Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />how can anyone make any sense out of the nonsense they are feeding us? Invisible nonsense on top of it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I generally agree with you that galaxies are outflowing and have no dark matter. But viable cosmologies can still be built on other assumptions.

So I don't see what this has to do with "beginnings". In an eternal universe, the birth and evolution of any galaxy is no more significant than our own birth and evolution. -|Tom|-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy

I am convinced that nothing is really No-Thing.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Tom)Can you cite an example? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

(Tommy) Sure, as long as you go along with my definition of "physical". Peter Gariaev of the Russian Academy of Science has a way of imaging the magnetic fields around a DNA particle. Amazing isn't it. BUT, when he removes the DNA from the test chamber and recalibrates it, he finds a "signature" of the magnetic fields still there in the chamber! A friend of his picked up on this and is touting what he calls Phantom DNA.

I would say that the fields Gariaev saw are "things" certainly he still could measure them. But the field, or whatever it is that those Phantom DNA fields were "sitting" in, that is not a thing. It is a No-Thing.

In other words there is something going on in empty space, which the big bang gang assumes to be nothing, that is not taken into account in the standard theory.

So their first initial fundamental primary "assumption" is that space is empty. And everything they do from that point on is based on that assumption. Dark energy notwithstanding.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So I don''t see what this has to do with "beginnings". In an eternal universe, the birth and evolution of any galaxy is no more significant than our own birth and evolution. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, "THEY" are talking about beginnings, not me. I am trying to point out how they go wrong. I am doing that by showing that they merely assume a beginning, and by doing that they are assuming everything else came from that beginning.

concerning Now and eternal
Seems to me that you and I are saying the same thing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
What the astronomers see happening is usually described as matter/energy flowing outward.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Only usually: see, for instance arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511682
Using the CREIL effect, the spectrum of a micro-quasar becomes a spectrum of quasar if the microquasar is surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen.
There are quasars observed in or close to galaxies, and isolated quasars whose repartition is isotropic. The micro-quasars move fast, and, therefore seem become isolated quasars when they leave the plane of the galaxy: this transformation is a test of the existence of much hydrogen out of the galaxy. It is possible that a galaxy is a condensation of matter which does not change the mean density of matter.

Thanks for the link, isn't it the same one I have imaged above? Here is the conclusion to the article at your link described as "in press." The paper lists several authors and they are describing a halo hovering around the center of a spiral galaxy. just now seen with x-ray scopes. Their conclusion sums it up.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5. Conclusions and outlook
Given the excellent match between observations and in-fall models, and the implausibility of alternative mechanisms discussed previously, the only compelling origin of the X-ray halo of NGC 5746 is thus that it is due to hot, probably shock heated, gas cooling radiatively as it descends into the galaxyfs potential. The failure so far to detect such in-flowing hot gas around spiral galaxies hinges mainly on (a) the fact that the hot halo X-ray luminosity of NGC 5746, and presumably of spiral galaxies in general (Toft et al. 2002) is more than an order of magnitude lower than anticipated from predictions of simple semi-analytical galaxy formation models (Benson et al. 2000, Toft et al. 2002), and (b) that no massive edge-on spiral galaxies, like NGC 5746, has been targeted before (the predicted relation between halo X-ray luminosity and circular rotation velocity for massive galaxies is very steep,7XLvc å, see Fig.3).
The present detection of the long-sought X-ray halo around quiescent spiral galaxies like NGC 5746 strongly indicates that (at least) massive galaxies are able to retain a hot
13
gaseous halo to the present day. Some of this halo gas may eventually cool out and be deposited onto the disc, acting as a supply of fresh material for continuous star formation. Hence, we are here likely witnessing the on-going galaxy formation process, in line with hierarchical galaxy formation models (White & Rees 1978). One of the predictions in this scenario, that the metallicity of the hot halo gas is low ([]/FeH&lt;#8722;#1048580;
1), should be directly testable through very deep X-ray spectroscopy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Go back to this statement,

- <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The failure so far to detect such in-flowing hot gas around spiral galaxies hinges mainly - <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

this is proof to me that

there is no inflowing matter

and therefore the flowing is outward.

I believe that if there were evidence of inward flowing matter he would not say "The failure so far to detect such inflowing..." and the refs wouldn't allow it to be published either.

Insofar as their paper is concerned, which is interpreting the flow as inward, I respectfully submit that they are wrong. If the matter were flowing inward, it would be subject to the gravitational force of the individual stars along the way which then would distort their arrival.We would be able to see the affects of the stars. THe picture shows a pure halo unaffected by the stars. The halo actually is a solar wind of ionized H1 and H2 heated by gamma rays coming from the plasma spark plugs at the center of the Galaxy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Using the CREIL effect, the spectrum of a micro-quasar becomes a spectrum of quasar if the microquasar is surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

H1 or H2? Can you please explain the CREIL effect? Are you saying that a quasar is really an ordinary star surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen?

Because as Hoaglan says:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With that as prologue, a new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with another remarkable, equally elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory.

In that year two physicists, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, conducted a seminal "electrodynamics" laboratory experiment ("Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory," The Physical Review, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 485-491; August, 1959). Aharonov and Bohm, almost 100 years after Maxwell first predicted their existence, succeeded in actually measuring the "hidden potential" of free space, lurking in Maxwell's original scalar quaternion equations. To do so, they had to cool the experiment to a mere 9 degrees above Absolute Zero, thus creating a total shielding around a superconducting magnetic ring [for a slightly different version of this same experiment -- see diagram; the oscillation of electrical resistance in the ring (bottom graph) is due to the changing electron "wave functions" -- triggered by the "hidden Maxwell scalar potential" created by the shielded magnet -- see text, below].

Once having successfully accomplished this non-trivial laboratory set up, they promptly observed an "impossible" phenomenon:

Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon (and not merely improper shielding of the magnet), this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself. (Later experiments revealed a similar effect with shielded electrostatic fields ...)

All of which provides compelling proof of "something else," underlying all reality, capable of transmitting energy and information across space and time ... even in the complete absence of an electromagnetically detectable 3-D spatial "field"--

Maxwell's quaternion ... hyperdimensional "potential."

---

So, what does all this have to do with NASA's announcement of a "new planet?"

If a "potential" without a field can exist in space -- as Maxwell's quaternion analysis first asserted, and Aharonov-Bohm "only" a century later ultimately found -- then, as defined by Maxwell in his comparisons of the aether with certain properties of laboratory "solids," such a potential is equivalent to an unseen, vorticular (rotating) "stress" in space. Or, in Maxwell's own words (first written in 1873 ...):


"There are physical quantities of another kind [in the aether] which are related to directions in space, but which are not vectors. Stresses and strains in solid bodies are examples, and so are some of the properties of bodies considered in the theory of elasticity and in the theory of double [rotated] refraction. Quantities of this class require for their definition nine [part of the "27-line"...] numerical specifications. They are expressed in the language of quaternions by linear and vector functions of a vector ..."
-- J.C. Maxwell, "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,"
(Vol.1, 3rd Edition, New York, 1954)

And stresses, when they are relieved, must release energy into their surroundings ...

There is now much fevered discussion among physicists, (~100 years post-Maxwell) of the Quantum Electrodynamics Zero Point Energy (ZPE) of space -- or, "the energy of the vacuum"; to many familiar with the original works of Maxwell, Kelvin, et. al., this sounds an awful lot like the once-familiar "aether" ... merely updated and now passing under "an assumed name." Thus, creating -- then relieving -- a "stress" in Maxwell's vorticular aether is precisely equivalent to tapping the "energy of the vacuum" -- which, according to current "quantum mechanics' models," possesses a staggering amount of such energy per cubic inch of space. Even inefficiently releasing a tiny percentage of this "strain energy" into our three dimensions -- or, into a body existing in three-dimensional space -- could make it appear as if the energy was coming from nowhere ... "something from nothing." In other words, to an entire generation of students and astrophysicists woefully ignorant of Maxwell's real equations, such energy would appear as--

"Perpetual motion!"

Given the prodigious amount of "vacuum energy" calculated by modern physicists (trillions of atomic bomb equivalents per cubic centimeter ...), even a relatively minor but sudden release of such vast vacuum (aether) stress potential inside a planet ... could literally destroy it--

Finally answering the crucial astrophysical objection to the "exploded planet model" that Van Flandern has been encountering ...

"But Tom -- just how do you blow up' an entire world?!"

The answer is now obvious: via hyperdimensional "vacuum stress energy" ... ala Whittaker and Maxwell.

As we shall show, it is this "new" source of energy -- in a far more "controlled" context -- that seems also to be responsible now for not only the "anomalous infrared excesses" observed in the so-called "giant outer planets" of this solar system--

It is this same source of energy (in the Hyperdimensional Physics Model) that, according to our analysis, must now be primarily responsible for the radiated energies of stars ... including the Sun itself.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">