Quantized redshift anomaly

SPECULATION/HYPOTHESIS
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What if the singularity is to be found in the center of the galxay, not as a black hole, but as a white hole? Not being sucked in, but being ejected out? And what if all those multiple Universes the mathematics creates are all the galaxies, each with its own singularity? Well, mathematics, it's either that or good by forever...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center> <font size="3">Isaac Asimov "The Universe" 1966 Page 280
103rd Street The Bookie Used Book Store </font id="size3"></center>

"Further investigations of this sort made the map (of the Galaxy) more intricate, but then the technique became obsolete in the light of the 21-centimeter radiation. Suddenly, it became possible to work for much larger distances with in the Galaxy and in much greater detail. Maps were prepared of the spiral structure of the Galaxy, and one could begin to think of it, schematically, as a rather symmetrical double spiral.

Nor is the cold, neutral hydrogen gas of the Galaxy static. Studies by Oort and Van de Hulst seem to indicate that the hydrogen gas flows outward from the center to the outskirts of the system at a surprisingly rapid rate. Oort estimates that the quantity of hydrogen transported each year from the center outward is equal to the mass of the Sun. This flow of gas outward is outward along the spiral arms according to some speculation, serve to keep the arms in being, maintain their rich supply of gas and their ability to form new stars. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how the source of the hydrogen at the center persists. It should have run dry long ago, unless there is a general circulation by which the supply at the center can be replenished, perhaps at the expense of a gigantic "halo" of hydrogen gas that seems to encompass the Galaxy generally. What keeps the hydrogen circulating is not known as yet. "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

CONCLUSION

I guess this question "What if the singularity is to be found in the center of the galxay, not as a black hole, but as a white hole? Not being sucked in, but being ejected out?" is not as speculative as it first appeared. A White Hole would be a plasma driven electromagnetic resonance of ions and electrons intertwined to such a degree that circulation is sustained from the INSIDE.

FLASH - It has been discovered that space has color. It is only slightly tinted - actually .0000000000000000000000000732 saturation. The tint is red - of course.

Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 12:59:55

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy
The Big Bang Theory is a theory of these gravitaional forces derived from equations

---

(Thomas)
The point is that according to the cosmological principle (which assumes homogeneity and isotropy of matter) there should actually not be any overall gravitational force on any object in the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel. In this sense, the fundamental equations for the Big-Bang theory are already fundamentally flawed.

<hr noshade size="1">
Yes, I have come to understand this too. In the strict sense, the Big Bang Theory does not work out. Moving particles will continue to move the way they are moving. Adding fluctuations in order to make it work? What kind of science is that? I think that the mistake is very simple. It is not that gravitational laws are wrong, it is that gravitational laws are not all of it.

The problems the standard theory runs into is perhaps due to the exclusion of the electromagnetic flows. The prevailing theory finds itself trying to account for what electromagnetics does in terms of gravity. As if gravity were all of it.

We wouldn't have to explain expansion if there were no expansion to explain.

In order for gravity to explain the Universe, it would have to come from noplace at a point, and from this nothing expand everything faster than light can keep up, slow down without leaving skid marks, group together in vast structures and include extra invisible dark matter to make it all work. I don't know how they are going to explain why Galaxies eject matter the wrong way, maybe they figured we wouldn't notice.

If all the matter of the Universe were within a singularity, why would that be any different from a Black Hole? So what does it take to explode a Black Hole? That's what it would take, in theory, to make a Big Bang.

Just to add to the confusion, the Swartzchild radius of the universe is on the order of 10^9 light years, depending on the mass of the universe you like. So how did it manage to expand up to this time?

johnduff

Hey Tom! I couldn't resist telling Sarfatti about redshift, and he didn't hesitate calling me every name in the book. So I answered him, using data I got here, a quote from Kuhn anout alternative theories, included your introduction and told him what I thought. Well, his software cropped my too long letter just before AI got to your quotes, and deleting everything I had to say. So now I will have to write it all over again. Problem is that I do not know what the alternative theories are. I hear a lot about plasma, but that is more of a completion than an alternative. Gravity does play a part in cosmology, so it would be a misnomer to use "alternative." It seems to me that EMF is being ignored on the cosmic scale. For example, don't they say the jets seen with some Galaxies are caused by gravitationally induced radiation? Obviously they are electromagnetic current flows in conjunction with gravitational effects. So a lot of the cosmology within the Big Bang theory is not wrong per se, it is just missing crucial parts of the total picture. On the other hand, there are aspects of the BIg Bang theory that are wrong and need to be eliminated such as expansion from a point. I wonder what the cosmology would look like if we looked at it as it is NOW. What is Gravity doing NOW? What is EMF doing NOW? Is the CMBR something that is happening NOW? What if matter is being created NOW?

Anyway, this is a great and maybe only opportunity to get a word in edgewise to the Big Bang Believers. I think I did a good job with the anomalous redshift stuff, obvioudly the computer didn't like the rest of it. So, what is the alternative to the Big Bang cosmological theory?

Here's my reply to Jacks
reply

Tommy Mandel
Tommy's cosmological research
Wed Mar 16, 2005 00:39
205.188.117.9


(Tommy)
But my reading of the history indicates that there are numerous alternative redshift explanations, some of them flatly contradict the Doppler interpretation. And instead of attempting to refute them, mainstream science bans the research and the data.
(Jack Sarfatti)
[Your understanding of this is naive and confused. You should take real physics courses. Your ideas here are crackpot with no real contact with the actual scientific reality.]

(Tommy)Well I can read...
quoting
"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors." Brian Martin, Stamping Out Dissent, Newsweek, 26 April 1993, p.49-50.

---

I may be naive, but if I am confused whose fault is that? Is everything from nothing supposed to make sense? And even then you have to inflate it, deflate it, and add 90% more stuff, none of which can be seen, in order for it to work out the way you say it works out. Am I supposed to be able to understand that?

Science is doing science, and doing "sane" science starts with observing then abstracting, lest one abstract first and then observe only then through the abstraction (filters). What you see is what you look at.

quoting:
"Arp is an observational astronomer. He won his spurs as a graduate student in the 1950s measuring thousands of images of the stars in globular clusters, work which helped lead to derivations of the ages of those stars and thus of our Milky Way galaxy. He went on to compile "Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies," which became a classic. His familiarity with extragalactic objects, those beyond our Milky Way, is probably unmatched.

For about 30 years Arp's most important observations have been under academic ban; they contradict cosmological orthodoxy. That orthodoxy has denied observing time on the big telescopes to Arp and others who make discordant observations. It has excluded their most important discoveries from major journals. As far as the popular press is concerned, this small heroic band of observers just don't exist; their observations go unreported.

If you thought that the hard sciences are immune to philosophical irrationalism, you thought wrong. Today's academic science is as wedded to obsolete dogma as the church of Galileo's time, and is equally willing to ignore observation.

About 10 years ago Arp wrote his first book: Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. He hoped that a comprehensive presentation of the evidence would lead professional astronomers to turn their instruments on the many objects which contradict current theory. Arp's immediate purpose failed; his book became a list of topics and objects that professional astronomers avoided at all cost. Like the bishops of Galileo's time, professional astronomers refused to look through the telescopes."
www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html
__________________---


I have references

Here is a link to a good general introduction to alternatives to the redshift velocity interpretation problem,

---

quoting:
Most galaxies' spectral lines are shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum.

Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the more distant the galaxy, the larger this "redshift." Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. For that reason, the redshift is usually expressed as a velocity in kilometers per second.

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift v.s. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships."
www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
___________________________


quoting
3 --- Defective Evidence.
Support for the Big Bang theory has been built upon three main kinds of evidence:
First, the Big Bang assumes that the observable universe is expanding. Proof of this is offered by interpreting the redshifts of remote galaxies and many other systems as Doppler shifts. Hence these redshifts "prove" that these systems are all flying away from each other.
Second, the Big bang theory predicts the cosmic abundance of some light elements like helium-4, deuterium, and lithium-7. The available evidence of cosmic abundances is said to confirm the predictions.
Third, Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow in 1948 used the Big bang theory to predict the existence of a low temperature background radiation throughout the universe at 25 K as a relic of the initial Big Bang explosion. A background radiation at a temperature of about 3 K (emitting radiation 5000 times less intense, see Planck's law) has indeed been discovered(2), and is being interpreted as the predicted relic.
Finally, in addition to these kind of evidence, it is claimed that the Big bang hypothesis agrees with Einstein's theory of relativity.
The support afforded by the Big bang model by these four arguments is, however, only apparent and does not withstand a serious detailed analysis. In fact, the observational evidence from astrophysics is more in keeping with the model suggested by this author of an unlimited universe.
www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
__________________________

Here is the Tifft paper:

public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf
Sorry, my computer won't copy it for me

Here is the confirmation paper:

---

THE DISTRIBUTION OF REDSHIFTS IN
NEW SAMPLES OF QUASI-STELLAR OBJECTS
†G. Burbidge & W.M. Napier
†Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and Department of Physics, University of California, Mail
Code 0424, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0424
#8727;Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG, U.K.
ABSTRACT
Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations #8804; 10#8242;#8242;, and the second consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with a periodic separation of #8764; 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in these three datasets at an overall significance level 10#8722;5 - 10#8722;6, and appears not to be explicable by spectroscopic or similar selection effects. Possible interpretations are briefly discussed.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
_______________________

And another one



Further Evidence for Quantized Intrinsic Redshifts in Galaxies: Is
the Great Attractor a Myth?
M.B. Bell1 and S.P. Comeau1
ABSTRACT
Evidence was presented recently suggesting that the Fundamental Plane (FP) clusters studied in the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral (Sc and
Sb) galaxies, and 36 Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) galaxies. We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same uantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
________________________________

And another one:----
Statistical Analysis of the Occurrence of Periodicities in Galaxy Redshift Data
Authors: Cocke W.J.1; Devito C.L.2; Pitucco A.3

Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 1996, vol. 244, no. 1-2, pp. 143-157(15)

Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Abstract:

We investigate some of Tifft's recent statistical analyses of periodicities in extragalactic redshift samples. The values of the periodicities are refinements of those predicted by Lehto. The redshifts have been corrected for the apparent motion of the solar system relative to the cosmic background radiation and have been filtered by applying criteria such as 21 cm profile width and redshift. In all cases except one, our Monte-Carlo simulations show general agreement with Tifft's results. However, we find that one of his analyses is weakened by applying an inappropriate Bernoulli-trials statistic. We apply a new, more straightforward statistic that shows high statistical significance for some of the periodicities. We conclude that although some of Tifft's procedures seem to be open to some criticism, the periodicities are present at a level that is statistically significant.
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/...8j6qmjjr6bp.victoria
___________________________


________________________________



And here is yet another somewhat more detailed introduction, has ajenda though
THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY

Barry Setterfield & Daniel Dzimano

15th December 2003.


"If the redshift of light from distant galaxies is due to the behaviour of atomic emitters within those galaxies as a universal phenomenon, it can only be in response to the changing properties of the vacuum. The key property of the vacuum that is universal and implicated here is the Zero Point Energy (ZPE). The outcome of this line of investigation is that the behaviour of the ZPE allows a formula for the redshift to be derived that is the same as the relativistic Doppler formula, but without it having anything to do with space-time expansion or the motion of galaxies. Furthermore, the observed size of Tifft’s basic quantization can be reproduced. "
from: www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
_______________________


The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta

Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry

Abstract

Re-examination of general relativistic experimental results shows the universe is governed by Einstein’s static-space-time general relativity instead of Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-space-time general relativity. The absence of expansion redshifts in a static-space-time universe suggests a reevaluation of the present cosmology is needed.

For many decades the Friedmann-Lemaitre space-time expansion redshift hypothesis has been accepted as the Rosetta of modern cosmology. It is believed to unlock the mysteries of the cosmos just as the archaeological Rosetta unlocked the mysteries of ancient Egypt. But are expansion redshifts The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta?

Until now this has been the consensus because of their apparent, most impressive ability to uniquely explain how the twentieth century’s two great astronomical and astrophysical discoveries—meaning of course the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR)—can be accounted for within the framework of a hot big bang universe. But this consensus is not universal. For example, Burbidge and Arp continue to note that while most astronomers and astrophysicists accept the hot big bang and attribute extragalactic redshifts to expansion effects, they continue to ignore the minority view that certain observations, such as anomalous quasar redshifts, imply the need for a different redshift interpretation, and perhaps a different universe model as well.
xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9806/9806061.pdf
______________________



From Apeiron Vol. 1, #9-10, pp. 35-44 (1991):
Table 1
Non-Velocity Redshift Mechanisms
Year Originator Mechanism
1917 Einstein Electromagnetic repulsion
1929 Zwicky Gravitational drag
1937 Hubble Gravitational interaction
1949 Tolman Extended expansion hypothesis
1949 Weyl Quantum gravity
1954 Finlay-Freundlic Photon-Photon interaction
1964 Fürth Curved photon path
1972 Pecker et al. Photon-Photon interaction
1974 Hoyle-Narlikar Variable mass interaction
1975 Konitz Non-Euclidean geometry
1976 Pecker et al. Photon-scalar U-particle interaction
1976 Segal Global and local time hypothesis
1976 Jaakkola G-E coupling
1979 Crawford Tidal force in curved space
1981 Tifft Variable mass
1981 Broberg Elementary quantum interaction
1984 Ghosh Velocity-dependent inertial induction
1986 Wolf Thermal correlations at source
1986 Mathé Global and local time hypothesis
1986 Pecker-Vigier Gravitational drag in Dirac ether
________________________________
Conservation of Energy in a
Static Universe
Alexey Shlenov
Budapeshskaya 66-1-77
192286 Leningrad
USSR
An analysis of contradictions in the theory of universal
expansion leads to the conclusion that the universe is
stationary and Euclidean, and that the cosmic redshift is not expansion-related. As an alternative explanation for the
redshift, an exponential redshift-distance relation based on
conservation of energy is considered.
more at:
redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00N11PDF/V0N11SHL.pdf

__________________________________________

The difficult discrimination of Impulse Stimulated
Raman Scattering redshift against Doppler
redshift
J. Moret-Bailly
July 8, 2004
Pacs 42.65.Dr Stimulated Raman scattering, 94.10.Gb Absorption and scattering of radiation, 98.54.Aj Quasars
Abstract The Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering (ISRS) is a parametric light-matter interaction which shifts the frequencies of two ultrashort laser light pulses by a non-quantified transfer of energy. As ISRS has no threshold,
the laser pulses may be replaced by the pulses which constitute the ordinary incoherent light. This replacement has the expected qualitative effect on the time constants required to observe ISRS: nanosecond collisional time and Raman period. It has also a qualitative effect, the frequency shifts become independent on the intensity; thus we use a new name for this avatar of ISRS: ”Incoherent
Light Coherent Raman Scattering” (ILCRS). The coherence makes ILCRS very different from the ordinary Raman effect
proposed as an alternative to Doppler effect in the past: ILCRS is a stronger light-matter interaction, it does not blur the images, nether the spectra; the beams which receive energy are in the thermal radiation. The shifts of the spectra produced either by a Doppler effect, or by ILCRS
are very similar. However ILCRS is subject to a dispersion which perturbs slightly the spectra. ILCRS is the key of a model of quasars which explains all observations, without any new matter or physical theory: no fast moving cloud,
no dark matter, no variation of the fine structure instant, no invisible object. The redshifts and the thermal radiation produced by ILCRS should not be neglected a priori.
arXiv:astro-ph/0110525 v4 4 Feb 2002


Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
by Paul Marmet

In papers published about a decade ago, the author and colleagues predicted the widespr

Ironically, Sarfatti's software cut the letter at this point, leaving out Tom's "was there a beginning?" and my entire theory. And that is just as well because what got through was just the facts.

Scientific American published a book "book of the Cosmos" edited by David Levy, which includes essays from many of the original participants of cosmological research from Einstein and Schroedinger up to Linde.

I wonder how many remember that joke Americans used to laugh at, "Oh, the Russians will probably say they discovered it first." Well, here we are and it sure looks like the joke is on us. Linde, who is Russian, is the one to have developed "The New Inflation THeory"

In the article on inflation, Guth makes the point that the Big Bang theory did not work out. It was falsified from the very beginning. Inflation is actually a new theory meant to replace the Big Bang theory at the beginning. The point was made that once inflation is done, the Big Bang theory kicks in again. However, the time before inflation is observationally lost to us forever.

Sounds like instead of a Universe starting at a point and emerging from nothing, Inflation gives us a ready made Universe with a beginning that is inexplicable.

And all this is based on the assumpotion that the placement of "c" in Hubbles equation is an accurate description of reality. Yet the velocity comp9onent of Hubble's equation was not observed, it was added in.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[In a letter by Hubble to the Dutch cosmologist Willem De Sitter in 1931, he stated his concerns about these velocities by saying "... we use the term 'apparent velocities' in order to emphasize the empirical feature of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority." www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/expan.html ]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is not clear to me at this point exactly what the standard theory is. It appears that the Big Bang IS NOT the prevailing theory. Perhaps this is where the Expansion Balloon comes in. Inflation, however, as a physical event requires the suspension of our laws of physics, It can only occur "before" our laws kick in. And, what happens before expansion is lost forever.

The New Inflation, however, said by Linde to be based on particle theory, does include a Scalar field. And he talks about multiple inflations...

But no where in the book is anything other than gravity considered. No mention is made of Plasma. No mention is made of ElectroMagnetic fields and current flows, and magnetic attractions and connected charges. And if they do mention it, it is called "radiation." And somehow the radiation is being interpreted as a consequence of gravity.

Is the standard theory a theory of gravity? Where the beginning starts with a suspension of the laws of gravity until the right size is achieved, then the laws of physics kick in?

Seems like whenever they try to establish a beginning they are forced to start with nothing...