- Thank you received: 0
The Big Bang never happened
18 years 8 months ago #14906
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
This just came out. "The findings are published in the Feb. 20 edition of The Astrophysical Journal." This article below is a journalists rendition of the original paper. They talk of the merging of galaxies, and how these mergers create huge galacies. It would be quite a different story if the galaxies are actually bifurcating...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Peering into that early period, the astronomers found a swath of what they said were violent galaxy mergers. These mergers would lead to the creation of new stars from colliding gas clouds, the researchers said.
The events would also probably feed and increase the size of black holes lurking in the centre of all galaxies, they added.
The work is helping to confirm what scientists have long suspected, Conselice said: massive galaxies form when smaller galaxies merge. “The most massive galaxies we see in today’s universe, which are passive and old, were once undergoing rapid mergers with each other,” he explained.
While distant galaxies have been studied for over a decade, it has been a mystery how they evolved into the galaxies we see today. Young galaxies have very low masses and astronomers have long been puzzled by how these systems turn into massive galaxies.
Conselice said a typical massive galaxy in today’s universe has undergone four to five mergers.
The mergers are rare today, with only about one per cent of galaxies merging, but 10 billion years ago, nearly all massive galaxies were undergoing mergers, he added. Moreover, almost all of the collisions occurred from the birth of the universe to about six billion years ago. The universe is estimated to be somewhere around 14 billion years old.
Why it stopped is a puzzle, he said. “All this merging activity was somehow curtailed by an unknown process.”
The findings are published in the Feb. 20 edition of The Astrophysical Journal.
The research may hold clues about the formation of our own galaxy, Conselice said. The Milky Way contains spiral arms, which aren’t thought to form through mergers. But at the centre of our galaxy is a huge, dense ball of stars called a bulge, featuring many old stars and a massive black hole. That probably formed through mergers, he said.
<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">Peering into that early period, the astronomers found a swath of what they said were violent galaxy mergers. These mergers would lead to the creation of new stars from colliding gas clouds, the researchers said.
The events would also probably feed and increase the size of black holes lurking in the centre of all galaxies, they added.
The work is helping to confirm what scientists have long suspected, Conselice said: massive galaxies form when smaller galaxies merge. “The most massive galaxies we see in today’s universe, which are passive and old, were once undergoing rapid mergers with each other,” he explained.
While distant galaxies have been studied for over a decade, it has been a mystery how they evolved into the galaxies we see today. Young galaxies have very low masses and astronomers have long been puzzled by how these systems turn into massive galaxies.
Conselice said a typical massive galaxy in today’s universe has undergone four to five mergers.
The mergers are rare today, with only about one per cent of galaxies merging, but 10 billion years ago, nearly all massive galaxies were undergoing mergers, he added. Moreover, almost all of the collisions occurred from the birth of the universe to about six billion years ago. The universe is estimated to be somewhere around 14 billion years old.
Why it stopped is a puzzle, he said. “All this merging activity was somehow curtailed by an unknown process.”
The findings are published in the Feb. 20 edition of The Astrophysical Journal.
The research may hold clues about the formation of our own galaxy, Conselice said. The Milky Way contains spiral arms, which aren’t thought to form through mergers. But at the centre of our galaxy is a huge, dense ball of stars called a bulge, featuring many old stars and a massive black hole. That probably formed through mergers, he said.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 8 months ago #14950
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
"Black Holes do not Exist"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Published online: 31 March 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050328-8
Black holes 'do not exist'
Philip Ball
Black holes 'do not exist'
Philip Ball
These mysterious objects are dark-energy stars, physicist claims.
© ESA/NASA
Black holes, such as the one pictured in this artist's impression, may in fact be pockets of 'dark energy'.
Black holes are staples of science fiction and many think astronomers have observed them indirectly. But according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, these awesome breaches in space-time do not and indeed cannot exist.
Over the past few years, observations of the motions of galaxies have shown that some 70% the Universe seems to be composed of a strange 'dark energy' that is driving the Universe's accelerating expansion.
George Chapline thinks that the collapse of the massive stars, which was long believed to generate black holes, actually leads to the formation of stars that contain dark energy. "It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist," he claims.
Black holes are one of the most celebrated predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects. The theory suggests that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, will collapse under its own gravity to a single point.
But Einstein didn't believe in black holes, Chapline argues. "Unfortunately", he adds, "he couldn't articulate why." At the root of the problem is the other revolutionary theory of twentieth-century physics, which Einstein also helped to formulate: quantum mechanics.
It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist.
George Chapline
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
In general relativity, there is no such thing as a 'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense.
This problem is particularly pressing at the boundary, or event horizon, of a black hole. To a far-off observer, time seems to stand still here. A spacecraft falling into a black hole would seem, to someone watching it from afar, to be stuck forever at the event horizon, although the astronauts in the spacecraft would feel as if they were continuing to fall. "General relativity predicts that nothing happens at the event horizon," says Chapline.
Quantum transitions
However, as long ago as 1975 quantum physicists argued that strange things do happen at an event horizon: matter governed by quantum laws becomes hypersensitive to slight disturbances. "The result was quickly forgotten," says Chapline, "because it didn't agree with the prediction of general relativity. But actually, it was absolutely correct."
This strange behaviour, he says, is the signature of a 'quantum phase transition' of space-time. Chapline argues that a star doesn't simply collapse to form a black hole; instead, the space-time inside it becomes filled with dark energy and this has some intriguing gravitational effects.
Outside the 'surface' of a dark-energy star, it behaves much like a black hole, producing a strong gravitational tug. But inside, the 'negative' gravity of dark energy may cause matter to bounce back out again.
If the dark-energy star is big enough, Chapline predicts, any electrons bounced out will have been converted to positrons, which then annihilate other electrons in a burst of high-energy radiation. Chapline says that this could explain the radiation observed from the centre of our galaxy, previously interpreted as the signature of a huge black hole.
He also thinks that the Universe could be filled with 'primordial' dark-energy stars. These are formed not by stellar collapse but by fluctuations of space-time itself, like blobs of liquid condensing spontaneously out of a cooling gas. These, he suggests, could be stuff that has the same gravitational effect as normal matter, but cannot be seen: the elusive substance known as dark matter.
More at www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Chapline's paper is at xxx.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503200.pdf
It reads:
Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with
quantum mechanics. Following ideas originated by Robert Laughlin, Pawel Mazur, Emil Mottola, David Santiago, and the
speaker it is now possible to describe in some detail what happens physically when one approaches and crosses a region of
space-time where classical general relativity predicts there should be an infinite red shift surface. This quantum critical physics
provides a new perspective on a variety of enigmatic astrophysical phenomena including supernovae explosions, gamma ray
bursts, positron emission, and dark matter.,
1. INTRODUCTION
The picture of gravitational collapse provided by
classical general relativity cannot be physically correct
because it conflicts with ordinary quantum mechanics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Published online: 31 March 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050328-8
Black holes 'do not exist'
Philip Ball
Black holes 'do not exist'
Philip Ball
These mysterious objects are dark-energy stars, physicist claims.
© ESA/NASA
Black holes, such as the one pictured in this artist's impression, may in fact be pockets of 'dark energy'.
Black holes are staples of science fiction and many think astronomers have observed them indirectly. But according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, these awesome breaches in space-time do not and indeed cannot exist.
Over the past few years, observations of the motions of galaxies have shown that some 70% the Universe seems to be composed of a strange 'dark energy' that is driving the Universe's accelerating expansion.
George Chapline thinks that the collapse of the massive stars, which was long believed to generate black holes, actually leads to the formation of stars that contain dark energy. "It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist," he claims.
Black holes are one of the most celebrated predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects. The theory suggests that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, will collapse under its own gravity to a single point.
But Einstein didn't believe in black holes, Chapline argues. "Unfortunately", he adds, "he couldn't articulate why." At the root of the problem is the other revolutionary theory of twentieth-century physics, which Einstein also helped to formulate: quantum mechanics.
It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist.
George Chapline
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
In general relativity, there is no such thing as a 'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense.
This problem is particularly pressing at the boundary, or event horizon, of a black hole. To a far-off observer, time seems to stand still here. A spacecraft falling into a black hole would seem, to someone watching it from afar, to be stuck forever at the event horizon, although the astronauts in the spacecraft would feel as if they were continuing to fall. "General relativity predicts that nothing happens at the event horizon," says Chapline.
Quantum transitions
However, as long ago as 1975 quantum physicists argued that strange things do happen at an event horizon: matter governed by quantum laws becomes hypersensitive to slight disturbances. "The result was quickly forgotten," says Chapline, "because it didn't agree with the prediction of general relativity. But actually, it was absolutely correct."
This strange behaviour, he says, is the signature of a 'quantum phase transition' of space-time. Chapline argues that a star doesn't simply collapse to form a black hole; instead, the space-time inside it becomes filled with dark energy and this has some intriguing gravitational effects.
Outside the 'surface' of a dark-energy star, it behaves much like a black hole, producing a strong gravitational tug. But inside, the 'negative' gravity of dark energy may cause matter to bounce back out again.
If the dark-energy star is big enough, Chapline predicts, any electrons bounced out will have been converted to positrons, which then annihilate other electrons in a burst of high-energy radiation. Chapline says that this could explain the radiation observed from the centre of our galaxy, previously interpreted as the signature of a huge black hole.
He also thinks that the Universe could be filled with 'primordial' dark-energy stars. These are formed not by stellar collapse but by fluctuations of space-time itself, like blobs of liquid condensing spontaneously out of a cooling gas. These, he suggests, could be stuff that has the same gravitational effect as normal matter, but cannot be seen: the elusive substance known as dark matter.
More at www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Chapline's paper is at xxx.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503200.pdf
It reads:
Event horizons and closed time-like curves cannot exist in the real world for the simple reason that they are inconsistent with
quantum mechanics. Following ideas originated by Robert Laughlin, Pawel Mazur, Emil Mottola, David Santiago, and the
speaker it is now possible to describe in some detail what happens physically when one approaches and crosses a region of
space-time where classical general relativity predicts there should be an infinite red shift surface. This quantum critical physics
provides a new perspective on a variety of enigmatic astrophysical phenomena including supernovae explosions, gamma ray
bursts, positron emission, and dark matter.,
1. INTRODUCTION
The picture of gravitational collapse provided by
classical general relativity cannot be physically correct
because it conflicts with ordinary quantum mechanics.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 8 months ago #14952
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>
<br />
<center>THE BIG BLACK BANG</center>
<center>A summary of the other direction</center>
<center>Tommy Mandel, Editor</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is very interesting to present the observations which show that the Big Bang theory does not work. But there is a lack of alternative explanations.
May I explain the development of the CREIL theory ?
In 1968, two authors observed frequency shifts of short laser pulses. The shifts are proportional to the path of the light through matter, and the geometry of the beams is not changed, so that, this "coherent" interaction does not blur the images. It does not blue the spectra too, in particular, the initial frequency disappears.
The theory was done, and several authors developped a spectroscopy founded on the use of ultrashort light pulses. To get a strong effect, they use strong pulses, so that the effect becomes nonlinear, but the theory applies at any light level, without threshold (the nonlinear technology is names "Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering" : ISRS (a lot of publications).
Ten years ago, I proposed to apply the effect to astrophysics, and published several papers in reviews of spectroscopy; now, I name it "Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light" (CREIL). The theory shows that, replacing the ultrashort pulses by the pulses which make the usual incoherent light, forbids the effect except in few low pressure gases, therefore weakens it, so that laboratory experiments should be very expansive.
The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams.
It seems that the most common CREIL efficient gas is atomic hydrogen in its 2S or 2P states (named H*). The redshifts appear where there is H* on the path of the light. H* is produced:
1- at very high temperature (100 000 K) and a sufficient pressure (avoiding a full ionization), very close to the kernels of the quasars.
2- around the quasars, where atomic hydrogen (10 000 K-30 000 K) is pumped by Lyman alpha frequencies. This happens around the quasars, and explains that the quasars are much redshifted, and that there are
"very red objects" (VROs) close to them. The quasars are simply "micro-quasars" surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen. (A "micro-quasar" is a type of fast-moving neutron star observed in the galaxies; it seems that it finds more hydrogen leaving the galaxies)
3- the cooling of an hydrogen plasma produces metastable atomic hydrogen in state 2S. This happens by a cooling of the solar wind beyond 5 UA. A transfer of energy from the solar light to the radio frequency explains the anomalous blueshift of the radio signals from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, and that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic.
In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.
<font color="yellow"><b>
This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !</b></font id="yellow">
<br />
<center>THE BIG BLACK BANG</center>
<center>A summary of the other direction</center>
<center>Tommy Mandel, Editor</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is very interesting to present the observations which show that the Big Bang theory does not work. But there is a lack of alternative explanations.
May I explain the development of the CREIL theory ?
In 1968, two authors observed frequency shifts of short laser pulses. The shifts are proportional to the path of the light through matter, and the geometry of the beams is not changed, so that, this "coherent" interaction does not blur the images. It does not blue the spectra too, in particular, the initial frequency disappears.
The theory was done, and several authors developped a spectroscopy founded on the use of ultrashort light pulses. To get a strong effect, they use strong pulses, so that the effect becomes nonlinear, but the theory applies at any light level, without threshold (the nonlinear technology is names "Impulsive stimulated Raman scattering" : ISRS (a lot of publications).
Ten years ago, I proposed to apply the effect to astrophysics, and published several papers in reviews of spectroscopy; now, I name it "Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light" (CREIL). The theory shows that, replacing the ultrashort pulses by the pulses which make the usual incoherent light, forbids the effect except in few low pressure gases, therefore weakens it, so that laboratory experiments should be very expansive.
The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams.
It seems that the most common CREIL efficient gas is atomic hydrogen in its 2S or 2P states (named H*). The redshifts appear where there is H* on the path of the light. H* is produced:
1- at very high temperature (100 000 K) and a sufficient pressure (avoiding a full ionization), very close to the kernels of the quasars.
2- around the quasars, where atomic hydrogen (10 000 K-30 000 K) is pumped by Lyman alpha frequencies. This happens around the quasars, and explains that the quasars are much redshifted, and that there are
"very red objects" (VROs) close to them. The quasars are simply "micro-quasars" surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen. (A "micro-quasar" is a type of fast-moving neutron star observed in the galaxies; it seems that it finds more hydrogen leaving the galaxies)
3- the cooling of an hydrogen plasma produces metastable atomic hydrogen in state 2S. This happens by a cooling of the solar wind beyond 5 UA. A transfer of energy from the solar light to the radio frequency explains the anomalous blueshift of the radio signals from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes, and that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic.
In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.
<font color="yellow"><b>
This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !</b></font id="yellow">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 8 months ago #17137
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
By the way, does anybody know what has happened to Halton Arp's website
www.haltonarp.com
? . I was browsing it just a week or two ago, but for the last few days I am just getting the holding page of the hosting company.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 8 months ago #17246
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.
This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Are you saying That Tifft was correct with his recognition of periodicity of the cosmological redshift? What Bell and Comeau observed confirmed Tifft's findings, if I understand him right. Are you saying that the redshift they are observing is due to an interaction with atomic H? If so, then you are also saying that the assumption that the redshift is a doppler effect is falsified. Would you then say that if redshift is not a measure of velocity, then expansion is not being observed? And then would you go so far as to say that if expansion is not observed, then there is no need for a big bang/inflation? And then, would you say that if there is no need for a big bang, such a theory is not part of "science?" I bet you are wondering what will take it's place, right?
So it isn't unreasonable to ask that if matter wasn't created in a big bang a long time ago, where did it or does it come from? Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion? They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right? And a lot pf plasma stuff going on, spirialing and jets and all that, right? So all this extreme energy jets/plumes/clouds/geysers,winds OUTFLOW observed coming out of galaxy is actually just that - matter is created and comes out of the centers of galaxies, right? And that much is happening right now as we speak, wouldn't you say? So now what?
We can forget wondering about plasma, that is a fact of matter well researched. We might learn about that research...What we can wonder about is what is the Aether? That will always be an interesting subject. There certainly isn't a short supply of theories about what Aether is floating around. Dirac's Sea, quantum foam, quantum ground, enough, they need these theories to explain what they observe simple as that. But even our observations of Aether are not what Aether is.
Let alone where Aether is.
This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Are you saying That Tifft was correct with his recognition of periodicity of the cosmological redshift? What Bell and Comeau observed confirmed Tifft's findings, if I understand him right. Are you saying that the redshift they are observing is due to an interaction with atomic H? If so, then you are also saying that the assumption that the redshift is a doppler effect is falsified. Would you then say that if redshift is not a measure of velocity, then expansion is not being observed? And then would you go so far as to say that if expansion is not observed, then there is no need for a big bang/inflation? And then, would you say that if there is no need for a big bang, such a theory is not part of "science?" I bet you are wondering what will take it's place, right?
So it isn't unreasonable to ask that if matter wasn't created in a big bang a long time ago, where did it or does it come from? Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion? They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right? And a lot pf plasma stuff going on, spirialing and jets and all that, right? So all this extreme energy jets/plumes/clouds/geysers,winds OUTFLOW observed coming out of galaxy is actually just that - matter is created and comes out of the centers of galaxies, right? And that much is happening right now as we speak, wouldn't you say? So now what?
We can forget wondering about plasma, that is a fact of matter well researched. We might learn about that research...What we can wonder about is what is the Aether? That will always be an interesting subject. There certainly isn't a short supply of theories about what Aether is floating around. Dirac's Sea, quantum foam, quantum ground, enough, they need these theories to explain what they observe simple as that. But even our observations of Aether are not what Aether is.
Let alone where Aether is.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 8 months ago #10378
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>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.
This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Are you saying That Tifft was correct with his recognition of periodicity of the cosmological redshift? What Bell and Comeau observed confirmed Tifft's findings, if I understand him right. Are you saying that the redshift they are observing is due to an interaction with atomic H? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes.
It seems remarkable that a pure spectroscopic study shows the parameter z=0.062. Without any spectroscopic study, you can verify that the redshifts which put the Lyman beta and gamma to the alpha are 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 respectively. The CREIL shows how these shifts and their multiples appear as lines by a simple propagation of far UV light in atomic hydrogen. The discussions about the observations done by Tifft and Bell seem serious to me and the coincidence of the values .062 appear as a proof of the validity both of the observation and of the validity of the use of the CREIL.
If you compare the explanations by the CREIL and by Lehto (used by Tifft), the CREIL explanation requires only standard physics while Lehto's introduces astonishing variations of physical constants. MOre, the Lehto explanation works only for the periodicities, while the CREIL effect explains a lot of observations: the WHOLE spectrum of the quasars, supposing only that they are micro-quasars surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen, the proximity effect, the "anomalous acceleration" of the Pioneer probes, that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If so, then you are also saying that the assumption that the redshift is a doppler effect is falsified. Would you then say that if redshift is not a measure of velocity, then expansion is not being observed?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
At least it is much smaller than supposed by the BB theory.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
And then would you go so far as to say that if expansion is not observed, then there is no need for a big bang/inflation? And then, would you say that if there is no need for a big bang, such a theory is not part of "science?" I bet you are wondering what will take it's place, right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I am not an astrophysicist. All what I say is that there are much simpler explanations of many observations than by the theory of the BB. For a spectroscopist, it is clear that most frequency shifts are due to an interaction between light beams propagating in atomic hydrogen
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So it isn't unreasonable to ask that if matter wasn't created in a big bang a long time ago, where did it or does it come from?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
HYpothesis non fingo (Newton)<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The creation of electron pairs from gamma rays is well known.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do not understand what you mean.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
And a lot pf plasma stuff going on, spirialing and jets and all that, right? So all this extreme energy jets/plumes/clouds/geysers,winds OUTFLOW observed coming out of galaxy is actually just that - matter is created and comes out of the centers of galaxies, right? And that much is happening right now as we speak, wouldn't you say? So now what?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The big outflows from the quasars were deduced from a bad interpretation of redshifts.
Although I am not sure, I think that there is a lot of hydrogen in the intergalactic space, so that the microquasars (a type of neutron stars) which are fast moving objects are surrounded by hydrogen when they leave their galaxies, therefore become true quasars. The isolated quasars are produced by our galaxy, the other by the close galaxy. (Not sure, I do not know enough astrophysics!)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We can forget wondering about plasma, that is a fact of matter well researched. We might learn about that research...What we can wonder about is what is the Aether?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We become able to use the world by science, in particular by mathematical representations. I do not know whether the fields exist physically or only mathematically. I know how to make electronics or electric motors using the fields ...
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in atomic hydrogen, the Lyman alpha absorption produces H* which shifts shorter frequencies to the Lyman alpha frequency, renewing the energy available at this frequency. It appears a nonlinear absorption/shift effect which produces stronger absorptions with a periodicity multiple of z=0.062.
This theoretical result, deduced from old spectroscopy, is exactly what is observed by Bell and Comeau !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Are you saying That Tifft was correct with his recognition of periodicity of the cosmological redshift? What Bell and Comeau observed confirmed Tifft's findings, if I understand him right. Are you saying that the redshift they are observing is due to an interaction with atomic H? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes.
It seems remarkable that a pure spectroscopic study shows the parameter z=0.062. Without any spectroscopic study, you can verify that the redshifts which put the Lyman beta and gamma to the alpha are 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 respectively. The CREIL shows how these shifts and their multiples appear as lines by a simple propagation of far UV light in atomic hydrogen. The discussions about the observations done by Tifft and Bell seem serious to me and the coincidence of the values .062 appear as a proof of the validity both of the observation and of the validity of the use of the CREIL.
If you compare the explanations by the CREIL and by Lehto (used by Tifft), the CREIL explanation requires only standard physics while Lehto's introduces astonishing variations of physical constants. MOre, the Lehto explanation works only for the periodicities, while the CREIL effect explains a lot of observations: the WHOLE spectrum of the quasars, supposing only that they are micro-quasars surrounded by a cloud of hydrogen, the proximity effect, the "anomalous acceleration" of the Pioneer probes, that the anisotropy of the CMB is bound to the ecliptic...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If so, then you are also saying that the assumption that the redshift is a doppler effect is falsified. Would you then say that if redshift is not a measure of velocity, then expansion is not being observed?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
At least it is much smaller than supposed by the BB theory.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
And then would you go so far as to say that if expansion is not observed, then there is no need for a big bang/inflation? And then, would you say that if there is no need for a big bang, such a theory is not part of "science?" I bet you are wondering what will take it's place, right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I am not an astrophysicist. All what I say is that there are much simpler explanations of many observations than by the theory of the BB. For a spectroscopist, it is clear that most frequency shifts are due to an interaction between light beams propagating in atomic hydrogen
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So it isn't unreasonable to ask that if matter wasn't created in a big bang a long time ago, where did it or does it come from?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
HYpothesis non fingo (Newton)<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The creation of electron pairs from gamma rays is well known.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do not understand what you mean.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
And a lot pf plasma stuff going on, spirialing and jets and all that, right? So all this extreme energy jets/plumes/clouds/geysers,winds OUTFLOW observed coming out of galaxy is actually just that - matter is created and comes out of the centers of galaxies, right? And that much is happening right now as we speak, wouldn't you say? So now what?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The big outflows from the quasars were deduced from a bad interpretation of redshifts.
Although I am not sure, I think that there is a lot of hydrogen in the intergalactic space, so that the microquasars (a type of neutron stars) which are fast moving objects are surrounded by hydrogen when they leave their galaxies, therefore become true quasars. The isolated quasars are produced by our galaxy, the other by the close galaxy. (Not sure, I do not know enough astrophysics!)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We can forget wondering about plasma, that is a fact of matter well researched. We might learn about that research...What we can wonder about is what is the Aether?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We become able to use the world by science, in particular by mathematical representations. I do not know whether the fields exist physically or only mathematically. I know how to make electronics or electric motors using the fields ...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.446 seconds