Quantized redshift anomaly

Hey Thomas! That quote you quoted me as saying wasn't my quote, sorry I didn't make the source clear. What they are saying in my words is something like "astrophysicists find yet another anomaly of the gravitational perspective."

Maybe the physicists should stick to atomics, and leave the Sun to the electricians to explain... At the least, looks to me like "they" are thinking ONLY in terms of gravity as if gravity is all of it. Until they reach the inexplicable.

I clicked on your link and found

<b><center>Gravitational Energy of the Sun explains 'Coronal Heating'
Photosphere is Cooled by Inelastic Collisions
Introduction</center></b>
From www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The fact that the solar corona has a temperature of a few million degrees has puzzled solar physicists for a long time, considering the comparatively low temperature of about 6000oK at the sun's apparent surface (the photosphere). Clearly, the laws of thermodynamics seem to rule out that a cool gas volume (the photosphere) should be able to heat another gas volume (the corona) to a temperature of several hundred times its own. Various elaborate plasma processes have been proposed that would enable charged particles in the photosphere to be accelerated to such high temperatures, but all these can still not explain how unordered thermal energy of many particles should be transformed into ordered high energy of a few particles.
However, in the course of the 'coronal heating' discussion it has apparently not been recognized that a temperature of several million degrees is in fact the 'natural' temperature of the solar plasma, whereas the photospheric temperature is the 'abnormal' one. In the following, these circumstances are examined in more detail and it will become clear that the 'coronal heating' can be explained in a straightforward way by basic plasma kinetic and atomic processes".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.

OK, solar Plasma is much hotter than GP (Gravitational Perspective) predicts. It is clear that solar flares are electromagnetic flows in space. The cover of the July 2004 National Geographic shows a photo of a solar flare on the sun, it looks exactly like a horseshoe magnet.

Question: What happens when the solar flare breaks? Answer: Current flows stops. Question: What remains? Answer: a rather huge magnetic field, once sustained by a trillion ampere current flow, suddenly has no place to exist. Question? Qhat happens next? Answer: The magnetic field collaspes, inducing further current flow in the plasma. Question: Is that a problem? Answer: A very big problem, it is like turning off a light switch stopping the current flow sustaining a magnetic field larger than the earth which then collaspes inducing a current flow with no place to go but out.

I don't know what happens next

<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>
OK, solar Plasma is much hotter than GP (Gravitational Perspective) predicts<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> As explained on my page www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm , the average temperature of the solar corona is in fact what one would expect from the gravitational energy. Solar flares or other mechanisms are not required for this. Of course, the particle energies generally associated with solar flares (which are actually up to a million times higher than the coronal energies) calls for a different explanation, but not only is the mechanism producing these extremely high energies still unclear, but it is even in question if they are produced in the flare regions at all (see lheaww$w.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/DARK7.HTML ).(you have to remove the $ in the URL which I had to put in because of the www ).

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Of course, the particle energies generally associated with solar flares (which are actually up to a million times higher than the coronal energies) calls for a different explanation, but not only is the mechanism producing these extremely high energies still unclear,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually I don't know what I am talking about, a good example of how knowing a little can be dangerous if we extrapolate this knowledge to something we do not know. I wasn't aware of the difference between solar flares and mass matter ejection.

I am also confused about the temperature above the surface of the Sun, I am sure I read it at least twice that this temperature was higher than the theory predicts.

I think it is safe to say that many processes are involved. The point I want to make is that we should not assume that gravity is responsible for everything, expecially if in doing so we disregard electromagnetic fields. Especially when it doesn't work.

Again, if there is a magnetic loop above the surface of the Sun, there is also a plasma current flow. If the magnetic loop (continuous field) is broken, the plasma current will cease, and the magnetic field will collaspe. When it collaspes, it induces a current flow which has no place to flow to. Assuming the current is protons and electrons, the result is a lot of matter literally exploding away from the Sun.

Maybe it is time to read the articles on the Sun

It would be a lot of fun to really dive into the comparitive studies of the redshift problem in attempting to analyze and formulate possible reasons for such extreme shifts over great distances (If I had more time and wasn't building a home). Some how the balloon analogy of space expanding does not sit well with me and especially does not make sense if UNIVERSE is a Matter dominated one sided lobe where Antimatter was a vestigial condition of some earlier expansion of SPACE and TIME. I would doubt that this perceived expansion could be real at the speed of light without balance and order prevailing in such a condition that at the same time allowed for an opposite anisotripic density expansion with a simular reverse explosion of SPACE going in an opposing circulation of antimatter and time wave. Also, how can SPACE expand when it is neutral and flat? Again a weak definition of General Relativity because explosions of nothingness of space into greater nothingness of space does not even make any sense.

If space is filled with bubble shells that include gravity, electrical energy dynamics, and magnetism where light speed is shifted by electromagnetic positive and negative forces, then it would not be possible to generalize a consistent speed of light and it would also follow that red shifts would be unreliable for defining distances. Quasars that are high redshifted may be newly formed high energy sources near older low redshift galaxies. The Quasar increased redshift may indicate that electromagnetic densities are anisotropic and show that light itself may vary greatly in speed near high output sources. Also, near Black Holes my guess is that light speed again would be anisotropic and contour layered with zones of blinding photonic energies streaming at increased FTL extreme speeds as you moved closer to the Galactic Hurricane eye wall. I think that you can find answers in cross checking physics across areas of science that may show how these Universal Principles of generalized processes may work on larger scales. I have found some amazing research regarding the retracing of light tunneling that indicates some reversals possible in locating light sources. In any case, we are undergoing extreme scientific evolutions in understanding and just on the horizon is energy research that will I am sure redefine how Universe Operates simply because the processes defy our existing paradigm's. The sonic luminescense in ocean creatures where by hydrogen plasmas are formed at micro levels for shocking pray is an example in nature where micro bubbles of energies are released and contained in a plasma with temperatures behind plasma wall up to 10,000 degrees. Plasmic energy and the electric Universe may form precursur neo suns that release resonance simular to a black hole with jets of antimatter from poles prior to full on fusion ignition. Catalytic hydrogen electrolysis from metals; the Searl Device which may produce a self sustaining free energy source with antigravitational tendencies creates high ionic centrifugal formed electromagnetic field of glowing plasmas that generate a centripetal inward flow of electrons; and, the lowering of the orbits of electrons in hydrogen ground state that defies existing science now show that greater processes are at work to cause a change in the charge state of matter that may have profound effects on how we utilize energy in the future, i.e., www.blacklightpower.com .

I would totally agree that the "vested interests" are presently being challenged by new ideas that may or may not be valid. However, it is only by looking at all the possibilities that we can gain insight and evolve. History always repeats its mistakes of the past until it breaks the bonds of its established conditioning. Does each generation of scientists keep repeating their own "flat earth syndrome" in protecting their ideological territories until a new generation of young thinkers again becomes the establishment? The scientific method demands neutrality and safeguards data by setting up variable analysis. However, careers are at stake so political spin of all data is biased towards existing truths.

John

Yes, it sure does look like a lot is at stake, perhaps, even, the Western scientific paradigm itself. Scientists would do well in the long run if they confront the truth instead of making it up. Our science has created for us an ediface which by all scientific reasoning should not be here. Some day the truth will out, and Western science will be caught in a lie. Science is supposed to be truthful in that the lie cannot be told. If it is possible for science to create a theory and demonstrate it as fact, when in fact the theory was destinned to be falsified is scary. "What is true is true because I say so" is what they really are saying. "And because I say so in a secret language only I and a few others understand, you have no say in the matter." Is even scarier.

I see clearly how the electric-magnetic aspects of astrophysics is being ignored. But the article in National Geographic clearly states
the role of magnetic fields in the Sun. However it didn't have a whole lot to say about electric currents. Our Sun is a star, it is the stars we are interested in at the cosmological level. Perhaps we should be learning about our star in order to learn about all of them.

I noticed too that little reference in the common literature is being made to electric currents. The gravitational people refer to the EM fields as "radiation", while the alternative acknowledges the magnetics. What we don't see in front of us, but what is there nonetheless is the flow of electric currents. The physical movement of protons and electrons, i.e., matter.

I really do not understand the General Relativity aspect of the Big Bang Theory. From what I hear Einstein's equations called for a singularity, the the Big Bnag is one way to get a singularity. But at the same time I hear something about multiple Universes, is that in the equations too? I understand that if gravity is taken into consideration alone, the Big Bang theory does not work, More stuff is needed, invisible but heavy stuff.

What if the singularity is to be found in the center of the galxay, not as a black hole, but as a white hole? Not being sucked in, but being ejected out? And what if all those multiple Universes the mathematics creates are all the galaxies, each with its own singularity? Well, mathematics, it's either that or good by forever...

Conjecture: The Steady State Thoery failed because it had no Maxwell displacement currents to connect to the batteries. Just a guess, but I betcha that if we hooked a MDCS battery up to the SST it would fly...Remember there was no such thing as a "battery" in those days...

PS It looks like the entire Big Bang theory is propped up by the assumption of an expanding Unvierse. The expanding Universe, in turn, is propped up by the addition of "C" to Hubbles equation. In other words the supporting evidence for the BB is a theory itself.

"My theory is true because I have this theory which says so..."

Redshift..The whole notion of expansion is inconsistent. On th eone hand we are expected to believe in a common everyday occurance we hear with every train whistle as an explanation of an event that boggles the mind. That space can magically expand without expanding inside the atom, yet light cannot be stretched. That matter can be pushed to trillions of miles yet slow down enough for the gravitational forces to take over from the momentun that simply became irrelevant.

Does light really exist? What is a photon anyway? How come photons always travel at photon speed? How do they do that?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would be a lot of fun to really dive into the comparitive studies of the redshift problem in attempting to analyze and formulate possible reasons for such extreme shifts over great distances (John)

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

---

They say that life is like a spirial, I remember a quote I found while at GSU back in 1974: Something like "We will move ahead in our quest for knowledge, and in the end, we will come back to where we started, and know the place for the first time."

Tom posted a list of redshift explanations
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 18:00:24

Originally posted by johnduff

Could you present a list of the 20 or so mechanisms which can cause a red shift. I can only come up with a few.

---

From Apeiron Vol. 1, #9-10, pp. 35-44 (1991):
Table 1
Non-Velocity Redshift Mechanisms
Year Originator Mechanism
1917 Einstein Electromagnetic repulsion
1929 Zwicky Gravitational drag
1937 Hubble Gravitational interaction
1949 Tolman Extended expansion hypothesis
1949 Weyl Quantum gravity
1954 Finlay-Freundlic Photon-Photon interaction
1964 Fürth Curved photon path
1972 Pecker et al. Photon-Photon interaction
1974 Hoyle-Narlikar Variable mass interaction
1975 Konitz Non-Euclidean geometry
1976 Pecker et al. Photon-scalar U-particle interaction
1976 Segal Global and local time hypothesis
1976 Jaakkola G-E coupling
1979 Crawford Tidal force in curved space
1981 Tifft Variable mass
1981 Broberg Elementary quantum interaction
1984 Ghosh Velocity-dependent inertial induction
1986 Wolf Thermal correlations at source
1986 Mathé Global and local time hypothesis
1986 Pecker-Vigier Gravitational drag in Dirac ether
Several more have come along since then, such as the graviton drag in elysium of MM. See the original reference for further details on mechanisms in the above table. -|Tom|- <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I tried to go to this list but have not found it. Maybe Tom can resend it so that the links come back.