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 />Thomas, you write on your website:

"The Hubble law for the large scale redshift of galaxies is usually taken as evidence (if not proof) for the picture of an expanding universe in general and the Big Bang theory in particular. However, recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured and the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations. In fact, the Hubble law appears to be based on rather limited data sets, and in particular has not been examined for its strict validity throughout the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum (in fact, it is known that the redshift factor for certain spectral lines from the same object differs by up to 10% even within the visible part of the spectrum itself)."

I have some questions:
A. You state that "recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured ", can you confirm this for me? Is it a fact?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sure it is a fact. In order to actually geometrically notice that a galaxy is receding you would need to wait a few million years at the very least (so practically speaking an expansion theory would actually not be verifiable).

This should not distract from the fact though that in my opinion the concept of a general recession is theoretically flawed in the first place (see my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm ).


<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>
B.You state that: "the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations." Can you confirm this also? Is Doppler redshift an assmption?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
One knows that receding objects show a Doppler redshift, but the reverse conclusion is obviously not stringent. There could be other reasons for the redshift as long as one does not know by other means that galaxies are receding.

By the way, even for Hubble the Doppler effect was an assumption in this context (with which he was actually not happy at all).

<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>
C. You state that: "...the redshift factor for certain spectral lines from the same object differs by up to 10%..." And can you confirm this too?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

With the 10% redshift difference between certain lines I was referring
to extragalactic objects like the quasar OQ208 where the hydrogen Balmer emission lines are not only substantially broadened compared to the other lines but also additionally redshifted (I believe this was first noted by Osterbrock and Cohen, MNRAS 187,61P (1979); for a more recent analysis see arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9301001 ). The reason for this still seems to be a subject of debate, and my idea here was that this might be due to the different coherency of the lines (broad lines are less coherent than sharp lines). Again, in comparison to the scale of the electric field variations in the intergalactic plasma this might produce an effect (even though only a threshold effect).

But this is really only a secondary aspect which I mentioned on my
webpage in order to quote evidence which a velocity related redshift
theory would have problems with to explain. Thus my theory would be
somewhat more than just an alternative. I have removed actually this argument now from my webpage ( www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm ) as I didn't want to distract from the main purpose of the page which is to give an alternative explanation for the general Hubble redshift. Any complications can be dealt with on other occasions.

Thomas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><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>
B.You state that: "the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations." Can you confirm this also? Is Doppler redshift an assmption?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, but there are not only physical explanations (The CREIL effect), but lab observations, using lasers too. The CREIL effect is an increase of the entropy of a set of EM beams simultaneously refracted in a medium containing neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P. Thus, generally, the light is redshifted while the radio waves are blueshifted. This last blueshift explains the "anomalous acceleration" of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
... my idea here was that this might be due to the different coherency of the lines (broad lines are less coherent than sharp lines).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You point a fundamental property of all frequency shifts by light-matter interactions.

<font size="4"><b>In </b></font id="size4">the THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL
ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA Allen Sandage writes in celebration of the centennial of the birth of Edwin Hubble. that Hubble himself did not believe that the addition of "c" to his equations, was indicative of expansion. Sandage writes:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953). .<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So it cannot be said that Hubble proved the Universe is expanding. Hubble didn't even suggest that interpretation. Observationally,

In his article
REDSHIFT PERIODICITIES, THE GALAXY-QUASAR CONNECTION
W. G. Tifft writes:"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars. In this paper we discuss and relate three lines of such evidence including evidence for characteristic peaks in the redshift distribution of quasars,
the issue of associations between objects with widely discordant = redshift and redshift quantization associated with normal galaxies. redshift."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The full paper is at --
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/...85/00000002/05138613
These observations have been confirmed here:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">M.B. Bell1 and D. McDiarmid1.(2005) Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
M.B. Bell (2006) Evidence that Quasars and Related Active Galaxies are Good Radio Standard Candles and that they are Likely to be a Lot Closer than their Redshifts Imply. xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602242.pdf
Tifft W.G.. (2003) 1Redshift periodicities, The Galaxy-Quasar Connection. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 285, Number 2, 2003, pp. 429-449(21)
Cocke W.J.1; Devito C.L.2; Pitucco A.3 Statistical Analysis of the Occurrence of Periodicities in Galaxy Redshift Data. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Numbers 1-2, 1996, pp. 143-157(15)
Oldershaw, Robert L. (1995) New Light on Redshift Periodicities; Quantization in the Properties of Quasars and Planets. APEIRON Vol. 2, Nr. 2, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So we have Hubble himself questioning the Doppler redshift interpretation, and we have observational evidence from Tifft showing that Redshift cannot be a Doppler effect. One more hurdle - what is responsible for the observed redshift?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the first derivatives w.r.t. space and time, of the ether's velocity vector field, are constant, then effects (e.g., the apparent solar apex motion) do not occur: "All inertial frames are equivalent", except for the subtlety that a patch of ether moves with the object, causing a small spatial second deriviative. During relative motion of objects, patches of ether (associated with the moving objects) change relative position, second derivatives appear, and these cause "Special Relativistic" effects (e.g., possibly, a swarm of relativistic objects known as an "electron"). Random internal motion likewise causes ether effects dropping off as r^2, known as "gravity"; the other "General Relativistic" phenomenon, acceleration, directly causes second derivatives in the ether.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Joe, what do you make of this one?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Nevertheless, &lt; www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html> ; is worth reviewing in detail (including its some five or six detailed, elaborate webpages). Hoagland notes, among many other things, that the anomalous energy being radiated by the giant planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune can be explained by Hyperdimensional Physics. In essence, these planets’ energy output is “over unity”, i.e. they are giving off more energy than is being absorbed from the Sun energy impinging upon them. Furthermore, when Uranus and Neptune are “normalized” (i.e. their different distances from the Sun are taken into account), these two planets are roughly equal in their output. Hoagland then explains that all of this can be accounted for if we assume:

“The existence of unseen hyperspatial realities... that, through information transfer between dimensions, are the literal ‘foundation substrate’ maintaining the reality of everything in this dimension.” www.halexandria.org/dward118.htm

---

It has always been assumed, by some, that space was empty. Indeed, if we look closely between our outstretched hands, the space inbetween looks empty. But it can also be assumed, and quite a few do assume, that space is full. Have you ever wondered how an atom can move around forever? In 1987, Hal Puthoff wrote the paper showing that the atom get an energy from the ZPE. So space turns out to be an energy.

The significance of this to cosmology is that now we have the mechanism which accounts for the tremendous outflowing of matter/energy from the center of the Galaxy. And a major prediction that the centers of Galaxies are ejecting matter, not sucking it in.

The following is from an introduction to Hoagland's introduction to what he calls hyperdimensional space. The source for plasma energies...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Via &lt; www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1.html> ; -- and the continuation of the narrative on subsequent webpages -- Hoagland goes on to discuss the following:

z “Vortex atoms” -- tiny, self-sustaining “whirlpools” in the so-called ether -- one envisioned by William Thompson (1867), which he and his 19th Century contemporaries “increasingly believed extended throughout the Universe as an all-pervasive, incompressible fluid.” The latter included James Clerk Maxwell -- undoubtedly the patron saint of modern electromagnetic theory -- who developed a mechanical vortex model of an incompressible ether in which Thompson’s vortex atom could exist.

z The use by Maxwell of quaternions (ordered pairs of complex numbers), who made it clear in his writings that his choice of quaternions as mathematical operators was predicated on his belief that three-dimensional physical phenomena -- including quite possibly human Consciousness -- was dependent upon higher dimensional realities! Some of these writings are included herein as Hyperdimensional Poetry. A brief diversion.

z The disastrous “streamlining” after Maxwell’s death of his quaternion equations by two 19th Century so-called mathematical physicists, Oliver Heaviside and William Gibbs, who simplified to extinction the original equations and left four simple (if woefully incomplete!) expressions. This was done by Heaviside’s drastic editing of Maxwell’s original work after the latter’s untimely death from cancer. The four surviving, “classic” Maxwell’s Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, became the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering -- from radio to radar, television to computer science, and were inclusive of every hard science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes. The classic equations never appeared in any of Maxwell’s papers or treatises!

z The introduction in 1854 by Georg Bernard Riemann the idea of hyperspace, i.e. the description and possibility of “higher, unseen dimensions”, a fundamental assault on the 2000-year old assumptions of Euclid’s The Elements -- the ordered, rectilinear laws of ordinary three dimensional reality. “In its place, Riemann proposed a four-dimensional reality (of which our 3-D reality was merely a ‘subset’), in which the geometric rules were radically different, but also internally self-consistent. Even more radical: Riemann proposed that the basic laws of nature in 3-space, the three mysterious forces then known to physics -- electrostatics, magnetism and gravity -- were all fundamentally united in 4-space, and merely ‘looked different’ because of the resulting ‘crumpled geometry’ of our three-dimensional reality...” In lieu of Newton’s “action-at-a-distance theories, Riemann was proposing that all such apparent forces were the result of objects moving through three dimensions, but distorted by an intruding geometry of 4-space.

z The fundamental problem of an alleged lack of experimental or experiential evidence of a fourth spacial dimension. This was addressed in part in 1919 by Theodr Kaluza, who suggested a solution to the mathematical unification of Einstein’s theory of gravity with Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic radiation, via the introduction of an additional spacial dimension. Kaluza also proposed that the additional spacial dimension had somehow collapsed down to a tiny circle -- an idea now prevalent in Superstrings! This idea was expanded in 1926 by Oskar Klein, who applied the idea to Quantum Physics and came up with the idea that Kaluza’s new dimension had somehow collapsed down to the “Planck length” itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by quantum interactions -- thereby tying in with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

z A rebirth of hyperdimensional physics in the guise of Superstrings (beginning in 1968), in which fundamental particles and fields are viewed as hyperspace vibrations of infinitesimally small, multi-dimensional strings -- with updated versions of the old Kaluza-Klein theory; discussions of a modern supergravity hyperspace unification model; and the exotic “String Theory” itself. The enormous increase in interest represents a fundamental revolution within a major segment of the worldwide scientific community. A significant factor is the number of dimensions: 10 (or 26, depending on strings rotation). And still, all additional dimensions are still within the Planck length!

z Discussions by Thomas E. Bearden, including, “Maxwell’s original theory is, in fact, the true, so-called ‘Holy Grail’ of physics... the first successful unified field theory in the history of Science... a fact apparently completely unknown to the current proponents of ‘Kaluza-Klein,’ ‘Supergravity,’ and ‘Superstring’ ideas....” “...In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified electromagnetic/gravitational portion of Maxwell’s theory.” “The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell’s theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.”

z The unwarranted restriction of Maxwell’s theory, also impacted Einstein who restricted his theory of general relativity, and thus by fiat prevented the unification of electromagnetics and relativity -- as well as experimental evidence of the general theory due to any local spacetime curvature being excluded.

z The exclusion by quantum physicists of Bohm’s hidden variable theory, “which conceivably could have offered the potential of engineering quantum change -- engineering physical reality itself.” “Each of these major scientific disciplines missed and excluded a subset of their disciplinary area...”

z The loss to science by the limiting of Maxwell’s equations of: The electrogravitic control of gravity itself, in effect, the ability to curve local and/or distant spacetime with electromagnetic radiation. “Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that ‘the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an undulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity.” [emphasis added] Significantly, the waves would be longitudinal and require gravity to be propagated with a finite velocity, which however did not have to be the same as that of light, and in fact may be enormously greater.

z The measurement of the hidden potential of free space by Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm in 1959, the resulting “Aharonov-Bohm Effect” providing compelling proof of a “deeper spatial strain -- a scalar potential -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic force-field itself. This potential is equivalent to the unseen, vorticular stress in space first envisioned by Thompson.” “And stresses, when they are relieved, must release energy into their surroundings!”

z Quantum Electrodynamics Zero Point Energy of space -- vacuum energy -- in which is created, then relieved stresses in Maxwell’s voticular ether (a process equivalent to tapping the energy of the vacuum -- a vacuum which, according to quantum physics, possesses a staggering amount of such energy per cubic inch of space.

z “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 (ether) stress potential inside a planet... could literally destroy it.” Or alternatively, in a far more controlled fashion, provide the anomalous infrared energy output of the planets Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter; or even the same source of energy for stars, including the Sun.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

SUMMARY

Sorry that I hastily smothered valuable information from Thomas and JMB. There's so much that needs to be said. Here, in the comfort of what we regard as home, the validity of the big bang theory is obvious to all of us. But if we were to go outside, the story is quite different.

I had the opportunity to visit Wikipedia. I started at non-standard cosmologies. According to them non-standard cosmologies are rejected by most astronomers. I tried to add something about quantized redshift, but it was deleted.

Then I went to Plasma cosmology. Seems the same editors who write in the big bang entry also write for plasma cosmology! And sure enough plasma cosmology is widely discredited by cosmologists.

Putting all this into perspective, it is clear to me that the big bang theory does not include electromagnetic forces (EMF) to the degree that it talks about the gravitational force. The result is that they are constrained to describe everything in terms of gravity.
The best example of this is the Black Hole, an invention created to provide a mechanism that would explain the tremendous "OUTFLOWING" of matter/energy. So now it is said that whenever astronomers find matter/energy flowing outward from a galaxy. they have found a black hole.

Their problem arises because of their initial assumption that matter was formed in the past, and a galaxy collects the matter together concentrating it at the center. There is, however, the alternative assumption, that matter/energy is created in the center of a galaxy, and the observed outflow is what is to be expected.

So this is what I was asking Thomas and JMB -- how can matter/energy be produced in a star? Can plasma create energy?

I included above some summary comments about Maxwell's four equations. According to Hoagland, Maxwell had a different approach which included the Aether. Apparently, the accepted version of Maxwell's equations are a simplified revision by Heaviside, and the simplified revisions do not include any reference to Aether. But the Aether did not go away, only the name has been changed. Many times over actually. Hyperdimension is Hoagland's word.

I suppose in a world of black and dark matter, invisible except in theory, hyperdimension sounds like the same story. The difference, however, is that we can take plasma science home with us. So what I am really asking, is precisely how does the atom move around forever?

Of course I have my own theory about all this. More importantly, I have reasons for having the theory I embrace. For one, I cannot accept the assumption that atomic matter is a perpetual motion machine. An atom moves, it has magnetic moment, so how can it keep moving? It is obvious to me that there has to be an energy which at least replaces the entropy. What is not so obvious is where is the source of this energy? We do not see a source on the outside, can it be inside the atom? Inside space? Sounds like Aether again...

It doesn't take much imagination to presume that if there is some kind of energy being fed to the atom from somewhere else, this is also happening inside a star. A lot.

So it is predicted that a galaxy produces extra energy. What do we observe? And how does it do that?