way. Alternatively, the Gaia Sausage could be younger than previously thought. - The Milky Way's Shell Structure Reveals the Time of a Radial Collision: Thomas Donlon II, Heidi Jo Newberg, Robyn Sanderson, and Lawrence M. Widrow

celeste wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:02 am

Solar wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:21 am

I don't usually follow bb cosmology (most redshift queries on Google are saturated with it) and was not aware that there is a "Reionization Problem"? Apparently; can't find enough UV sources to ionize the hydrogen.
_____________________

Solar, the mainstream’s ionization states over time are quite worth studying. It’s true that the ionization vs age of universe idea is wrong. Yet the observed relationship of ionization fractions and redshift is important.
Did you try drawing some of the scenarios?
Forgetting about propagation direction, just draw spherically symmetric shells of matter, and doing the mainstream interpretation?

Try these two simple arrangements to start: 1. a core of neutral material, surrounded by a shell of ions, then an outer shell of electrons. 2. A core of neutral material, surrounded by a shell of electrons, then an outer shell of ions.
With the idea of the electron shell maybe causing redshift, 1 yields a redshift of both ions and neutral, while arrangement 2 leads to only the neutral core being redshifted. Now, the mainstream interpretation for 1 is a distant object of both the neutrals and ions, while they see 2 as a distant neutral object, with more nearby ions on that sight line.
Arp already pointed out this crazy disassociation of clearly connected objects, based solely on the misinterpretation of redshifts as distance. Yet, it would seem tome that they would also get WRONG IONIZATION FRACTIONS, for regions of space for the same reason.

beekeeper wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:25 am Greetings again great question solar I would also advance that their form and composition could make them into some form of prisms scattering the light in all directions maybe even breaking it down to its various components. Regards Beekeeper

Dust that coalesces to form planetary systems originates around dying stars, before passing into the interstellar medium (ISM). Historically, observations of broad smooth features in the 10-µm region suggested that dust in circumstellar regions, and in the ISM, was mostly amorphous rather than crystalline. With improved space telescope capabilities, crystalline silicates were discovered in the circumstellar regions around both young and old stars, although they remain undetected in the ISM. Despite intensive study the precise conditions that lead to the formation of crystalline silicates are still unknown, and their absence in the ISM remains problematic. Here we show that recalescence (spontaneous reheating) of rapidly crystallizing dust can explain the formation and apparent disappearance of crystalline silicates in space. - Recalescence during crystallization of stardust: Resolution of the amorphous interstellar medium paradox - Whittington, A. G.; Sehlke, A.; Speck, A. K.

NASA’s Spitzer Finds Violent Galaxies Smothered in 'Crushed Glass’ 02.15.06

… a lot of fine silicate dust, or crystallized grains smaller than sand, like crushed gems. - NASA's Spitzer gets peek inside Comet Holmes: Astronomy Magazine

Solar wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:21 am

I don't usually follow bb cosmology (most redshift queries on Google are saturated with it) and was not aware that there is a "Reionization Problem"? Apparently; can't find enough UV sources to ionize the hydrogen.
_____________________

celeste wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:09 am The plasma redshift idea would fit in here too, in that the same ionization front/shockfront/propagating double layer that would be bending the light, would also have the free electrons to contribute to the redshift of the lensed galaxies. Might this idea be tested? For example in the mainstream model, a massive object will bend all the light on that sightline, from the slightly more distant galaxy, to the most redshifted galaxies. Meaning we should see a full range of redshifts in the lensed objects. The plasma redshift idea would suggest that even a slightly more distant object (right behind the lensing object), would get a disproportionate redshift. In other words, we should see disproportionately high redshifts in the lensed objects, correct?

Auroras are now known to be caused by the collision of charged particles (e.g. electrons), found in the magnetosphere, with atoms in the Earth’s upper atmosphere (at altitudes above 80 km). These charged particles are typically energized to levels between 1 thousand and 15 thousand electronvolts and, as they collide with atoms of gases in the atmosphere, the atoms become energized. Shortly afterwards, the atoms emit their gained energy as light (see Fluorescence). - Plasma-Universe

“The problem is that these temperatures are being established by observing electronic emission lines. However, such lines are not in thermal equilibrium with the radiation field or with other atoms, or ions, or electrons in the surrounding region. That is why emission lines cannot be used to set the temperature.
(…)
It is not proper to obtain chromospheric temperatures from electronic emission lines because the lines are not produced by processes in thermal equilibrium.” - The Chromosphere: COLDER than you thought! Evidence from Carbon Monoxide Absorption Lines!

Lyman continuum photons (abbrev. LyC), shortened to Ly continuum photons or Lyc photons, are the photons emitted from stars at photon energies above the Lyman limit. Hydrogen is ionized by absorbing LyC. Working from Victor Schumann's discovery of ultraviolet light, from 1906 to 1914, Theodore Lyman observed that atomic hydrogen absorbs light only at specific frequencies (or wavelengths) and the Lyman series is thus named after him.[1][2] All the wavelengths in the Lyman series are in the ultraviolet band. This quantized absorption behavior occurs only up to an energy limit, known as the ionization energy. Lyman Continuum

We present rest-frame ultraviolet and optical spectroscopy of the brightest lensed galaxy yet discovered, at redshiftz=2.4. The source reveals a characteristic triple-peaked Lyman α profile that has been predicted in various theoretical works, but to our knowledge has not been unambiguously observed previously. The feature is well fit by a superposition of two components: a double-peak profile emerging from substantial radiative transfer, and a narrow, central component resulting from directly escaping Lyman α photons, but it is poorly fit by either component alone. We demonstrate that the feature is unlikely to contain contamination from nearby sources, and that the central peak is unaffected by radiative transfer effects except for very slight absorption. The feature is detected at signal-to-noise ratios exceeding 80 per pixel at line center, and bears strong resemblance to synthetic profiles predicted by numerical models. The Sunburst Arc: Direct Lyman α escape observed in the brightest known lensed galaxy

celeste wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:10 am
Why I’d ask you to look at his formula closely, is that it actually would make of a smaller gravitational field (compared to the sun), in a larger diameter shell of plasma, a better collector of light. I hope you see where I’m going. If there are shells of plasma around galaxies, then they should bend the light from even more distant galaxies. The strength of the gravitational field might be insanely weak, and yield only the smallest angular light bending, but that’s what we would need to be at the focal point for such a distant object.

Am I correct in logic here?

celeste wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:10 am Solar,
Have you tried playing with Edward Dowdye’s idea here? The key point in his model, is that we get only that fixed degree of light bending, and that would yield images like we see.
The idea would be that we would see these rings or shells of light if we were near the focal point of the light bending object. Interestingly, his idea still uses gravity for the bending of light, but we don’t need as much mass as you might think. He calculates the focal length for the plasma bending of light at the sun’s surface, based on the sun’s gravity, but the point is, even a weaker gravitational field (weaker than at the solar surface)), in his model could explain the images, simply by having that light bending object farther away.

Why I’d ask you to look at his formula closely, is that it actually would make of a smaller gravitational field (compared to the sun), in a larger diameter shell of plasma, a better collector of light. I hope you see where I’m going. If there are shells of plasma around galaxies, then they should bend the light from even more distant galaxies. The strength of the gravitational field might be insanely weak, and yield only the smallest angular light bending, but that’s what we would need to be at the focal point for such a distant object.

Am I correct in logic here?

As opposed to any light bending effect or a warped space as assumed in Relativity, alternatively, an altering of the path of re-emitted photons is accomplished via electrodynamics of re-emission in Euclidean Space as a direct consequence of relative phase and conservation of energy. The principle of emission and re-emission suggest that an undisturbed photon simply cannot change its path. A primary photon moving undisturbed on a given path simply gives rise to a new secondary photon at the point of interference. The path of the new photon would be characteristic of the interfering medium. The primary photon will no longer exists. This Extinction Shift Principle demonstrates with clear examples that any medium continually subjects the photon to processes of re-emission, i.e., from primary to secondary, from secondary to tertiary, etc., etc., each segment propagating along in a pure rectilinear fashion. - Extinction Shift

Solar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:24 pm Question please:

Might it be possible that “gravitational lensing” misinterprets an optical effect induced by the presence of spherical “Shells” surrounding a foreground object and thereby distorting the appearance of a background object?