Lloyd wrote:* 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.
In the Electric Universe, the lynchpin of big bang theory — the equation of redshift of stellar spectra with velocity of recession — is shown empirically to be false. The inability of astrophysicists to accept the manifest evidence of intrinsic redshift (a high-redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy should be blatant enough) may be due to a reluctance to admit that modern physics has no explanation for the phenomenon of mass in matter and therefore cannot explain how subatomic particles like the proton and electron might exhibit the lower mass required to produce lower energy spectra (redshift). Observations of connections between high- and low-redshift objects requires that the redshift is intrinsic to the matter in distant quasars and galaxies and cannot be due to some modification of the light on its journey to Earth. It calls into question our understanding of quantum theory because it has been discovered that the redshift of quasars and companion galaxies is quantized!
Quantum theory has no real explanation; it is merely a set of rules that match some limited real world observations. On that basis it is a very shaky pillar to support cosmology. Quantum theory is thought to apply exclusively to the submicroscopic realm of atoms and subatomic particles. But that is not so. Redshift has been observed to be quantized across entire galaxies — no galaxy has been found in transition from one redshift to another.
Intrinsic redshift of quasars and galaxies means an end to the big bang. Instead of being seen “when the universe was much younger,” highly redshifted objects are merely young, nearby and faint. Observations show that quasars are “born” from the nucleus of active galaxies. They initially move very fast away from their parent, usually roughly along the spin axis. As they grow older they grow brighter and seem to slow down as they gain in mass and evolve into companion galaxies. This gain in massiveness points to a process whereby normal matter can pass through a number of small quantized increases in mass, which gives rise to the observed quantized decreases in redshift. This discovery points the way, at last, to an understanding of the phenomenon of mass.
The “stirred up” gas in highly redshifted objects can be simply understood as being due to unruly youthfulness and electrical hyperactivity. Holoscience – “Electric Galaxies”
Lloyd wrote:* 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.
Jarvamundo wrote: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.
Michael Mozina wrote:The LAB (forget the math for a moment) results seem to suggest that the number of free electrons that are present in the plasma have a direct effect upon the rate of plasma redshift. *If* this is the mechanism that's related to intrinsic object redshift, it would suggest that such objects are the focal point/creation point/transfer point of a lot of electrical current, and their atmosphere includes a lot of free electrons.
Michael Mozina wrote:I would THINK that a intrinsic object redshift would tend to have an affect on background starlight. That's probably the best place to start looking for evidence.
orrery wrote:Hey guys, as someone who has been advocating "non-doppler" , "non-cosmological" , "quantum redshift" , and "plasma redshift" for most of my life now I can give you a few tidbits.
Firstly, this isn't a recent confirmation. This was probably confirmed as far back as the 1970s, its just been stuffed under the rug.
On another note, let me say this, the most common objection you will run in to when explaining people the Plasma Redshift phenomenon is going to be questions about BLUE SHIFT.
You need to be prepared to answer Blue Shift questions as well.
Now, many times "blue shift" simply means "not as red-shifted as expected" Its not really "blue shifted" it is still "red shifted" but not as redshifted as it "should be" That is very important factor.
Now, that you have tackled Plasma Redshifting, you must also understand Plasma Blueshifting. Laser-induced Plasma Blueshifting has also been done in the lab and a simple google for "Plasma Blueshift" can get you started.
I once did an investigation into this and discovered that virtually all the Blueshifted objects in the NASA catalog have some sort of strange sky distribution that indicates that the light from these objects is passing through the "plasma lobes" of the Milky Way. Obviously this feature of the milky way is having some kind of electromagnetic effect increasing the energy level of the photon 'packet'. Although my investigations have stalled on account of having lots of landscaping & gardening & other home projects so you guys have fun.
Jarv said: Here Thornhill says: "The intrinsic redshift is a property of the emitting atoms in the object." To me this is a completely different physical mechanism to what Ari has proposed. Here Thornhill states that it is the matter it'self that possesses a property to enable a "jump" in redshifts. Where as Ari's mechanism is an energy transfer mechanism to an intervening electron plasma.
Michael said: Tired light theories are literally the one and only possible falsification mechanism for ALL BB theories
Lloyd wrote:* Jarv, maybe you didn't notice this part of my quote from Thornhill: "Quasars appear to be ejected, deficient in electrons, from their parent active galactic nucleus (AGN)." That means quasars are ionized, which means they're plasma, which I think means that the intrinsic redshift from them is plasma redshift. So I think they're both talking about plasma redshift, but apparently at different points in the photon's journey.
*If* this is the mechanism that's related to intrinsic object redshift, it would suggest that such objects are the focal point/creation point/transfer point of a lot of electrical current, and their atmosphere includes a lot of free electrons.
Thornhill wrote: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.
orrery wrote:Firstly, this isn't a recent confirmation. This was probably confirmed as far back as the 1970s, its just been stuffed under the rug.
Michael Mozina wrote:Solar wrote: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.
PersianPaladin wrote:I'm not sure that red-shift is that important, to be honest.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests