Far Distance Run Around

[Nereid]

Thanks David Talbott, Lloyd.

Disappointing, but not unexpected, especially considering this (and in particular this), and the fact that a request is not a demand (at least in the English language I am used to using).

[David Talbott]

Thanks David Talbott, Lloyd.

Disappointing, but not unexpected, especially considering this (and in particular this), and the fact that a request is not a demand (at least in the English language I am used to using).

Honestly Nereid, I don't think you would respond with "disappointment" if you could simply allow for one question: Have the theoretical sciences fallen victim to an immensely costly mistake? The theoretical models you are elaborating are not the models to be applied if what we claim to have been a mistake—the electrically neutral cosmos—really was a mistake. The point here needs to sink in. If you can direct us to mainstream, peer reviewed journals that are taking up this question at the level of seriousness required, I'll change my tune on this. But elaborations of a fundamental mistake are not the way to confront the mistake. The response of those who see a better way forward has been to cite facts that do not fit the core assumption and to show how these facts become predictable when electricity is allowed into the investigation. Wherever the facts are accurately stated, that should be sufficient. Where they've been incorrectly stated, corrections should always be welcomed here.

[Goldminer]

Nereid posted a link in "her" post:
Post by Nereid » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:19 pm; Re: Quasars...

which leads to this page at ESO: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso9934/. (Who colored the nebula red in the thunderbolts post?)

Anyway, the article is not so concerned as to what the nebula obscures, as it is as to what makes up the cloud itself. The point I wish to make is that if there were QUASARs being obscured, [which there do not seem to be any QUASARs in this nebula,] they would be obscured!

Nereid's long, convoluted post is convincing evidence that such a long convoluted rant does nothing but lead me to the conclusion that straw arguments lead only to straw conclusions for "her" straw agenda.

[Sparky]

"distractions' is correct....

I accept that something is happening with redshift that appears to be falsifying it as a reliable tool for measuring distance in space.

But, nereid asked,"What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?" a question that i would like answered in plain english.

was this answered by any link posted?

would this be a difficult experiment to perform?..

Now, am i in error to think that if redshift is unreliable, then BB and other speculation/assumptions fall.

thank you

[Lloyd]

* Have you checked out the TPODs? These two seem to me to prove rather conclusively that redshift is not an indicator of distance or velocity for distant objects.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... rs-god.htm
* There are plenty of other TPODs here that concern quasars and redshift.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Quasars
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Redshift
* If a quasar or high redshift object with redshift: z = 2.0 or larger exists in front of a galaxy of redshift: z = less than 0.4, it's obvious that redshift does not correlate to distance. Right?

[Sparky]

thank you, i have read the tpods...that is where i got the conclusion that i stated, quoted again below....but, nereid asked a specific question, and a couple of replies included links to either studies or experiment concerning redshift which i am trying to find out if they really answered the question specifically.

" I accept that something is happening with redshift that appears to be falsifying it as a reliable tool for measuring distance in space.

But, nereid asked,"What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?" a question that i would like answered in plain english.

was this answered by any link posted?

would this be a difficult experiment to perform?..

Now, am i in error to think that if redshift is unreliable, then BB and other speculation/assumptions fall.

thank you

[Lloyd]

Sparky said: But, nereid asked,"What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?" a question that i would like answered in plain english.

* It's possible that no such experiments have been performed as yet, but we don't need such an experiment to prove that redshift does not measure distance at least for distant objects, because we have a high redshift object in front of a low redshift object. The former cannot be at a great distance behind the latter, since the former is visible in front of the latter. And there are lots of high redshift quasars that have physical connections to lower redshift galaxies. And the assumption that redshift measures distance results in a distorted image of galaxies in the universe that makes them appear to form lines of galaxies pointing toward Earth from all directions. Is it plausible that large numbers of galaxies in the universe in all directions from Earth are lined up in lines that point toward Earth?

[Goldminer]

It is possible that intrinsic red shift cannot be produced on a small scale, but the evidence is there. Much "outside the box" thinking is required to invent a small scale experiment.

My opinion is that the powerful electrical forces involved in the ejected plasmoid cause a rarification of the aether, which in steps expands out into its "normal" state. The truth is that we don't understand much about the aether!

[Aristarchus]

It is possible that intrinsic red shift cannot be produced on a small scale, but the evidence is there. Much "outside the box" thinking is required to invent a small scale experiment.

This question was already answered on the follow TB forum topic under the Electric Universe subject heading:

Interacting galaxies, help needed

The following is found on page 58 of the paper by Brynjolfsson titled, "Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma," where Brynjolfsson sets the premise on pp. 35 - 36 (viz),

Quasars. It is reasonable to assume that quasars and other active galactic nuclei have large intrinsic redshifts caused by the plasma redshift (see Brynjolfsson [59]).In quasars the measured redshift is useful for characterizing their corona.

… This redshift integral, when combined with the other features, such as the bolometric temperature(s), including X rays and infrared spectrum, can help us to obtain a rough estimates of their absolute magnitude, distance, and even mass.

Then, on page 58, Brynjolfsson states:

Initially, when very little matter covers up the ends of the vortex, we observe two jets, one from each end, beaming far away from many objects believed to be black holes. We will first see “knots” or “lumps” on the beams or jets, because, as is well known from laboratory experiments and theory for pair production, matter enhances the transformation rate of photons to particle pairs. Occasionally, these “lumps” and “knots” may coalesce as they are being pushed away, and could possibly form quasars, about the way Halton Arp sees it in his monograph, Seeing Red. For example, the largest “lump” in M87 already now emits more X rays than the core of M87.

However, Brynjolfsson qualifies his statement further down on the page regarding "Possible Future Experiments."

have failed to conceive of a reliable and practical laboratory experiment for testing the pertinent theorems. The plasma redshift is likely to play an important role in future designs of fusion experiments, because of its unique feature of transferring heat energy to a fully ionized plasma. In such experiments, it is important to use the fact that the initial plasma-redshift, as given by Eq. (18), is proportional to the photon width γ.

In conclusion, Brynjolfsson writes:

The fact that the plasma-redshift absorption is greater than the free-free absorption and the Compton scattering absorptions by many orders of magnitude in the CMB frequency range has the effect that the blackbody radiation is well defined. The plasma-redshift cosmology, which uses only basic laws of physics, is incompatible with the big-bang cosmology. Not only do the big-bang cosmologists overlook the plasma redshift, but they also incorrectly equate TCMB with Te in the cosmic plasma at the time of decoupling.

Again, be advised that I have not formatted the mathematical symbols in these quotes. One will need to access the pages from the paper to ascertain those.

Following the concatenation of the above quotes, Brynjolfsson adds a caveat from the paper:

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: A Review

The plasma-redshift cross section is deduced from conventional axioms of physics without any new assumptions. It has been overlooked, because it is insignificant in ordinary laboratory plasmas; 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. The deduction of plasma redshift requires that we take into account the dielectric constant more accurately than is usually done.

I must say, it's very curious to me why it has been assumed on this forum that Nereid serves as a benchmark. I'm still waiting for Nereid to demonstrate a modicum of information literacy, and to present clear and concise thesis statements that, at the very least, acknowledges the alternative viewpoint, not that the Nereid needs to accept them. My understanding is that this forum provides a place for careful consideration of alternatives as opposed to the authority of the consensus science/cosmology. This inquiring involves deliberate and thoughtful reflection from what is available in the alternative research, not some wild goose chase to establish everything beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not on trial, so why place ourselves there?

We're all going to get it wrong at some point. We're all going to misinterpret each other and the rather technical data and research involved, but we should be acting to provide an impetus for each other on exploring this exciting scientific model of our universe offered by the likes of Talbot, Thornhill, Scott, Peratt, etc.

[Sparky]

Aristarchus, thank you and others for the information provided.

Since this information is available to those with skill and technology to find, and Nereid has demonstrated to possess those, that Nereid does not acknowledge that this redshift question has been addressed would indicate a deceptive agenda or an emotional condition which will not allow her to even consider anything outside of her major investment. The latter, not being anything that she can control at this time, should be taken into consideration by others, not to find fault, but to keep in mind when reading her posts and in replies.

I appreciate those who have tolerated my lack of hard science training and understanding and who have attempted to guide me into some understanding of these things.

thank you

[Goldminer]

It is possible that intrinsic red shift cannot be produced on a small scale, but the evidence is there. Much "outside the box" thinking is required to invent a small scale experiment.

This question was already answered on the follow TB forum topic under the Electric Universe subject heading: Interacting galaxies, help needed

I wouldn't say it was answered, but that one idea has been presented on the subject. Let's not be too presumptive and dismissive here!

I certainly agree with you on the subject of Nereid. So smarmingly polite when presented with evidence opposed to "her" agenda, such as "thank you," and then totally ignoring or mal-applying said evidence in later posts. Cognitive dissonance or desperate efforts to preserve a dead paradigm.

.

[Nereid]

Aristarchus, thank you and others for the information provided.

Since this information is available to those with skill and technology to find, and Nereid has demonstrated to possess those, that Nereid does not acknowledge that this redshift question has been addressed would indicate a deceptive agenda or an emotional condition which will not allow her to even consider anything outside of her major investment. The latter, not being anything that she can control at this time, should be taken into consideration by others, not to find fault, but to keep in mind when reading her posts and in replies.

I appreciate those who have tolerated my lack of hard science training and understanding and who have attempted to guide me into some understanding of these things.

thank you

Good for you Sparky, insisting that you get an answer!

I suggest that you follow up on the material Aristarchus cites; here's what you may find:

* Brynjolfsson's work is cited by no one but himself (in any substantive sense) - what does that tell you?

* his interpretations of some lab experimental results make sense only within his own theoretical framework - what does that mean?

* no electrical theorist has even cited, much less endorsed, Brynjolfsson's work (neither has Arp, as far as I know) - why?

* my question contains the following key phrase: "the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation"; that interpretation involves many elements not found in Brynjolfsson's work (see below) - a rather important point, is it not?

Perhaps, now, you can work out why "Nereid does not acknowledge that this redshift question has been addressed"?

By a process that is not understood by present particle physics, the redshift of quasars decreases in discrete steps, or quanta, as they age, grow in brightness and move away from the parent galaxy. At the same time, the ejected quasar becomes more massive and slows down, eventually becoming a companion galaxy of the parent.

(source)

[Aristarchus]

I wouldn't say it was answered, but that one idea has been presented on the subject. Let's not be too presumptive and dismissive here!

Perhaps, I should have used a quote from Nereid, but I used yours to maintain the flow of the discussion, as it was the latest in response to Sparky's inquiry. My response was to the question Nereid asked regarding whether any "laboratory experiments on Earth" were performed in support of Arp & intrinsic redshifts. She had asked this on another topic at the TB forum, and one person responded that her question ignored all the lack of laboratory experiments on Earth for the consensus science cosmology. However, Nereid was persistent, and I can only then assume that she was trying to hold us to our own standards of empirical evidence for proper scientific methodology, but I must reiterate that this is what I was left to presume.

How I attempted to answer Nereid was to use Brynjolfsson to demonstrate the following:

1. Brynjolfsson's "plasma redshift," which is, "derived when a photon enters a hot, sparse electron plasma," still takes into account the nature of intrinsic redshifts.

2. The plasma redhift can be derived from "conventional axioms of physics."

3. Brynjolfsson claims that the plasma redshift "has been overlooked, because it is insignificant in ordinary laboratory plasmas; but it is important in sparse hot plasmas, such as those in the corona of the Sun, stars, quasars, galaxies, and intergalactic space."

4. However, Brynjolfsson's paper cites Arp's research as having laboratory experiments to supply some support for the latter's conclusions of "knots/lumps" relating to Arp's observation of "younger objects having higher intrinsic redshifts." Brynjolfsson states, "For example, the largest “lump” in M87 already now emits more X rays than the core of M87."

5. Brynjolfsson then later states that the plasma redshift provides an opportunity to play a role in "future designs of fusion experiments."

In conclusion, there does appear to be some laboratory experiments to supports Arp's work and Brynjolfsson does propose possible future experiments for his theorems by those working with plasma in laboratories, but admittedly, he contends that it might more realistic to base it off astronomical observations.

I believe we must investigate how these researchers overlap in their analysis of redshift, and offer this research in an open ended investigation, as opposed to following a methodology that seeks some grand unified theory - otherwise, we then play the card of the consensus science that has in part led to its current crisis in cosmology.

[Aristarchus]

Brynjolfsson's work is cited by no one but himself (in any substantive sense) - what does that tell you?

Well, let's ignore your subjective caveat of "substantive," or how this should be interpreted for an alternative cosmology approach and the peer review process that has been discussed at length on this board, as well as failing to respond to your other unsubstantiated claim that Brynjolfsson tweaked his work. - but I'll just go ahead with a list, shall we?

"Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia" by A Brynjolfsson

Cited list:

1. Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)

2. Sandage versus Hubble on the reality of the expanding universe
Authors: Domingos S.L. Soares

3. Another possible interplay between gravitation and cosmology
Author: Michael A. Ivanov

4. No-time-dilation corrected Supernovae 1a and GRBs data and low-energy quantum gravity
Author: Ivanov - 2010 - ivanovma.narod.ru

Next:

Brynjolfsson: "Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma"

Cited list:

1. Science, Technology and Mission Design
for the Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity
Authors: Slava G. Turyshev,a Michael Shao,a and Kenneth L. Nordtvedt, Jr.b

2. An Explanation of Redshift in a Static Universe
Author: Lyndon Ashmore

3. New formulas for the Hubble constant in a Euclidean static universe
Author: Lorenzo Zaninetti Dipartimento di Fisica Generale, via P. Giuria 1, I-10125 Turin, Italy

Next:

Brynjolfsson: Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: A Review

Cited list:

1. Cosmic Agnosticism, Revisited
Author: TE Eastman - Journal of Cosmology, 2010 - journalofcosmology.com

Oh ... and just so we're clear as to whom TE Eastman is:

Dr. Timothy Eastman has joined the Raytheon/ITSS contractor team supporting NSSDC and SSDOO activities at Goddard. Tim assumes the leadership of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.

Tim has had a long career as a space physics researcher and is best known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer. Among his past activities were collaborations with SSDOO scientists, especially Jim Green, Shing Fung, Mona Kessel and Scott Boardsen, on analysis of data from the Hawkeye spacecraft.

In addition, he has served as program director for space plasmas at both NASA/Headquarters and at the National Science Foundation. At NASA, he played a key role, with Stan Shawhan, in initiating the ISTP program and the Space Physics Division (now Sun Earth Connections).

In recent years, Tim has had his own consulting company whose work includes a web site "representing all aspects of plasma science and technology prepared as a service for the general public as well as for the educational and research communities."

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nssdc_news/j ... stman.html

And why is Eastman citing Brynjolfsson. Good question! Because it relates directly with another frivolous claim posited by Nereid. Here's what Eastman cited:

Anomalous redshifts – strong evidence has emerged for non-expansion redshifts (Ratcliffe, 2009), and there are several viable frequency transfer processes available for quantitative testing (Marmet, 2009; Brynjolfsson, 2009);

Well, enough of that:

Moving on:

his interpretations of some lab experimental results make sense only within his own theoretical framework - what does that mean?

Wouldn't it just be easier and at least display a modicum of academic discourse to quote Brynjolfsson and then offer a counter argument. Otherwise, you're making an argument for someone.

Brynjolfsson states:

I have failed to conceive of a reliable and practical laboratory experiment for testing the pertinent theorems. The plasma redshift is likely to play an important role in future designs of fusion experiments, because of its unique feature of transferring heat energy to a fully ionized plasma. In such experiments, it is important to use the fact that the initial plasma-redshift, as given by Eq. (18), is proportional to the photon width γ. The source of the light used should therefore be designed to produce large photon widths, for example, by use of light sources at high pressures and high temperatures. X-ray frequencies are usually needed for exceeding the plasma-redshift cut-off at relatively high densities. In hydrogen fusion experiments, we could make use of plasma-redshift heating, but it would be difficult to test quantitatively the different relations. The fusion equipment are usually too small and the plasma often not in thermodynamic equilibrium, which would make it difficult to measure conclusively small plasma redshifts. I have therefore opted to use different astronomical observations for testing the predictions of the theory.

7.1 Tests for confirming the plasma redshift

We can confirm the plasma redshift by observing the shifts of spectral lines of stars as they graze the limb of the Sun during eclipse of the Sun by the Moon. Each and every spectral line from a star will be redshifted slightly as the line of sight to the star grazes the limb of the Sun. All the lines will have the natural classical photon widths, because they will all have penetrated an adequate column density of a plasma to obtain this width. Therefore, all the lines passing at a certain distance from the solar limb will gain the same redshift increment, δz, as they penetrate the solar corona, provided the wavelength is shorter than the cut-off wavelength in the densest part of the corona they penetrate.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 1420v3.pdf

my question contains the following key phrase: "the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation"; that interpretation involves many elements not found in Brynjolfsson's work (see below) - a rather important point, is it not?

What is central here is that Brynjolfsson relies on Arp's reference to the K-effect. Furthermore, Brynjolfsson research is best articulated from the following overview of the The Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference
Port Angeles, WA, USA, 8th to 11th September, 2008 where Arp was the keynote speaker:

Plasma cosmology, as pioneered by Hannes Alfvén, is also not new. Ari Brynjolfsson brought us up to date on where the small but vociferous band of plasma theorists and practitioners has taken the model. The newly discovered and verified plasma-redshift cross section of photons penetrating hot sparse plasma leads to a new cosmology, an infinite and quasi-static universe, which is radically different from the conventional Big Bang model. Like QSSC, Plasma Cosmology does without or rationally explains many of the problems of the Standard Model, and is of particular interest to those who share this writer’s fascination with cosmological electro-magnetism.

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm

[tayga]

Brynjolfsson's work is cited by no one but himself (in any substantive sense) - what does that tell you?

What does it tell you, Nereid?