Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:32 pm

Our Sun's Center-to-Limb Redshift: A Puzzle
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..APR.D1003G
Abstract
After the red/blue-shift due to our Sun's rotation is subtracted from the data, there remains a puzzling center-to- limb redshift which incereases by a 3:1 ratio at the limb. This variation contrasts to the expected gravitational redshift that should be independent of center-to-limb position. The observed functional variation is consistent with a photon energy-loss mechanism in the Sun's ``plasma atmosphere.'' Several different energy-loss redshift mechanisms have been proposed including......
When we study redshift patterns from around our own solar atmosphere, we find evidence that plasma redshift is the real cause of photon redshift in space. It was once believed that space was a near vacuum. Now we know it's a dusty plasma environment that interacts with light. Photons traveling through a plasma medium lose energy to the plasma atmosphere. The greater the amount of plasma that the light has to traverse, the more redshift we observe.

Its no mystery then why there's a distance/redshift relationship to objects in space. The more plasma that light must traverse, the more it loses momentum to the plasma medium. In such an environment, a static universe also automatically predicts the existence of a distance/redshift relationship, albeit an non-expanding explanation for photon redshift. In some few instance, galaxy movement might also be toward us or away from us. It's a somewhat more complex environment than trying to treat space as an empty vacuum.

This observation from solar physics suggests that all redshift in space is plasma redshift related. The more plasma that the light has to traverse, the more potential for it to transfer momentum to that plasma, even though that particular photons reaches a telescope on Earth.

If you look at history of astronomy it's clear that astronomers oversimplified the environment of space. It's not the 'empty vacuum' they envisioned in the 1800-1950's. It wasn't until satellites in space measured the first currents in Birkeland currents around our planet that astronomers started to take any part of Kristian Birkeland's work seriously and even today few astronomers know anything about his larger body of work.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:49 pm

Apparently Paul Marmet has this figured out some time ago. :)

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1109/27.24630

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:56 pm

So essentially astronomers have observed center to limb redshift for more than a century. All that time they've had observational evidence that the plasma atmosphere of the sun is responsible for plasma redshift, but they are somehow convinced that no transfer of photon momentum takes place anywhere in space?

Simply by following known laws of physics, including a century's worth of solar physics observations, and including Maxwell's equations to explain galaxy rotation patterns, there is no need whatsoever to resort to "dark" anything. There's no need to violate conservation of energy laws, and no need to believe that we even have a valid way to determine the age of the universe.

It's just sad to realize just how much observational evidence that the mainstream is required to simply ignore. Anything and everything that doesn't fit with their belief system is simply discarded, ridiculed or ignored.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:39 pm

Great findings.
I wonder if there are similar red-shifts for stars (or planets) that we see through the plasma of the sun.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Cosmological red hering gravity

Unread post by seasmith » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:59 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:So essentially astronomers have observed center to limb redshift for more than a century. All that time they've had observational evidence that the plasma atmosphere of the sun is responsible for plasma redshift, but they are somehow convinced that no transfer of photon momentum takes place anywhere in space?

Simply by following known laws of physics, including a century's worth of solar physics observations, and including Maxwell's equations to explain galaxy rotation patterns, there is no need whatsoever to resort to "dark" anything. There's no need to violate conservation of energy laws, and no need to believe that we even have a valid way to determine the age of the universe.
<there is no need whatsoever to resort to "dark" anything.>
Good topic, with all the "black hole" stuff in the news.
What do you mean with the term dark energy ?
Are there varied shades of light and darkly illuminated plasmas, obviously !
Is "redshift" an absolute variance from the classical speed of light, or just relative to the local dielectric 'constant'? ie: impedence)
For example, everything viewed through atmospheric plasmas of a sun or galaxy will be impeded, refracted and frequency-shifted, via transmitted/received/recorded beams of light, to the observer.
What in the standard model, or EU model, makes any of those emissions "dark" ?
Doesn't any gradation of light/dark resolve down eventually to frequency band vs detector sensitivity ?

It's mainly about bandwidth, and 6G is coming.
;)

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by crawler » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:35 pm

Cosmic redshift in the nonexpanding cellular universe: Velocity-differential theory of cosmic redshift
Conrad Ranzan
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/D1Cosmi ... Ranzan.pdf

Conrad explains that cosmic redshift is due to photons stretching due to gravity as the photon approaches mass, & then stretched again as the photon departs from mass.
However this form of redshifting probly has little to do with CLV.

I like the (nonConrad) idea that photons looz energy due to the Sun's plasma (thusly giving CLV).

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:03 pm

I just posted this comment over on the /space forum on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments ... _the_suns/
Redshift of Spectral lines in the Sun's Chromosphere
Discussion

Center-to-limb solar redshift has been observed for more than a century. This unusual redshift observation demonstrates that "plasma redshift" is a real cause of photon redshift, and it is an observed process that is taking place in plasma which is located inside of our own solar system.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005APS..APR.D1003G

After the red/blue-shift due to our Sun's rotation is subtracted from the data, there remains a puzzling center-to- limb redshift which incereases by a 3:1 ratio at the limb. This variation contrasts to the expected gravitational redshift that should be independent of center-to-limb position. The observed functional variation is consistent with a photon energy-loss mechanism in the Sun's ``plasma atmosphere.'' Several different energy-loss redshift mechanisms have been proposed including Compton, Plasma, pseudo-Raman, etc redshifts. Where possible, these proposals are quantitatively examined and critiqued. If the Sun's expected theoretical Gravitational redshift is subtracted form the data, there remains a puzzling Blueshift at the center which gradually transforms to a Redshift at the limb. The possible origins(s) of this complex behavior will be discussed including the Solar wind, convection Doppler-shifts, and the Wolf redshift mechanism. This important Solar center-to- limb redshift data can serve as a testing ground for some energy-loss (non-Doppler/Expansion) redshift mechanisms since the electron density vs altitude is known.

Various plasma redshift explanations for this phenomenon have been around for several decades.


http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/chromosphere/


Furthermore, we even have laboratory confirmation of plasma redshift, including empirical evidence that the number of free electrons inside of the plasma is directly related to the amount of plasma redshift observed:


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2608000089

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1 ... 007.12.004


In recent years we've also discovered that our own galaxy, and presumable every galaxy is surrounded by hot plasma.


https://scitechdaily.com/chandra-shows- ... milky-way/


We've also learned over the decades that space is full of dust and plasma. Why then would we not presume that plasma redshift is the real cause of cosmological redshift?


A plasma redshift explanation for the redshift/distant phenomenon noticed by Hubble does not require any violation of conservation of energy laws, and it enjoys observational support within our own solar system, and laboratory support as well.
The post was around long enough for someone to comment on it, but within a few minutes the whole thread was removed. Never did I receive any message from the moderator or anyone else as to why the post was removed, or even notifying me that the post had been removed. :(

I was extremely careful not to mention anything electric, or anything to do with electricity in space. I focused specifically and exclusively on the plasma redshift issue.

Talk about being on a short leash.

Apparently it's not just electric universe theory that they're deathly afraid of, they're apparently afraid of empirical physics in general.

You don't have to be a genius to notice the fact that the mainstream is completely incapable of defending themselves against empirical physics and the application of empirical physics to space related topics. Essentially the thread that I posted was a debate between a static universe vs. an expanding universe, and an honest debate about the actual cause of redshift. It had nothing directly to do with electric universe theory per se, rather it was about the topic of plasma redshift. Chen's paper demonstrates that plasma redshift is a real physical process and he demonstrated that redshift is related to the number of free electrons in the plasma. Center-to-limb solar redshift demonstrates that known and demonstrated plasma redshift process inside of our own solar system.

Since 99+ percent of the universe is in the plasma state, there's no way in hell that plasma redshift doesn't happen *outside* of our solar system. :)

Wow. Talk about running scared. It's not even possible to have an honest conversation about any empirically demonstrated process that pokes holes in their metaphysical Frankenstrology model. How sad for them.

Think about the kinds of topics that the mainstream can't handle in open debate. They can't handle galaxy and planetary counter rotation debates They can't handle various observations related to solar physics, like plasma redshift, and their implications related to cosmology. They can't handle an honest solar physics debate at all in fact. They can't handle Chen's lab work. They can't handle Birkeland's lab work. They can't handle an honest debate about the existence or need of dark matter or dark energy. They can't handle an honest public debate on the topic of "magnetic reconnection".

There's almost no topic related to astronomy that the mainstream can defend in a fair, open and honest public debate. They're reduced to acting like frightened little children and silencing any and all honest discussion on nearly every important topic in astronomy. What does that tell you about their model when it can't handle open public discourse on any space related topic?

Sheesh.

antosarai
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by antosarai » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:18 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:...
I was extremely careful not to mention anything electric, or anything to do with electricity in space. I focused specifically and exclusively on the plasma redshift issue.
...
Could it be the subject doesn't matter?
You know, like that western picture of yore (mid 20th Century)?
The Singer, Not the Song?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:49 pm

antosarai wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:...
I was extremely careful not to mention anything electric, or anything to do with electricity in space. I focused specifically and exclusively on the plasma redshift issue.
...
Could it be the subject doesn't matter?
You know, like that western picture of yore (mid 20th Century)?
The Singer, Not the Song?
Hmmm. I don't think so. I post on a variety of topics at /space. Most of the 'songs" I sing there are fine, but every so often they take instant offense to a particular song. :)

If it were the singer they objected to, I'd expect to be banned by now. :)

Anytime and every time that I post about topics they deem to be threatening to the LCDM model, they yank them, particularly and specifically when trying to apply empirical physics to astronomy related topics.

In this case my offense wasn't worthy of a ban and they didn't kill the singer (yet). It had nothing directly to do with electricity in space, so it's not related to that topic. It was specifically limited to the topic of plasma redshift, which is documented in the lab, and it's also a direct threat to the LCDM model. The scenario of applying empirical physics to events and space, and thereby becoming a threat to LCDM is the common denominator that always results in a yank of a post. That's the type of song that they really hate. :)

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:51 pm

Here was the reaction to that same thread at /universe:
You have been muted from r/universe

subreddit message via /r/universe[M] sent 31 minutes ago

You have been temporarily muted from r/universe. You will not be able to message the moderators of r/universe for 72 hours.
You've been banned from participating in r/universe

subreddit message via /r/universe[M] sent 31 minutes ago

You have been banned from participating in r/universe. You can still view and subscribe to r/universe, but you won't be able to post or comment.

Note from the moderators:

We do not allow soapboxing of pseudoscience. You were previously warned. This ban is permanent. If you are found circumventing this ban via alt accounts you will be reported to Reddit admins.

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/universe by replying to this message.

Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.
The previous "warning" that he's describing was my discussion of Kristian Birkeland's working cathode solar model about a month ago.

Consider the illogical nature of this response. He's calling the discussion of Chen's laboratory demonstrated observation of plasma redshift, and the observed center-to-limb observation of plasma redshift in our solar system for more than a century, and it's implication with respect to the cause of redshift in larger space, "soapboxing of pseudoscience". Keep in mind that every aspect of plasma redshift is based upon the standard model of particle physics and lab demonstrated processes in plasma. There's nothing 'pseudoscientific' about working laboratory physics. In both instances, my great "sin" was discussing empirical working models on his forum.

Now keep in mind that there's no lack for math related to tired light models. They come in as many mathematical flavors as one might imagine, and frankly I can imagine many of them physically happening in plasma over time and distance.

Meanwhile the moderator supports/protects the LCDM model, even though it violates the energy conservation laws, it is at odd with the standard model of particle physics, and it is based on 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance. Go figure.

Love the muted "nuke" option too. :)

At least there's hope over at /astrophysics. I think I'm five votes up on that forum. :)

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:06 pm

antosarai wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:...
I was extremely careful not to mention anything electric, or anything to do with electricity in space. I focused specifically and exclusively on the plasma redshift issue.
...
Could it be the subject doesn't matter?
You know, like that western picture of yore (mid 20th Century)?
The Singer, Not the Song?
In the case of /universe, it could be the singer. :)

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:10 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: In the case of /universe, it could be the singer. :)
I think they mark you with a reddit-tool.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:31 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: In the case of /universe, it could be the singer. :)
I think they mark you with a reddit-tool.
I'm sure that my reputation precedes me. :)

It's interesting to me that /space hasn't banned me yet. I'm also pleased that I seem to be accepted at /astrophysics.

The mainstream has pretty much conceded that they're incapable of winning an open an fair public debate on these topics, so even one or two mildly "threatening" posts (like this one) typically results in an instant banning. That's just sad. Unfortunately they can't handle criticism or open public debate.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Mainstream fear of empirical physics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:04 pm

My recent experiences on Reddit have really been quite enlightening, particularly the moderating patterns I observed on the /space forum.

Apparently my posts weren't considered to be worthy of a banning, or even worthy of a notification of censure on /space. Some specific topics however were carefully and quietly censored from discussion. I wasn't even informed of their removal. In both obvious cases, the free discussion of empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms were not allowed to be discussed as empirical physical alternatives to dark matter or space expansion claims. The application of Maxwell's equations to galaxy rotation patterns, and plasma redshift were both 'forbidden" topics.

Even the mere diiscussion of those topics earned me an outright ban on /universe, /astronomy, and sadly even on /physics. Oddly enough however, /astrophysics seems quite tolerant and even open minded toward such topics. There's definitely hope for that crew. :)

Whereas Maxwell's equations include both E and B components, only the B component is allowed to be freely discussed on most astronomy websites on Reddit. Alas, /astrophysics was the single exception. Essentially empirical physics is treated as "pseudoscience" and metaphysics is elevated to the status of sacred theology.

The discussion of purely empirical cause/effect (lab demonstrated) processes which might eliminate the need for exotic forms of dark matter, or "space expansion" are 'taboo" topics in astronomy today. It's really not 'just' electric universe theory specifically which they refuse to discuss. It's anything related to empirical physical alternatives to the 'big bang' model which they refuse to discuss. LCDM is essentially treated as a "sacred" belief system which may not be freely questioned, lest they cut off your head or censor your posts. :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1 ... 007.12.004

Essentially the mainstream has become completely detached from *working laboratory physics*. Their lab experiments don't work. They have been wasting time and money on one very expensive disaster after another. Their mathematical models simply refuse to work in the lab and they refuse to allow any result to falsify the big bang claim. The mathematical models are simply modified repeatedly and in a purely ad hoc (surf the gap) way. Nothing about LCMD is based upon empirical physics that actually works in the lab. For goodness sake, they can't even demonstrate the equivalent of that first video of a simplified example of Birkeland's lab work from a century ago based on "magnetic reconnection" theory.

Chen's work showed a cause/effect link to the number of free electrons present in the plasma and the amount of redshift. There's nothing mysterious as to why Hubble observed a redshift distance relationship, nor is their any mystery as to why Edwin Hubble preferred a 'tired light/plasma redshift' explanation for redshift, and a static universe.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence that cosmological redshift is a plasma redshift

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:36 pm

I should probably add info from this thread to my summary of John Kierein's material at http://cnps.boards.net/thread/41
Okay, now I did.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests