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 />we do not see a battery pack connected to al atomic particles, so isn't it logically reasonable to infer that this source of energy is not outside the atomic particle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, that is faulty reasoning. One external energy source is gravitons, which flood the visible universe. These are far too small to be detected by existing human instruments (by about a factor of a million). Yet they are so numerous and fast that they power all atoms -- producing nuclear forces, motions, orbital jumps, photon emissions, radioactive decay, etc.

One of those logical principles I alluded to is that neither substance nor motion can be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing. (That would require a miracle.) Rather, it can only change form as substances encounter other substances and either accrete into larger bodies or break up into smaller ones.

BTW, when talking basic fundamentals, "energy" is not a useful concept because it is just a combination of the more basic concepts of substance and motion. Current physics sometimes equates energy with something mystical, which is not helpful to understanding nature. -|Tom|-

Not to change the subject--- [!]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The zero point field (zero point energy) was known in the 19th century and was mainly used by dowsers to justify their charlatanism."[?]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

One of my friends from long ago worked for the sanitary district in our town. Once I saw him working on the side of the street I was driving on. I stopped to say hello. I noticed as I walked up to him that he was carrying a dowser stick. Laughing, I asked him what was he doing with that?[)] He said he was looking for a sewer line. "You mean it works?" I replied. "It sure does, just as good as our electronic locator. And it doesn't need batteries."[] I was speechless. Then his partner commented, "I have a friend who doesn't believe it..." Sure enough, a few months later he was called in to locate a water shutoff valve in the alley. And he brought out the dowser and they did in fact find it buried underneath the asphalt.. He said it works with plastic too, empty or full of water. [8D]I don't believe skekptics who do not believe this or that anymore...[xx(]

<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>
[No model to explain the nature and origin of existence? You would cede that territory to religions?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Now, our study of the Earth is limited to around 5 billions of years. Saying that we study the Universe through quasars is absurd because the quasars are accreting neutron stars. Therefore, I say: beyond 5 billions of years, I do not know what the universe was, discussing about a beginning is not more serious than discussing about the sex of the angels.
We do not know whether entropy works or not at the scale of the Universe; maybe, studying the neutrinos better will help, but now it is 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 Tommy</i>
<br />... atomic particles such as electrons are not inert bit of stuff, but are forms of energy that are doing something. ... these bits of energy radiate energy away. ...
So my question at this moment is have I framed the statement correctly?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The accelerated electrons emit an electromagnetic field, but this DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY RADIATE ENERGY:
The field emitted by an electron interferes with existing fields, well represented by the stochastic zero point field if there is no close source. The balance of energy is zero for an electron on a Bohr trajectory. (this result is obtained using the mean value of the zero point field; taking its fluctuations into account, Lamb's shift is needed). If an electron leaves its Bohr's trajectory for an other, the balance of energy is a quantum (+ or -).

<i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
I don't believe skekptics who do not believe this or that anymore.../quote]50 years ago, a good French physicist named Rocard believed this. A lot of experiments were done, with other physicists, searching water, gold, ... . The result was absolutely negative.
It appears that looking for water to dig a well, people use the shape and the nature of the soil, the vegetation which grows, the sound of the steps,... but they are not aware of this help; they move their stick in accordance with their unconscious deduction.

1. It's interesting that almost all of the experiments which were used to disprovew this or that were conducted by skeptics who did not believe or worse disbelieved to begin with. Obviously the unconscious has a role in dowsing. But I saw it work and there is something about experience that supercedes the appearance/theory.

2. I wonder why the skeptics do not seem to mind when some scientists claim that suddenly the universe came into being, and somehow there was this point of infinite energy, and in order for it to work it had to get to the size of the univese today, even bigger, and it did this in a split second, and then all the matter in the Universe was formed which then accidently got together even though all of it was moving in opposite directions and accidently formed us which is made of accidently formed asymmetrical structures. So I can't believe the skeptics either.

3. Tom says that the atomic particles are formed of gravitons. OK, let's say that this speculation is true, what are gravitons formed of?

3. JMB says that atomic particles do not radiate energy but they do have a magnetic field (some of them) Yet this magnetic field can interact with other fields. Are you saying that it doesn't require any energy to do this? That atomic particles can exist without any energy? That these bits of energy are not energy? I think you understand my real question, please don't circumvent it. A photon is a bit of energy, by that I mean it is energy doing something, how does it do this something forever?
4. Tom says gravitons, so where does the graviton get its energy?
5. A president of a French astronomical Society once said that the more and more he looks at pictures of spirial galaxies, the more he is convinced that they are rotating outward. Considering that some of them if not all of them have two arms, I have come to believe this too. What evidence is there which proves that they are in fact rotating inward which in turn implies that matter is falling inward as the standard theory assumes.
6. But if the galaxies are rotating outward, much like one of those spinning fireworks displays, then this would imply that matter is moving outward from the center which in turn implies that instead of sucking matter into a black hole, matter is being sprewed out from a while hole. Exactly what we observe...
7. So if gravitons supply the energy needed to sustain atomic particles or whatever they really are, then wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that a vast collection of them say at the center of a galaxy, would be the source required to produce huge amouhts of matter?
8. I once read that our Sun was a plasma Sun, that all the atoms were s*****ed of the electrons. If this is so then all stars are also plasma stars, and all galaxies. Do the planets have more "mass" than the Sun?
9. Does forever have a beginning?
10. If the space of the universe is expanding, doesn't this mean that "distance" between object in that space is also expanding? So it would seem that the distance between orbiting bodies would also expand and over a period of several billion years alter that orbit dractically. OK, they say that gravitationally bound object "selfcorrect" but how would that wrk? It would amount to gravity changing the orbit.
11. The CBR is said by the BB gang to be a remnant of the early big bang event. BUT isn't there an intrinsic temperature of space as well? So, it would seem that part of the measurement would include this intrinsic temperature but if they admit that there is such a thing they would be contradicting their estimates which are the same as measured. They trapped themselves in a contradiction wihch they deny by claiming that there is no intrinsic temperature of space. Please don't say that my words are not the correct ones, they probably are wrong, but you get the idea.
12. Does the photon lose energy or not? My friend says "I think it may be that those who infer expansion from red shifting are assuming no dissipation of the light. As a thermodynamicist, I have to suppose that that must be wrong. All energy dissipates.