Plasma redshift observed in the lab.

[Michael Mozina]

Now that plasma redshift has actually been observed and documented in the lab, the mainstream sky deities are toast.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2608000089

he mainstream never had a lick of empirical support to justify any of their claims, but now they have a strong physical laboratory refutation to deal with on top of of their numerous qualification problems. Say so long to mainstream theory, it's about to die a natural empirical death. There has never was a single laboratory observation that was a bigger threat to mainstream theory than that observation of plasma redshift in the lab IMO. Lyndon Ashmore has already written a pretty good paper showing how these laboratory redshift results are not only predicted in PC/EU theory, this successful prediction of PC/EU theory absolutely destroys the credibility of the mainstream's claims related to expansion and acceleration.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

I'm sitting here trying to figure out exactly what the mainstream is going to do with this relatively new (last few years) successful prediction of PC theory over the long haul. I'm sure they will continue to ignore it for awhile yet, but the empirical handwriting is now on the wall. There is now a FULLY EMPIRICAL explanation for the redshift phenomenon.

Considering the fact that astronomers claim to be actual "scientists", you'd think that they'd be the first ones to jump all over that redshift observation in the lab, but NOOOOOOO! OMG what a joke BB theory has become now. Lambda-CDM is 96 percent metaphysical BS and only 4 percent actual physics. Worse yet, their whole basis for claiming that expansion/acceleration has ever been "observed' has been stripped from them entirely. The only thing they actually ever "observed" were redshifted photons and there is already a very simple, very empirical, already demonstrated CAUSE for that phenomenon.

The mainstream may not know it yet, but Big Bang theory was actually falsified by those plasma redshift observations in the lab. The mainstream doesn't have an empirical leg to stand, and not even a good "explanation" for redshift on anymore. Plasma redshift observations from the lab are the sayonara song of mainstream theory IMO. It's just a matter of time....

[quantauniverse]

They say the electron density in plasma affects the redshift. Lasers are common phenomena in outer space, most commonly as ultraviolet light beams inside spiral arm galaxy filaments. Obviously lasers are fundamentally responsible for causing the galactic redshifts, and not the big-bang by inventing mysterious dark energy. Galaxies found to emit laser beams, are wrongly attributed to black holes. i'm trying to get a laser and electron density plasma probe called a Langmuir sensor probe, included on the ArduSat satellite. In 1 year we can test our great EU ideas for 3 days in space, which I paid for us to be a backer. These devices could compare the electron differences in plasma high up from earth at any steerable location e.g. magnetic poles, magnetic field lines, etc and compare results to lab data. It can also be used to study the sun, and x-rays of pulsars and neutron stars they say. Hopefully we will find and prove something substantial in EU by making our own experiment with their modules that will run when our airtime takes place. Photos and data will be sent.

[nick c]

It will be interesting to see how the "Big Bang" creationists spin this in order to salvage their beloved theory.

[sjw40364]

It will be even more interesting when they quit thinking of plasma as electrically neutral. If it was electrically neutral it would not carry charge and instead would be a "neutral" gas.

[Michael Mozina]

It will be interesting to see how the "Big Bang" creationists spin this in order to salvage their beloved theory.

I don't believe that there is even a decent way to "spin" that revelation of observed and verified plasma redshift from the lab. That's pretty much *THE* most important prediction of tired light and PC/EU theories in fact. My guess is that outright denial of scientific fact is likely to be the name of the game for as long as they can get away with it. Pure denial does seem to be their primary self defense mechanism. PC/EU theory has been based upon pure empirical, tested laboratory physics. The redshift issue has bee the ONE significant issue that has been difficult to demonstrate empirically, and therefore it's been the only "hole" in terms of demonstrating an empirical "qualification" of concept. That's no longer the case now. Every key aspect of PC/EU theory has now been demonstrated in the lab.

The BB theory is like a dead zombie of the theory at this point. A full 96 percent of that theory is based on pure metaphysical garbage and supernatural claims. The ASSUMPTION that the universe is expanding/accelerating isn't something that have even seriously questioned in more than 40 years. They're not likely to want to accept the fact that plasma redshift is a real and documented feature in plasma, but the internet will preclude them from hiding this fact from the public for much longer. It's only a matter of time before their whole metaphysical/supernatural claims of faster than light speed expansion come crashing down on their heads. "Space" doesn't expand, photons simply transfer a small part of their kinetic energy to the plasma they traverse. Once they come to terms with that reality, their whole pathetic belief system comes tumbling down, and nobody will be able to put that humpty-dumpty of theory back together again.

[celeste]

And remember it is not just the mainstream that has fallen into the trap of redshift = velocity. Even sharp EU guys like Donald Scott fall into that trap, as when he says on page 164 of "The Electric Sky" : "Betelgeuse, the alpha star in Orion, is a red giant. It pulsates in size, the diameter changing by as much as 60% in value..."
But remember the mainstream idea of pulsations in size come from interpreting changes in redshift as changes in expansion rate. And since those changes in redshift occur with changes in brightness, they are sure they are safe (brighter means bigger right?). But look at the uncertainty mention here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... hells.html
or in the angular size section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. Even the mainstream is beginning to suspect something is wrong with this model.
The truth is, redshift changes in red giants are not caused by changes in expansion rates, but changes in plasma density. The mechanism just as explained in the first post of this thread. Here is what happens: light from the star ionizes the gas surrounding gas. The increased electron density causes increased redshift. The fact that it takes light to do the ionizing is why the star appears dimmer. It is NOT getting smaller. The fact that ionization and recombination occur in waves only LOOKS like the star is expanding and contracting.

[Goldminer]

And remember it is not just the mainstream that has fallen into the trap of redshift = velocity. Even sharp EU guys like Donald Scott fall into that trap, as when he says on page 164 of "The Electric Sky" : "Betelgeuse, the alpha star in Orion, is a red giant. It pulsates in size, the diameter changing by as much as 60% in value..."
But remember the mainstream idea of pulsations in size come from interpreting changes in redshift as changes in expansion rate. And since those changes in redshift occur with changes in brightness, they are sure they are safe (brighter means bigger right?). But look at the uncertainty mentioned here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... hells.html
or in the angular size section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. Even the mainstream is beginning to suspect something is wrong with this model.
The truth is, redshift changes in red giants are not caused by changes in expansion rates, but changes in plasma density. The mechanism just as explained in the first post of this thread. Here is what happens: light from the star ionizes the gas surrounding gas. The increased electron density causes increased redshift. The fact that it takes light to do the ionizing is why the star appears dimmer. It is NOT getting smaller. The fact that ionization and recombination occur in waves only LOOKS like the star is expanding and contracting.

!

[Solar]

As much as I hate to say it, I don’t even think it will reach the denial stage with ‘the mainstream’. With only one empirically verified test Plasma Redshift is still at a point that it will simply be avoided or ignored. Ari Brynjolfsson has done a fantastic job with this taking on so very many aspects of ‘mainstream’ interpretative cosmological speculations (“expansion”, “black holes”, ‘redshift=distance’ etc) in his published works on this topic. As many are aware one can find quite a lot of his work via Axriv.

The problem will be the extent to which quantum plasma redshift will be included in ‘mainstream publications’ because that is often what seems to be the excuse that affords continued ignorance on behalf of mainstream supporters. If ‘they’ don’t read it there, then it simply does not exist and won’t be considered worthwhile. Yet again, this is precisely why ‘the mainstream’ gets caught with its pants down; so much burying one’s head in the proverbial sands only to leave one’s rear exposed for the kicking’ and failure (or is it refusal?) to adjust. On the one hand I can’t help but wonder why ‘they’ haven’t gravitated towards this in the objective sense either. Ari’s work, conceived in 1978 and apparently formalized from 2004 onwards, is ignored.

Nonetheless, and although plasma redshift can be math intensive owing to its quantum mechanically deduced conclusions and subsequent verification noted above, it will be worthwhile for independent researchers (that is actually what I consider EU/PC “proponents” to be) to familiarize themselves with the fundamentals of plasma redshift. Now, I’ve kept tabs on Ari’s work for several years now and there is an interesting aspect to it with regard to Plasma Physics and Plasma Cosmology, however please bear in mind that the central aspect is the now longstanding (EU/PC) correlation of electrical discharges in plasmas that began so very long ago with what is now known of cosmic plasma today (E. Langmuir, N. Tesla, A. Alfven, C. Bruce, R. Jergens onwards).

Interestingly, in the work of Ari Brynjolfsson he says that this feature, i.e. plasma redshift, was “overlooked” owing to its relative insignificance with regard to ‘traditional’ Plasma Physics. From “Plasma-redshift Cosmology: A Review:

The plasma-redshift cross section is deduced from conventional axioms of physics without any new assumption. It has been overlooked, because it is insignificant in ordinary laboratory plasma; but it is important in sparse hot plasmas, such as those in the corona of the Sun, stars quasars, galaxies and intergalactic space. The energy that the photons lose in plasma redshift heats the plasma.

He goes on to say that:

Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods. It would, therefore, not exist in the conventional plasma cosmology.

The reason for this as he further states in the same paper is that:

“It is essential to use quantum mechanical concepts for deducing plasma redshift and the weightlessness of photons. Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods.”

Moving over to his self published Plasma Redshift work it is noted that:

We must also use the correct complex dielectric constant for each component of this Fourier distribution, and not approximate it with the real part as is done in plasma physics and plasma cosmology. It is the complex part (the friction-like part) of the low frequencies in the Lorentz distributions that cause the plasma redshift. Plasma Redshift Cosmology- Chapter 1: Plasma Redshift and its Consequences

Ari points out that the reason for this oversight stems from N. Bohr’s original use of an “approximation” with regard to the dielectric constant being equal to one in the calculations. Instead of approximating the dielectric as being equal to one more exacting calculations should have been used. It was E. Fermi who came along and corrected Bohr’s discovery of the “stopping power” of high energy particles to by including the more complex dielectric and thereby solving the puzzle that was brought on via the emission of Cherenkov radiation that demonstrated Bohr’s work on “stopping power” of high energy particles as being incorrect. Therefore, it has been the continued use of “approximations” that has left the quantum plasma redshift feature unnoticed sitting in the wings (PlasmaRedshift pg 8-9) awaiting discovery. If true the entire field was affected but it is relatively recent history that the correlation of plasma electrodynamics with cosmology has occurred leaving plenty of room for continued growth which is exactly what this correlation points to.

Such is the nature of “progress” and the ability to ‘self-correct’ if need be. There are as yet even further dynamics of plasma electrodynamics waiting to be incorporated that have actually already been discovered through the work of others and will definitely ‘cross pollinate’ with such works as Quantum Physics (Plasma Redshift is quantum physics derived) and Condensed Matter Physics eventually; so the “interdisciplinary” approach is essential. These types of problems, internal to Plasma Physics, were also brought to mind in Harold Aspden’s “A Problem in Plasma Science”.

There seems to be more such redshift lab work along these lines with the broadly Googled term Laser induced Plasma Redshift which is interesting considering the briefly discussed quantum derived plasma electrodynamics information presented in the thread “Laser Stars/Galaxies”.

I guess I’m trying to say that it once again appears that plasma electrodynamics is the right way to go as progress seems to continue while a rather eerie silence on this topic seems to pervade traditional cosmology/astrophysics. I have no idea how things will shake out but I hope more cosmologically correlative work, investigation, and tweaks continue along these lines.

Hat tip to the relentless M. Mozina.

[Michael Mozina]

As much as I hate to say it, I don’t even think it will reach the denial stage with ‘the mainstream’. With only one empirically verified test Plasma Redshift is still at a point that it will simply be avoided or ignored. Ari Brynjolfsson has done a fantastic job with this taking on so very many aspects of ‘mainstream’ interpretative cosmological speculations (“expansion”, “black holes”, ‘redshift=distance’ etc) in his published works on this topic. As many are aware one can find quite a lot of his work via Axriv

.........

Hat tip to the relentless M. Mozina.

In fairness to the mainstream, it is entirely possible to have remained somewhat ignorant to the fact that plasma redshift has actually been observed in the lab. I just found out about those two papers recently myself after reading through a conversation that orrey was having with the EU haters at another website, right before they banned him.

I've presented Ari's redshift work to the mainstream many times in the past, and I've always pointed out that expansion was an INTERPRETATION of the redshift phenomenon, but to my knowledge at that time, I was not aware of any sort of lab confirmation of the plasma redshift process. I certainly wasn't aware that the lab results had already been applied to cosmology theory. IMO the observation in the lab of plasma redshift is a "big deal" because it's really THE most important prediction of static universe theories and tired light theories in general, It was also the 'last missing piece' in terms of full empirical support for EU/PC theory, and it's a key prediction of many EU/PC theories.

There really isn't a "bigger deal' than plasma redshift in cosmology theory because of the qualification repercussions of that empirical observation/confirmation in the lab. Not only is their "space expansion/acceleration" mythology based upon a highly SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the redshift data, it now flies in the face of KNOWN PHYSICS. That last part is the part I intend to stuff down their throat with a VENGEANCE. If they think I was relentless in the past, now that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, and there is actual empirical support of the idea, and it's ALREADY been applied to the topic of cosmology theory, they have absolutely nowhere to hide. Pure denial is their only hope of still being able to cling to their faster than light speed creation mythology. What a joke it's now become.

[sjw40364]

I think they are observing light from when the galaxy was ejected as a quasar, and it is this energy release they interpret into their BB theory. Judging from the number of galaxies its an ongoing process so the logical conclusion is most galaxies will be plasma red-shifted than not. The less time from their ejection, the higher overall it would be.

[Lloyd]

Solar said:

[Ari said:] Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods. It would, therefore, not exist in the conventional plasma cosmology.

The reason for this as he further states in the same paper is that:

It is essential to use quantum mechanical concepts for deducing plasma redshift and the weightlessness of photons. Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods.

* Ari appears to be wrong about that, since Thornhill has apparently deduced plasma redshift via classical physics, without quantum mechanics or relativity.
* I also think it's untrue that photons are massless, i.e. they do have mass, which allows them to affect matter. Some say that matter is made of photons.

[Jarvamundo]

Solar said:

[Ari said:] Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods. It would, therefore, not exist in the conventional plasma cosmology.

The reason for this as he further states in the same paper is that:

It is essential to use quantum mechanical concepts for deducing plasma redshift and the weightlessness of photons. Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods.

* Ari appears to be wrong about that, since Thornhill has apparently deduced plasma redshift via classical physics, without quantum mechanics or relativity.

Source please?

Plasma redshift observations from the lab are the sayonara song of mainstream theory IMO. It's just a matter of time...

Michael or Solar, in your readings on this subject, have you found anything to suggest plasma redshift may be responsible for Karlsson periodicity, ie the intrinsic redshift of quasars? I'm puzzled as to how this mechanism can achieve it (not that it claims to).

oh and thanks all for references thus far.

[Lloyd]

* Jarv asked for the source for my previous statement.
See "Cosmology in Crisis—Again!" at http://www.holoscience.com/wp/cosmology-in-crisis-again/.

Mathematical theorists eschewed simplicity and commonsense by assuming that the redshift was due to the Doppler effect and employing Einstein’s metaphysics so they could retrocalculate the seeming expansion back to a primordial point, or singularity—which has no physical reality. ... But there is another simple option, unmentioned by Hubble, that instead of some “unknown principle operating in space between the nebulae” there is an intrinsic electric principle responsible for both the redshift and the faintness of a galaxy or quasar. ... [I]ntrinsic redshift takes discrete (quantized) values, which proves that the redshift is related to the matter in the quasar and not a measure of speed of recession or some effect upon light in traversing the intervening space.
... 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.

* See more at that link, or at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aholoscience.com+%22redshift.
* Or search on quantum mechanics, relativity, or classical physics to see that Thornhill accepts the latter, not the former. You can see that somewhat in the above quote regarding Einstein's metaphysics.

[4realScience]

Another hat-tip for Michael Mozina, and for his http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com website.

Has there been a replication of these Redshift findings yet? They first published in 2007. To be taken seriously there will have to be confirmations?

[sjw40364]

I am not sure if confirmations or evidence matters. Over the years mainstream has a tendency to ignore any evidence that contradicts thier precious BB theory. I hope this gets the recognition it deserves, but I expect it will just be ignored in the end except by proponents of the EU/PC theories. As long as they do not test it, they can ignore it. This is the one aspect of EU/PC theory that was never verifiable in the lab and the last ditch argument of any BB theorist. One experiment does not a confirmation make, so I expect no proponets of the BB will test this in the laboratory.

I believe the EU/PC theory will become the norm in about 10 years, as soon as mainstream can figure out a way to twist it so they are the discoverer's of the EU/PC theory. I actually believe that the majority of scientists agree with the EU/PC interpretation, one can see it in the slow migration of thought patterns concerning magnetism, filiments etc. But those in charge have reputations to uphold and it is this small minority in charge of the funding strings that controll the masses.