Plasma redshift observed in the lab.

[303vegas]

I don't understand the maths but i get the idea.

It won't be long before the mainstream finds a way to shoe-horn EU into their gravity gobbledigook, they'll probably start by claiming that electrical currents are a product of gravity or that they confirm the existence of dark matter. you watch...

[Solar]

* 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.

Well, see, that’s the interesting part.

Quantum mechanical machinations can be just that; machinations. Plasma Redshift was also derived via its use and now there is experimental confirmation of the existence of the feature. That Thornhill, in conjunction with the work of H. Arp, has pointed to the intrinsic nature of redshift as a feature in terms of ‘youthfulness’ is easily correlated to increased “current density”. Just as represented by, for example, Don Scott’s modified Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram. The increased “current density” would then obviously translate to an increase in “electron density” and commensurate necessary photon output to facilitate not only the heating of the plasma but also sharing energy to induce plasma redshift with regard to lower energy level plasma.

So, perhaps Ari is incorrect in some respects because there are aspects of the EU literature that requires individuals to actually work with the principles espoused in such a correlative manner extending the qualitative approach. However, my main point, though a bit be-jumbled, in citing Ari’s statements, was to accentuate the relatively recent development of correlating work garnered from plasma physics/electrical engineering to the cosmos. This to such extent that perhaps, had it not been for the early use of those “approximations” and the exclusion of the dielectric there may have been an even earlier interdisciplinary recognition of the relationship. Thornhill also refers the energetic cosmic activities induced via increased current density as “electrical hyperactivity”. With that synopsis in mind my I’ll here is the Thornhill quote that I’ve seen by way of which deductions from a classical approach may be utilized and why I find the two sources so interesting:

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”

See what is occurring there? Ari say Plasma Physics and Plasma Cosmology “overlooked” the dynamic and that it requires quantum physics to resolve the issue whereas Thornhill says “Quantum theory has no real explanation”. I'm wondering if there *may* exist a very small ‘redshifted bridge’ (pun) between the two camps (classical and quantum) in an interdisciplinary way as a result of verified experiments. Perhaps it’s a fine point; but it’s just one of those little things.

So, the above Thornhill deduction is how, like you, extrapolated that Thornhill has, with a classical approach, pointed to – by way of the aforementioned increased current density (“electrical hyperactivity”) resulting in -the necessary “electron density” that is required via the quantum mechanical derivation of redshift.The two ‘meet’ there. Imho whether or not Ari is correct has to be taken in the context of: Who, other than Thornhill/Talbot and Co. has had the perspicacity of pointing to the potential cosmic relationship of the redshift feature in a classically reasoned way?

No one. At least that I’ve seen anyways. If anyone has such references please share.

One has to go back to Alfven to get the same edge. Okay, there is L. Ashmore with “tired light” theory but other than that the field seems barren. In a sense, that puts Thornhill/Talbott & Co. ahead of even the very same ‘traditional’ Plasma Physics curve, if you will, to which I think Ari is actually referring. Thus the reason for pointing out references showing that even within the field of Plasma Physics there is still more to discover. That Ari may have lumped Plasma Physics and Plasma Cosmology into the same generalized mix could be a mistake but I don’t think that comparing ‘firebrands’ out in front of the curves established by the very same fields they correlate to the ‘traditional approaches’ within said fields to be equitable. Another subtlety perhaps but there you have it my friend.


*Jarva:
Not as yet has anything come up regarding Karlsson Periodicity. It is something that I keep on the back shelf though and I now have seven principles (formerly six) to consider with regard to it.

[Jarvamundo]

* 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.

Thanks Lloyd, appreciated.

So this is where i see "intrinsic redshift" departing Ari's work "plasma redshift". I think it would be incorrect to state Thornhill has "apparently deduced plasma redshift via classical physics, without quantum mechanics ".

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. Thornhill's view totally makes sense to me when keeping in mind that ** the intrinsic redshifts are expressed in "jumps" (Karlsson Periodicity), and that if we take the EU view of matter, then these "jumps" would be expressed as resonant states of the matter itself.

So to me, and (unless i've missed this completely) Thornhill, Plasma Redshift <> Intrinsic Redshift

Although Plasma Redshift should be added to the soup of redshift considerations, the mechanism itself does not seem to lean towards an explanation of them "jumps".

[Michael Mozina]

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.

I can't say I've run into anything specific, but....

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.

Keep in mind that there is NOTHING to suggest that redshift has ONE and ONLY ONE empirical "cause". Ari's concept of a quantum transfer of kinetic energy from one magnetic field to another may still apply to events in intergalactic space, but it may not explain intrinsic object redshift, or THESE specific lab results. Then again, maybe they do. There could be a quantum as well as a particle interaction component to the redshift process for all we know.

What we DO know from the lab is that plasma redshift has AT LEAST one empirical cause that has already been documented in the lab, and that is a HUGELY important finding IMO. Tired light theories are literally the one and only possible falsification mechanism for ALL BB theories, not just the current metaphysical monstrosity of a BB theory. Static universe theory could very well make a HUGE comeback now. It's only a matter of time before these results are too widely disseminated for the mainstream to "keep the lid on it". My brain is already churning away at ways to bring the information to the public. I could care less about the "haters", it's time to make this a "big deal" in the public eye. Sooner or later the mainstream will necessarily need to respond to it.

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.

[Jarvamundo]

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.

Yep, i agree so we can see the differences in mechanism right here. They aint the same.

For Ari's mechanism to exibit intrinsic nature, the intervening electron plasma atmosphere (that does the plasma red-shifting) would need to be quantized in it's distribution.

Thornhills mechanism is a matter-it'self (subtronic state evolution), think Thornhill/Sansbury model of Mass, that undergoes a quantized evolution.

So (my point is)...it is >not< Ari's mechanism itself that possesses an intrinsic nature, it does not, one must create discretely quantized environmental variables to enable the non-quantized mechanism to expressed quantized behavior.

In my opinion this tweaking of variables is the thinking and err of mainstream's approach. Tread with caution tbolters, be careful of the mind.

Note: "quantized" here refers to Karlsson Periodicity redshift distributions of quasars. not quantum, or einstein.

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.

Just picture asking an astronomer to look for star light shining through that quasar in front of it.

[orrery]

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.

[Michael Mozina]

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.

I was afraid that might be the case. How sad actually. Thank you very much for pointing out this observation for me. I was not aware of the laboratory confirmation of plasma redshift, nor that paper by you cited by Lyndon Ashmore until you pointed it out at JREF. I don't go there often anymore but I happened to read through that one thread right before they "cleaned it up" and banned you for your efforts.

On a personal note, the EU haters at JREF deserved every insult you hurled at them IMO.

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.

I more or less understood "why no blueshift" in Ari plasma redshift theory, but perhaps you could spend some time educating us on how that might apply to collision oriented processes in plasma? As I understand Ari's concepts of field to field transfer of kinetic energy, the reason that redshift predominates over blueshift is due to to relative speed differences between the photon and the electron and the fact that the kinetic energy is usually going from the photon to the electron, and it has less to do with the movement of the particle itself. Is that even an accurate assessment in the kind of redshift observed in a lab? I doubt it actually.

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.

Thanks for any hints you might have to offer me (us). Thank you also for expressing yourself so "openly' at JREF. I enjoyed watching them take what they typically dish out. They clearly couldn't take it for very long.

[Lloyd]

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.

* 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.

Michael said: Tired light theories are literally the one and only possible falsification mechanism for ALL BB theories

* Thornhill's plasma redshift theory does not seem to be a tired light theory. He said: "[I]ntrinsic redshift takes discrete (quantized) values, which proves that the redshift is related to the [ionized] matter in the quasar and not a measure of speed of recession or some effect upon light in traversing the intervening space." So I don't think tired light theory is the only one that can falsify BB theory, since Thornhill's theory can probably falsify it and is not a tired light theory. Is it?

[Jarvamundo]

* 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.

I have absolutely no doubt quasars are ionized. Deficient in electrons i can also wear, especially if ejected.

The point still remains, how to get a continuous function to express a discontinuous result.

Thornhill points to a sub-tronic or atomic property evolution.

Plasma Redshift requires discontinuous variation in environment.

As Michael Mozina points out in posts prior.

*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.

Is is the atmosphere that will need to be discontinuous in it's distribution over time. (This is one of the same initial conclusions i came to, and thought unlikely.)

Now couple that with the observations that ALL ejecta undergo the same discontinuous evolution no matter which way they scatter. So to me the suggestion that there is some magical organisation of "focal point/creation point/transfer point of a lot of electrical current" that can produce the environment to let Plasma Redshift do it's thang... makes it even less likely.

This is why i think Thornhill's approach is much more sound. There is something fundamentally different going on here, there is an evolution of the matter it'self, which is the same evolutionary process in all matter as it is created, anywhere that it is created.

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.

Key thing here is resonant systems of charge. It is the resonant organisation of subtrons that re-arranges in quantized "jumps".

It's either that, or zillions of electrons, donated from the parent AGN, decide to show up at the same time. IMO unlikely.

IMO... they keep turning up untill the resonant arrangement threshold is met.

As Solar mentions i too add Plasma Redshift to the redshift soup (6 or 7), but it aint the answer to the discontinuous redshift riddle. The answer Thornhill has proposed is subtronic ressonance.

Although plasma and electrons are involved, to grasp onto the mechanism as the same thing (PR = IR), i think, is incorrect.

/how i read it.
Hey, maybe a TB senior needs to chime in to be sure we all reading this right.

All the best.

[sjw40364]

So, if light is photons, and photons always travel at c, then velocity outside of a medium would never cause red-shift or blue-shift. The interval photons are received would not in itself cause a frequency shift, just less perceived light or more. The Doppler effect is caused from vibration through a medium, on earth this happens to be air. Doppler shifts affect only particles that are not constant in velocity. If a photon is truly constant (which is in question to me, even thou the differences might be minute) then velocity of the source would never effect the velocity of the photon, it travels at c regardless, remember. The red or blue shifting of light can only stem from three sources: outside interference, inherent state of the emitter, or c is not a constant.

[Michael Mozina]

Firstly, this isn't a recent confirmation. This was probably confirmed as far back as the 1970s, its just been stuffed under the rug.

By the way, can you refer me to some published documentation to support that assertion? If that is actually the case, I'd sure like to document it and use that fact during debates. It's bad enough that the mainstream ignored tired light theories for so long, but if there really has been documented evidence of plasma redshift in the lab for several decades, their behaviors are utterly inexcusable.

[PersianPaladin]

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.

I'm not sure that red-shift is that important, to be honest. The very notion that we have measured "the universe" is an impossibility. The universe = everything that there is. So how can we ever tell that everything that there is - is expanding? It's a nonsense. We don't have telescopes with the range of the universe or a knowledge of all the energy out there. Big Bang will always be a hypothesis, not a theory. Redshift can be correllated with distance (up to a certain degree - as was demonstrated by a member on this forum in another thread), but it can also be intrinsic. So this also leaves any "universe" inflationary idea at a dead end. Regardless - why would we invest so much energy into being against the "big bang" when there are other problems such as "magnetic re-connection", "frozen-in fields", "space-time fabrics" that bend light, etc, etc.

If plasma permeates the majority of what can be observed, then it will overwhelm the force of gravity. And magnetic fields are not "frozen-in" either. So they pervade the darkness between the light that we see - if only the mainstream looked for them and acknowledged their power.

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not sure that red-shift is that important, to be honest.

Really? I'm very surprised that you feel that way actually. From my perspective at least, plasma redshift is the single most important possible falsification mechanism for BB theory, and it's THE most important prediction of PC/EU theory. As a matter of fact, I can't even think of a more important possible falsification mechanism for mainstream theory, nor can I even think of a more important "prediction" of PC/EU theory.

If redshift can be shown, and has been shown to be a standard process in plasma, that empirical laboratory observation completely undermines the mainstream claims related to expansion and acceleration. It would be different IMO if they weren't trying to claim that the expansion of the universe was occurring "faster than light", and they weren't trying to claim that 'space' was magically expanding, but these are both "out there" claims. The fact that plasma redshift is a real and documented process in plasma completely undermines both of those ridiculous claims.

Pretty much every one of their expansion/acceleration claims is based on the ASSUMPTION that *ONLY* expansion/acceleration can explain the observed redshift from distant objects. In term of pure empirical, lab tested physics, that is absolutely not the case anymore. The onus of responsibility now falls on them to demonstrate why their explanation is actually 'better' than a known process in plasma that has already been demonstrated and documented in the lab. They won't ever be able to do that! IMO they were fine in making their claims about expansion and acceleration as long as nobody had a 'better' empirical solution to the redshift observation. Now that EMPIRICAL solutions can and do explain the redshift, where does that actually leave them? That observation of plasma redshift in the lab leaves mainstream claims about faster than light speed expansion, swinging in the metaphysical breeze IMO. No longer can they claim that there isn't an empirical solution to the problem, an no longer can they claim to have any advantage of static universe and/or PC theories.

[orrery]

We know how to take 'em out, General. Spread the word. Get on the wire to every squadron around the world. Tell them how to bring those sons of bitches down.

[sjw40364]

Please, show me one test of red-shift that was not performed in a medium? Anyone???