Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">however, if for instance a blackhole were to be produced anyway, then i think that the magnetic field would compress to the point, that it would FLOW BACK into the Cosmic Plasma Electromagnetic energy state(high energy,non-particle). which in time, would weaken this magnetic field because the flow of Cosmic Plasma would, slowly absorb this field into its own flow, which is at a vertex point between the magnetic field and the Cosmic Plasma flow. therefore diminishing the magnetic field, in time. this then does not allow for a "whitehole" to exist. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, I am thinking of a White hole in a different sense, instead of a Black hole sucking everything up into one neutron, I am thinking the opposite, that the While hole is spewing out stuff.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

yes i know.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Keep in mind that matter, and here is where Puthoff is right, is an energy interchange with a plenum they call the ZPE. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

plenum, what does this mean? i'll be darned if can find it in any dictionary that i have! science or otherwise! is your spelling right?


So I am just wondering which way a galaxy is moving in real time. In or out?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

out

Tommy

oops,found the meaning of, plenum. tried again just to make sure i could not find the meaning.

Tommy

plenum, what is your applied meaning?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Keep in mind that matter, and here is where Puthoff is right, is an energy interchange with a plenum they call the ZPE.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

plenum means, in our case, "space considered as fully occupied by matter: opposed to vacuum".

where does "interchange" come in? interchange of what exactly? he does not mention this. nor do you.

he brings the universe down to absolute zero and there is still energy, no surprise. no where are Cosmic plasmas mentioned. is he also ignorant of their existence?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">plenum means, in our case, "space considered as fully occupied by matter: opposed to vacuum".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I hope I didn't say that -- the plenum is space fully occupied by energy." Big difference.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">where does "interchange" come in? interchange of what exactly? he does not mention this. nor do you.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I will forward his letters and an article explaining all this. The word I like to use is interface. So what this is depends on the interface being presented.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">he brings the universe down to absolute zero and there is still energy, no surprise. no where are Cosmic plasmas mentioned. is he also ignorant of their existence? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

OK, What Puthoff has done is show that there is an interaction between a moving electron and the INSIDE of empty space, which sustains the electrons movements. One can look at all matter this way. Electric plasma's are made of ordinary matter (electrons) and in our case plasma is just one among many different ways to see it. I would say that the flow of plasma is away from the center, and not toward it. And that the source of plasma is the INSIDE of empty space.

A plasma model would be a special case/application.

Here are the original letters that make this paradigm shift clear to me in the scientific sense...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In a message dated 5/31/99 4:39:07 PM, Thommandel writes to the quantum-mind list.

&lt;&lt; ...Which reminds me of a question: Does an electron radiate energy while in its "orbit?" I understand that it does at least enough to create magnetism. I also understand that the electron does not decay and fall into the nucleus because it is locked in its orbit, it can't fall. But that doesn't explain where all this energy is coming from to keep it in orbit whether or not it can fall in the first place. I think that all subatomic particles are fed energy continuously from the INSIDE of space.
tom &gt;&gt;



[Hal Puthoff ]

This is explained in my paper: H. E. Puthoff, "The Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D vol 35, p. 3266, 1987. It is as you say: absorption of energy from the vacuum fluctuations just balances radiation due to acceleration in the orbit. The balance exists (and is stable) only for the Bohr-orbit ground state.



[tom] &lt;&lt; So what you are saying is that all radiated energy from atomic particles is balanced by an energy input from the vacuum!? How come this wasn't touted as a great discovery of quantum physics? tom &gt;&gt;



[Hal Puthoff]

Among a certain group of physicists (those interested in the physics of vacuum fluctuations) it is touted. I have provided over 500 reprints. A nice "tout" was presented in the 9 Jul 1987 issue of New Scientist, p. 26, in an article titled "Why atoms don't collapse."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Subj: RE: The DIAMONDS children play with...
Date: 6/5/99 1:04:34 AM Central Daylight Time
From: jfirmage@uswebcks.com (Joe Firmage)
To: Thommandel@AOL.COM

I agree that this is a seminal piece of work. The true nature of "energy in Space" (more to the point, the very *definition* of "Space" and "energy") will soon be demonstrated to represent the greatest paradigm shift in physics since Galileo, with similarly staggering philosophical implications.

In the process, the presumed limits of humanity's reach across the Cosmos --and by unequivocal implication, those of extraterrestrial life -- that have been in place for 90 years will be swept away.

This group will find particularly interesting the first installment in the ISSO's Internet public science education series, to be presented in July 1999. This kickoff for the series will compare and contrast a small, select number of complementary physics models that I believe are the harbingers of the sweeping scientific revolutions we're about to witness. Dr. Puthoff's analysis is one those that will be featured.

Joe Firmage<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">