Quantized redshift anomaly

OK, let's get back to redshift.


The Big Bang as a theory is supported by three tenents: a velocity/distance redshift; observed abundance of elements; and the CMBR 2.73K temperature of space.


They BBers claim the 2.73K measurment is theirs because it follows the blackbody curve and the temperature of stars do not. (Marmet differs on this) Yet Steady state had it right long before BB.

The BBers can create the observed elements in theory, but they have difficulty explaining how the elements ended up structuring themselves as they did. Did they include transsparent H2?

And that leaves us with the redshift anomaly.

The way I understand it, according to the standard theory, light from a distant source is redshifted due to a recession velocity and distance. (But this does not mean that distant stars will appear red. The redshifting merely moved the whole scale of radiation down, so white would still look white (I think).) It is the absorbtion lines of elements that are telling. These occur at certain frequencies and with them we can measure how much redshift has occured.

The next question is how does this redshift occur? The immediate answer is a Doppler effect. The movement away stretches the light. Redshift then becomes a factor of both distance and velocity indicating that the farther a galaxy is from us the faster it is receding. This is the assumption called expansion. Expansion run backwards reduces to a point. A point beginning requires a Big Bang to make it work. (The problem here is that they have to get back to the size of the Universe quickly or else the bag bang fails to explain observations, so they Inflate it to the necessary size. Imagine all the energy needed to start from a point, expand to bigger than the universe with a heat everywhere.

The theory extrapolates backwards to a point where it then extrapolates back to a universe size so that it all will work.

If redshift were an intrinsic process, that is, has something to do with the photon itself and/or its environment, then the Doppler effect would not apply and that would mean of course no need/basis for expansion and no need/basis for a Big Bang, and that would mean no need for Inflation and radiation and cooling and the CMBR.


It all hinges on the redshift.

It is said that there are 21 versions of Inflation Theory...
It is also said there are 21 ways redshift can be produced intrinsically. When Tifft found the redshift is quantized he did not find a 22nd way redshift can occur, he found the reason we have 21 ways redshift could occur in other than doppler ways.

In other words, quantization of redhift is a falsification of the redshift-doppler theory.

If the redshift were doppler induced. the spectral lines would be smoothly linear and not the periodic that we see. If the Doppler effect were real, and what we observe is granted, then the galaxies exist in bands, with our vantage point in the center.

<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 />OK, let's get back to redshift.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Those familiar with the Meta Model are mostly persuaded that the universe is not expanding, and that redshift necessarily arises through friction with the graviton medium. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, why not read chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> and express your points of agreement or disagreement. That approach at least provides a sensible "big picture" in which one particular redshift mechanism is implied as a necessity, rather than guessing which of the two dozen current redshift mechanisms is the right one. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
... one particular redshift mechanism is implied as a necessity, rather than guessing which of the two dozen current redshift mechanisms is the right one. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ok, but looking for the interpretation of an observation, the first step is using ordinary, well known physics.
The origin of the Big Bang is the hypothesis that there are only two mechanism for a redshift of the spectral lines: Doppler effect (or expansion) and gravitational redshifts. To be Doppler-like , a frequency shift during a propagation of the light through the matter must obey the following conditions:
- 1 Space coherence to avoid a blurring of the images.
- 2 An incident wave must be transformed into a single emerging wave to avoid a blurring of the spectra; if the infinitesimal process is a scattering, the incident and scattered waves must interfere into a single wave having the same line width.
- 3 The relative frequency shift must be, at least approximately, constant. The lack of constance of the observed relative frequency shifts is usually considered as due to a variation of the fine structure constant; avoiding this last hypothesis by “approximately” seems good.
- 4 Only well known physics should be used in this first step; in particular the laws of spectroscopy and thermodynamics must be verified.
- 5 The effect must be non-Doppler. If a continuous wave source S emits an electromagnetic field received by R at a different frequency, while S emits s cycles, R receives r, so that the number of wavelengths along the path SR is increased of s-r, it is a genuine Doppler effect. Therefore, the theory must fail if it is applied to a continuous wave; consequently, the theory must contain a parameter measuring the time-incoherence of the light.

<b>It is very easy to test a theory proposed as Doppler-like using condition 5</b> (supposing that condition 1 is fulfilled). Only the CREIL effect passes the test of all conditions.

Remember : The CREIL is a thermodynamically allowed transfer of energy between electromagnetic beams refracted simultaneously by a convenient medium; usually, this transfer of energy redshifts the light and blueshifts the radio waves.
The effect (without the acronym) was found simultaneously by two experimenters in 1968, it is commonly observed on the laser pulses which carry the information in optical fibres. The experiments and the theory show that the observation of the effect becomes harder and harder when the length of the pulses increases: an experiment with ordinary incoherent light would be very expansive.
Happily the experiment was done in a big laboratory : the solar system. Between the Earth and the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, there is only the solar wind (accidentally, the corona produces an enormous, perturbating effect). The solar wind is made of protons and electrons, but, beyond 5 UA, its cooling produces excited atomic hydrogen which is a convenient medium in which the sunlight is redshifted, blueshifting the radiowaves. This blueshift is observed, generally interpreted as produced by an “anomalous acceleration”. The same blueshift explains that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic.
We are sure that the main “anomalous” frequency shifts are due to a CREIL effect in excited atomic hydrogen because the whole spectrum of the quasars (including the periodicities) is generated supposing only that the quasars are microquasars (well known, small galactic objects) surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen.

<b>There are anomalous frequency shifts where there is atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P.</b> It may be produced thermally, by a Lyman alpha pumping (close to the quasars), ...

The main default of this explanation is that it destroys marvellous concepts. Is it not science ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br />the first step is using ordinary, well known physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Few of the two dozen known redshift mechanisms involve "new physics".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The origin of the Big Bang is the hypothesis that there are only two mechanism for a redshift of the spectral lines: Doppler effect (or expansion) and gravitational redshifts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Used in that sense, there is only one fundamental redshift "mechanism" -- energy loss. All two dozen redshift mechanisms involve energy loss mechanisms of one type or another. Doppler and gravitational redshift are just two of many possibilities. Friction is an obvious third.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If a continuous wave source S emits an electromagnetic field received by R at a different frequency, while S emits s cycles, R receives r, so that the number of wavelengths along the path SR is increased of s-r, it is a genuine Doppler effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not so. If lightwaves lose energy (E), they must change frequency (f) through the relation E = hf, where h is Planck's constant. If the speed of light (c) does not change, then a change in f necessarily involves a change in wavelength (l) through the relation c = fl.

Physically, when the frequency gets smaller and the wavelength gets longer through energy loss (e.g., by friction), then cycles are being continually removed from a wave train. An obvious application is ocean surface waves, which have one frequency in open water and a lower frequency when they encounter significant friction near the shore. Another example would be waves transiting from a shallow medium into a denser medium, where again cycles are lost from the wave train.

The remaining content of your message needs revision once this point is noted and corrected. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Those familiar with the Meta Model are mostly persuaded that the universe is not expanding, and that redshift necessarily arises through friction with the graviton medium. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, why not read chapter one of Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets and express your points of agreement or disagreement. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am not trying to re-convince those already convinced that there was no expansion. I am trying to convince those who are not at all convinced, and who happen on your site. I am not trying to re-invent the evidence, I am trying to find it and put it into the record.

It may be enlightening for those convinced of the invisible and intellectually insulting impossible big bang theory to take a look at what they are saying. They make a good case, and they have the best writers making that case. I come away from their story sold. But I know better...Meanwhile, we are sitting around wondering if it would be interesting to debate which of the twenty or so explanations for redshift other than Doppler effect is our favorite? Well, after their "matter" big bang did not have enough bang to do all this, they invented a "space" big bang, and they are sitting around talking about 21 different versions of that inflation. They even got one where the singularities pop up all over the place, sound familair?

Look at what they are doing conceptually; they could not make it work starting from a point, they had to create the whole universe, and more than that, THEN it could work. BUT even so, it doesn't work out right for them, and so they invent dark matter to hold it together and dark energy to drive it apart.

I don't have your book so I can't read it. I have been looking around and have found several of your writings. I heard of pushing gravity, I push that around in my mind a lot. Recently I read how you describe these "gravitons" real real small stuff.

I don't know what you mean by "graviton." Are you saying it in the sense of a "gluon" as an actual particle? Obviouly it is some sort of relationship. Relationships do not have to be elemental like the elements of a system are, it can be relational.

I haven't studied gravity yet, but it is hard not to overhear the discussion. They talk about unifying gravity with the other three forces each of which has a gluon particle. They talk about how they can't find a way to do it. Well, it occured to me not that long ago that an atom by itself has no gravity. Gravity is something that exists inbetween atoms. Gravity is a relationship and all relationships require two relational elements. A single entity cannot be in a relationship.

So perhaps the reason gravity cannot be unified with the forces of nature is because there is no "gravity and the forces of one atom" to unify.


Interestingly I found the same logic on Paul Marmet's website. He says it differently, gravity comes "after" other forces. Think about it, if gravity is an attractive/pushing force between matter, obviously there has to be matter before there is gravity.

Gravity is the force which maintains unity between all matters. The real question is how does it interact with matter? And for that matter, the photon?

Does gravity affect (expansion) redshift?

Can you tell me, by what mechanism does the photon maintain its "energy", such that we can say that it does not lose its energy?
Isn't that what the Big Bangers are claiming, that there is no way a photon can lose energy (without scattering)? Can you imagine a photon, whatever that is, traveling for billions of years, billions and billions of years, and still going strong?

I don't think it loses energy, I think it gets stolen...

<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 />I read how you describe these "gravitons" real real small stuff. I don't know what you mean by "graviton." Are you saying it in the sense of a "gluon" as an actual particle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Definitely not. "Graviton" is short for "classical graviton". Space is filled with a flux of these ultra-smnall, ultra-fast gravitons. Then the apple falls from the tree because a graviton wind blows on it from all directions, but the Earth blocks part of the wind coming up toward the apple from below. So the net graviton wind is downward (a push).

For the basic model, see metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possi...pertiesofgravity.asp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The real question is how does it interact with matter? And for that matter, the photon?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitational force does not affect lightwaves directly. But gravity does press the light-carrying medium toward source masses, making the medium denser there. Lightwaves propagating through a denser medium travel slower, redshift, and bend by refraction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Isn't that what the Big Bangers are claiming, that there is no way a photon can lose energy (without scattering)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, but that conclusion assumes that known quantum particles are the smallest entities. However, gravitons are a million times smaller, and therefore redshift light (rob it of energy) so slowly and gradually that no significant scattering occurs. -|Tom|-