Quantized redshift anomaly

More
16 years 8 months ago #11136 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Let me restate the question:

Is there any evidence for expansion other than red shift related observations/assumptions?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 8 months ago #20658 by tvanflandern
<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 />Is there any evidence for expansion other than red shift related observations/assumptions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The strongest expansion evidence other than redshift (which can be caused by many things) is supernova data. Until two years ago, this appeared to show "time dilation", which would indicate that redshift was a velocity effect. However, we now know that, when the supernova data is corrected for Malmquist bias (see the Meta Research Bulletin for details), the apparent "time dilation" effect goes away, proving that the universe is not expanding. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 8 months ago #18170 by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<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>

ANYWAY, my question is what would observations show if the Hubble-did-not-believe-Doppler-red-shift measurement were removed from the books?

A. No beginning of eternity
B. No Production of energy from nothing
C. No need for Dark Energy
D. No tremendously large stars
E. No need for impossible physics
F. The falsification of decades of scientific research
G. The loss of a million jobs
H. The loss of respect for science
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A. ?
B. yes
C. yes
D. yes
E. yes
F. yes. The best example is the use of the PRINCIPLES of quantum mechanics which are absurd. Evidently, considered as a phenomenology, quantum mechanics is good.
G. Not necessarily. Lots of useful works could be done in place of absurd ones.
H. yes

About F:
There are lots of falsifications in quantum mechanics:
- The wave-particle duality. The solution of this problem partly solved by de Broglie's "double solution". It is fully solved by the solitons. The problem exists only for (LINEAR waves)-particle duality.
- Quantum electrodynamics is absurd; it is founded on the identification of the energy in a "normal mode" of the electromagnetic field with the energy of a quantum harmonic oscillator. But nobody gives the definition of the normal modes for the EM field: Assuming, as usual that the EM field is linear (with Schwarzshild-Fokker trick), there is an infinity of complete sets. Some authors choose arbitrarily a set (Fourier basis, for instance), other refer to acoustics where normal modes may be chosen because linearity is a first approximation.
- Quantization of light. It works only for systems which perform a transition between two stationary states. When light or magnetic fields "dress" atoms, the absorbed energy may be very low and its result may be observed by Stark or Zeeman effects.
- EPR experiments, for instance "quantum cryptography", are useful to get money from bankers. Classical electrodynamics works always well introducing the zero point field and using 1917 Einstein principles for emission and absorption.
- Superiority of quantum electrodynamics over classical electrodynamics. Many beautiful experiments were done to demonstrate this, but the demonstrations require wrong classical demonstrations. All optical observations are done through detection of energy which is a nonlinear (quadratic) function of the field. Thus, to make a good computation, it is necessary to compute the field WITHOUT ANY ADDITIVE CONSTANT. Presenting at Berlin academy, a paper of Nernst in 1916, Planck recognized that the formula he gave in 1900 was wrong, and that the correction he gave a few years later was wrong too. Nernst's work was published at least 10 years before the birth of quantum theory which is said the source of the zero point field !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 8 months ago #17832 by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The temperature of the solar corona and plasma is not the same of the temperature of liquids solids and gases. Its too bad this duel use of a property is poorly understood and there is a need to fix this so as to be less puzzled less distracted by false issues like the corona being millions of degrees and the solar surface 6,000.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree: Speaking of temperature, it is usually assumed that the observed object is at equilibrium. When it is not the case, a lot of temperatures may be defined: for light, a temperature may be deduced from Planck's law, so that a bright line is hotter than a dark background ...
Is the temperature of the laser diode that you have in your disk reader thousands of kelvins ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 8 months ago #14391 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Obviously, the prevailing theory will not be replaced until a suitable replacement is proposed. One proposal has to be the production of energy/matter. That is to say it would be very useful if a/the source of energy could be identified. For example Maxwell's equations describe the behavior of electromagnetism, but they do not identify the source of this energy. He proposed and many after him that the source is the scalar field. Unfortunately, many different names have been given to this field probably because each of them was selected for a particular appliction. The most common is the ZPE, but the ZPE seems to be a physical force evidenced by the Casimir force, that is, the ZPE in this case has a wavelength. My question is can we say with certainty that there is "a kind of force" from which all matter (which is actually a moving/charged energy field) receives a sustaining energy? AND can we say that this field which is inside space can produce/source matter/energy? Because if it can be shown with certainty, then it can be speculated that energy/matter is produced at the center of a galaxy. This in turn would explain why Black holes are observed spewing energy/matter OUTWARDS, and why the rotation of a galaxy is outward and not inward as is commonly viewed.
And why the galaxies simply do not look like they are sucking up stuff.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 8 months ago #14188 by tvanflandern
<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 />Obviously, the prevailing theory will not be replaced until a suitable replacement is proposed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As should be evident this far into the discussion in this thread, a Big-Bang-replacement model that answers all your new questions, and many more like them, already exists. It is the Meta Model, the model around which this web site and discussion board are based. The best exposition of it appears in the first five chapters of "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets" (North Atlantic Books, 2nd edition 1999).

It is presently the only cosmological model that does not require magic or miracles at some stage. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.326 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum