Quantized redshift anomaly

Well North, I finished the book "The Big Bang Never Happened" and learned a little about plasma. I found the June 2004 issue of National Geographic today at my daughters house, with extensive pictures of the Sun. It is worth going to the library just to see those astonding pictures of the sun in detail never before seen. It is clear that the Sun is driven by plama fields, the pictures are crystal clear about that. So is the article itself. Seems, also, their, the sun scientists, big mysterious "anoma;y" is that the sun is hotter a little bit away from it...Plasma? Or is that the over unity heat King says is found around plasma? Betcha. Thank you for hitting me over the head with Plasma.

In Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened" plasma is offered as an alternative to the standard model. Lerner tells us about the magnetic and electric fields surrounding the flow of electron and ion flow in plama. Because the proton is heavier than the electron, their relationship in the flow tends to isolate them such that their rotation is skewed,
The pinch effect is when these filaments of plasma current flow move together and merge because of the interaction of botyh electric and magnetic fields.

Cosmic evidence of these filaments can be seen in large structure geometry.

Lerner also makes a point about deductive theorizing, where the model is constructed first and the measurments later made to fit. For example, Hubble found a relationship between distence and redshift. This was his observation. But then he made an assumption and added c, the speed of light. It is the theory, not even that, an additon to the theory, that says redshift indicates a Doppler redshift, not the observation. I think the proof of Doppler is merely the initial assumption in different clothes. We measure A when we measure with A, so A must exist.

Psst, North, I've been listening in at the other camp. Where all the authorities are. They think of themselves as "battle scared but victorious." Well, the cracks are beginning to show. Here is a copy of their last comment that I copied over.
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
(Jack Sarfatti)
I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise,

(Brian D. Josephson)
I'm afraid it is. It is because science is an authority-based enterprise that cold fusion is regarded as non-existent despite the fact that many experiment(er)s have demonstrated otherwise (see e.g. lenr.org, newenergytimes.com)

Brian

* * * * * * * Prof. :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

---

<hr noshade size="1">
What is cold fusion? How did I know you were going to ask that quetion? I'm just guessing...In terms of plasma...I don't know, I think they have a special material, very pure, which they then place in a chamber. Then a current is applied. Here is where the strange thing happens, I think, the atomic structure of the pure material gets filled up and the result is anomalous or extra heats what they call "over-unity." to put it in a stumbling way. I wonder if they are setting up a plama current event, which would also explain over-unity ness....

As usual, the authorities suppressed this research, declared it false and that is that. Meanwhile there have been hundreds of reppications, so there is something going on in that sense. These fellows are also looking at plasma because in certains situations, plasma can be over-unity. It can put out more than is put in.

Back to the plasma sun

Well, North, looks to me like there are two ways to approach cosmology, from the viewpoint of gravity or from the viewpoint of EM fields. Or maybe it is both.

Approaching it from a gravitational viewpoint, the deductive application of Einstein's General Relativity to the cosmological question of how does the Universe work requires a singularity of infinite density which will then expand to the present. There are problems with this hypothesis, the Universe doesn't look like it has/is expanding. And the only piece of evidence is not direct evidence, but something that was added on as if it were part of the original observation. We observe a redshift, we do not observe a velocity component, that was added later by the inclusion of c in the original Hubble equation.

(My question, if you want to save General Relativity, is to not make the assumption that a singularity can only occur once. What if there were many singularities? What if there is a hot singularity in the center of the galaxy?)

Meanwhile, the alternative explanation, based on direct observation of existing phenomenon, is the electromagnetic interpretation. Stop and think for a moment, all atoms are electromagnetic in nature, atoms form molecules by linking the EM fields in specific ways. All matter is this linked togetherness of EM fields. So it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the Universe works the same way on the cosmological level.

"How are stars born mommy?"

to be continued

<font size="3"><center><b>Whipping Plasma Filament Tipology</b></center></font id="size3">

So exactly how is a star born?

I would have to say at this point that both Gravity and Electromagnetics is involved in a stars birth and developement When I look through the library book of cosmology which is using standard cosmological theories based on gravitation, I run across words like "radiation" but only in passing. Interestingly, what is stressed most often is the dangers of radiation, with no mention of what good they are. That sounds very familair...

I am now ready to form a theory, a hypo-thesis, of how a star forms.

Remember the story about the Scandinavian power company having problems with it's huge mercury plasma diodes exploding? What was happening, as determined when Alfven was called in, was that the plasma could only sustain a maximum current flow, above which current ceased rather than merely level off. Consider the miles and miles of transmission line with a huge amperage at extremeely high voltages, and suddenly the current stops. Well, the magnetic field then collaspes, and in doing so inducts a huge current flow now being blocked by the blocked diode. But the current has to go somewhere and it does as the diode explodes.

Now, consider a plasma filament in an arm of a spirial galaxy, that is perhaps a trillion times longer than our Scandinavian transmission line, with a very high electron plasma current flow. Imagine that at some point this filament breaks, say like a horse whips cracks, the whipping action snaps the filament free, and the current flow abruptly stops. What happens next? The rather large magnetic field collaspes, inducing a current flow break or no break. And just lke the diode explodes, the tip of the free filament "explodes".

I don't know what it would do after that. Maybe the result would be a charged body, highly negative, which would then attract positive protons (ions) Maybe the flow continues and the effect is like filling a ballon with water from a hose. At some point gravity would begin to have an effect, perhaps separating the elements t begin with.

It is somehwat amazing to me that the idea of an electromagnetic influence at the cosmological level is considered "alternative theoriy" as if a gravitational universe wouldn't need electromagnetics. Surely the involved scientists are aware of the role of electromagnetics in the structure of matter and living forms...

Looks to me like the cosmological battle is really about what happens after placing all the eggs in one basket. The Big Bang theory is a deductive theory derived from Einstein's General Relativity which requires a singulartity which would be confirmed by a Universe that had a beginning, and the beginning was this singularity. The Big Bang is not derived from observation but from theory.

The only problem is that the actual observations were not consistent with the Big Bang Theory. So the theory has been changed many times over, until it appeared to agree with observations. But anomalous observations are increasing daily, faster than they can be explained.

Something is going to break...

<font size="3"><b><center>Electrical Birthing of Stars</center></b></font id="size3">
From

www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00current.htm

Mar 04, 2005

Popular ideas about star and planet formation have received a jolt from a recent peek into the womb of a newly forming star. The shock came from the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory as it peered into a star-forming region called R Corona Australis, about 500 light-years from Earth.

The astronomers who investigated the region were well schooled in the standard “nebular hypothesis” of star and planet formation. The theory holds that stars are born in the “gravitational collapse” of vast precursor clouds over great spans of time. Based on their model, astronomers had assumed that the cloud was “between 10,000 to 100,000 years into the process of gathering itself together”. Its temperature was estimated at 400 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (minus 240 Celsius). Traditional theory says that millions of years will pass before the cloud has collapsed sufficiently to “ignite the nuclear fusion” of a new star.

Investigators had not anticipated anything comparable to the events they observed. Extremely high energies were at work, strong enough to produce X-rays—something that could never occur in an inactive and diffuse cloud in space: “ The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers,” states a report by SPACE.com. “The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars," said Kenji Hamaguchi, a NASA-funded researcher at the Goddard Space Flight Center.

The gravity-driven universe is, of course, the bedrock of popular cosmology. Now it has failed another test. “The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for,” the report states. According to Michael Corcoran of NASA Goddard, a co-author on the report, "The X-ray emission shows that forces appear to be accelerating matter to high speeds, heating regions of this cold gas cloud to 100 million degrees Fahrenheit". By comparison, the superheated corona of the Sun measures at about 2 million degrees Fahrenheit.

What is happening inside R Corona Australis? The investigators concluded that “some previously unrealized energetic process, likely related to magnetic fields, is superheating parts of the cloud, nudging it to become a star”. We’ve seen this many times before: a new discovery evokes statements of surprise, and magnetic fields are mysteriously factored in to save appearances—but with no mention of the electric currents that create magnetic fields. How does this happen?

It happens because electricity is re-defining the physical universe, while conventional astronomers hold steadfastly to an electrically neutral, gravity-only universe. No official acknowledgement of this crisis has ever been issued by mainstream institutions. Yet without electric neutrality across the plasma of interstellar and intergalactic space, popular cosmology loses its foundation. Not only the gravity-based models, but everything conjured through the magic of gravitational mathematics (from dark matter and dark energy to black holes) will evaporate.

This has been a very interesting experience for me anyhow. It's as if everything I learned in my lifetime was meant to be put into use in this study of cosmology. Actually the thrilling part of it is that I could understand it. I could see it.

I never paid much attention to the Big Bang, I had my own ideas. But I didn't know the extent of the Big Bang theory's influence on science. And while I had some primative notions of what the Big Bang was, .

The alternative I had in mind to go up against the Big Bang was a version of the steady state model. But in a very nebulous way. I haven't studied steady state yet, it just sounds better than Bang Bang. I never even heard of the Electric Universe before North pointed it out for me

I can understand electromagnetics because I was an electronic technician, and we are talking very simple current flow here. BUT the primary difference between "plasma" and the ordinary electric current flow we see lighting our bulbs, is that plasma is an integration of both electric and magnetic fields in such a way that protons and electrons move separately, and since one is heavier, one side moves faster and there is the twist of spirialing plasma. This doesn't happen in a wire. There can be electrical or there can be magnetic, but both are constrained by the circuitry. Plasma is electric current flow in space without the mechanical limitations of physical circuitry.

Electro-Magnetic Fields. What we are talking about is basic electricity and magnetism. Electricity is measured by a charge in relation to a neutral ground. THus it is either negative or positive, depicting which direction the electrons are moving in. This charge is known as voltage as in 12 volt battery. This voltage is a measurement of the current across a resistance. One volt moves one amp through one ohm according to ohms law.

Maxwell studied these parameters of electrical and magnetic fields and gave us the famous four Maxwell equations which have been used since in all electromagnetic field equations. They are not as simple as Ohm's law.

But Maxwell also included a timy term in his original equations which he incorporated in order to make the equations consistent. The term was tiny, but the mathematics involved 20 quaternions to solve. Maxwell called this tiny current displacement currents, and they were to connect the Ether to the fields. But the Ether did not survive, and with it, Maxwell's tiny displacement current was simplified out.

Thomas Kuhn, using Maxwell as an example on his explanation of scientific revolutions, wonders, "...perhaps we shall someday know what these displacement currents are."

What they are is a doorway to the battery compartment of the Universe.
And where is that? Everyone knows the battery compartment is inside someplace...

Maxwell's displacement is that tiny current which connects the electric&lt;&gt;magnetic fields to their source.

There is a source. All matter is but electron fields interacting together. Fields are moving and moving is energy. Energy does not come from nowhere and what goes out must come in. This much is known. All matter-fields are sustained through the Maxwell displacement currents by a non-local plenum of high energy potential known by many different names. This much is to be learned.

I have a prediction to make. This prediction emerges out of my new model of cosmology. My prediction is that the new theory of cosmology, the theory that will replace the Big Bang theory, will be understandable by everyone.
<hr noshade size="1">

<center> </center>

Compter simulation by schrliver and DeRosaof of plasma streams of the Sun on January 14 2004. In Nnational Geographic July 2004

<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>
The astronomers who investigated the region were well schooled in the standard “nebular hypothesis” of star and planet formation. The theory holds that stars are born in the “gravitational collapse” of vast precursor clouds over great spans of time. Based on their model, astronomers had assumed that the cloud was “between 10,000 to 100,000 years into the process of gathering itself together”. Its temperature was estimated at 400 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (minus 240 Celsius). Traditional theory says that millions of years will pass before the cloud has collapsed sufficiently to “ignite the nuclear fusion” of a new star.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> The point is that part of the kinetic energy gained in the gravitational collapse of a gas cloud is turned into heating the latter, which in turn will stop the collapse eventually unless there is some kind of cooling mechanism. Present theories assume molecules to be responsible for this, but this process is rather ineffective at the high temperatures that develop as the cloud contracts (molecules tend to be destroyed at temperatures much higher than 10000 K or so). I have in fact suggested that inelastic collisions with highly excited atomic states are responsible for the cooling, not molecules (see www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/starformation.htm ). This could explain not only the discrepancy you mentioned (as the suggested mechanism will result in a much faster contraction), but it is basically also the explanation for the high temperature of the solar corona ( www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm )

---

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