Quantized redshift anomaly

A. You state that "recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured ", can you confirm this for me? Is it a fact?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Thomas)Sure it is a fact. In order to actually geometrically notice that a galaxy is receding you would need to wait a few million years at the very least (so practically speaking an expansion theory would actually not be verifiable).

This should not distract from the fact though that in my opinion the concept of a general recession is theoretically flawed in the first place (see my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm ).

---

B. It was stated: "the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations." Can you confirm this also? Is Doppler redshift an assumption?



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(JMB) Yes, but there are not only physical explanations (The CREIL effect), but lab observations, using lasers too. The CREIL effect is an increase of the entropy of a set of EM beams simultaneously refracted in a medium containing neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or 2P. Thus, generally, the light is redshifted while the radio waves are blueshifted. This last blueshift explains the "anomalous acceleration" of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What both of you are saying then, is that expansion is not happening. Or at least, the evidence for expansion does not exist. Is there any evidence being brought forward in support of expansion? If so, can the observations be explained otherwise? Without expansion, there is no reason to extrapolate backwards, no reason to suppose a beginning of time at a point, no reason for Inflation, and no basis that stars/galaxies evolve by the collection of matter. Is this true?

I see, JMB, you have already answered my question last year. at metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=773 which I have copied, in part, below.

Hubble suspected, and Tifft showed us redshift that is not Doppler related. To both of them the cause was unknown, and it looks like you are provided us with the solution to that unknown. Here is the part that I find interesting about your dialogue, especially the part about plasma creating matter. You wrote

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Topic author: JMB
Subject: Doppler-like effects
Posted on: 14 Dec 2005 03:22:57
Message:


Looking for a light-matter interaction which may be confused with a Doppler effect, but which is not a Doppler effect.

The following conditions must be fulfilled:

1) The effect must be SPACE-COHERENT to avoid a blurring of the images. In a space-coherent effect, the wave surfaces are preserved because it is an interaction between a light beam and a large set of particles. Example of space-coherence: the refraction.

2) The effect must be PARAMETRIC to avoid a blurring of the spectra. A parametric effect is a space-coherent effect in which the exchanges of energy with the matter are infinitesimal. This is possible if, during an interaction, the state of the matter is not stationary. As the matter must return to its initial stationary state after an interaction, at least two light beams must interact. Thus, the matter plays the role of a catalyst to allow an exchange of energy between simultaneously refracted light beams.

3) The exchanges of energy between the electromagnetic beams must obey the two laws of thermodynamics. Second law: the flood of energy must be from hot to cold. The electromagnetic beams have a temperature deduced from Planck's law. Usually, the light is hot, the microwaves are cold. A heating (resp. cooling) produces a blueshift (resp. redshift).

4) To exclude a genuine Doppler effect:

Suppose that a source S is a continuous wave laser, from which a cell R receives a lower frequency, the condition of space-coherence being fulfilled, so that the path of the ray is well defined between S and R. While S emits m cycles, R receives n, so that the number of cycles between S and R is increased of m-n. The number of wavelength between S and R is increased of m-n, that is the distance is increased, the effect is Doppler.<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">
Originally posted by Jim

JMB, What does it mean when you say reject EMF? EMF is the force behind the total electromagnetic spectrum including all the light beams you want to fool around with so how do you then suggest this?



I consider only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, excluding the gamma region where Maxwell's equations in the vacuum fail. With this hypothesis, thermodynamics is good.
It is not necessary to consider the gamma region to explain the "anomalous" red- and blue-shifts. It is possible that studying the gamma region, thermodynamics fails, allowing the creation of matter, for instance, but this is too complicated for me.

A principle of science is "reductionism", that is explaining more with less hypothesis. Effects obeying the conditions I wrote (CREIL, light-plasma interactions) allow to explain a lot of anomalous red- and blue-shifts with ordinary, usual physics and trivial astrophysical hypothesis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmmm, one can carry this further and even say that with ho Doppler redshift, and no expansion, and no Inflation there is no big bang.
No dark matter, no dark energy, no black holes, imagine, all those very mysterious theoretics, unnecessary, not required, sliced away by Occum's razor. All of that reduction, the entire big bang ediface forever gone, and it all depends on one little thing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is possible that studying the gamma region, thermodynamics fails, allowing the creation of matter, for instance, but this is too complicated for me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's all we need folks. To be able to somehow create matter with/by plasma. Show that and we have a way that matter is created in the center of the galaxies, and all that stuff astronomers are telling us is outflowing matter/energy is exactly that. And the black hole is exactly what it looks like - a white hole. And we all can watch it all happen right now.

And I think it can be done. Forget what doesn't exist, begin with what is happening.

Hi Tommy!

Last thing I heard, Uranus didn't have much heat output, but Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune did. I wonder whether the source that says otherwise about Uranus, might be in error. If so, then the lack of heat output might be related to Uranus' unusual axis of rotation.

- Joe Keller

Sorry Joe, didn't mean to send you off on a wild goose chase, I was thinking about this claim by Hoagland

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the Hyperdimensional Model, the Sun's primary energy source -- like the planets' -- must be driven by its total angular momentum -- its own "spin momentum," plus the total angular momentum of the planetary masses orbiting around it. Any standard astronomical text reveals that, though the Sun contains more than 98% of the mass of the solar system, it contains less than 2% of its total angular momentum. The rest is in the planets. Thus, in adding up their total contribution to the Sun's angular momentum budget -- if the HD model is correct -- we should see the Sun following the same line on the graph that the planets, from Earth to Neptune, do.



It doesn't.

The obvious answer to this dilemma is that the HD model is simply wrong.

The less obvious is that we're missing something ...

Like ... additional planets (above)!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2a.html

Do you have any idea of what he is talking about?

Hmmm, one can carry this further and even say that with ho Doppler redshift, and no expansion, and no Inflation there is no big bang.
No dark matter, no dark energy, no black holes, imagine, all those very mysterious theoretics, unnecessary, not required, sliced away by Occum's razor. All of that reduction, the entire big bang ediface forever gone, and it all depends on one little thing.


quote:

---

It is possible that studying the gamma region, thermodynamics fails, allowing the creation of matter, for instance, but this is too complicated for me.


I have spent a long time investigating this cosmology thing, over a year, ok, a short while, and I have reached some conslusions.
When I first joined this forum, I had no knowledge of cosmology other than what I read in Science Digest or some mag like that. Actually I was looking into plasma balls of light which I had thought were the cause of many crop circles. That was the conclusion I reached after my investigation of those "inexplicable" circles of geometry. Plasma!

Plasma is a phase of matter in which the electrons are s*****ed from the nucleons such that they are separated but yet are able to flow together as a current flow. All the stars are made of plasma, and much of the stuff inbetween is plasma. Plasma is not a conjecture or theory any less than liquids, solids and gases are theories. Many people do not think of that, and they assume it can be rejected.

I didn't know that 99.9% of the Universe is made of plasma a year ago, but I always thought that those vast clouds of whatever they were did not look like gravity to me. So I am not surprised. Oh, the coronospere anomaly? NASA says magnetic reconnection, but I think it is magnetic whiplash, like the ignition system in your car, points open, magnetic field collaspes, voltage goes up, spark happens.

I was prodded into investigating the big bang theory. Tom said I had to learn it in order to criticize it. I guess. Well, my conclusion about that is that because a redshift Doppler does not happen, and therefore the Expansion is not happening, and therefore a beginning is not inferred, and therefore there was no impossible Inflation necessary to get it all back to where we are now. and they don't know how baryogenesis works anyhow, the whole thing is worthless. Yes, it feels much better knowing what I am talking about.

Tom, I got an idea, haven't fully formed it yet. Not my idea actually, heard it said before, something about going around the big bang. I can taste that now. It will be impossible to battle the big bang theory in a frontal attack. They have precisionized their mathematics. But their entire theory is baseless, once Doppler redshift is really explained. So couldn't it be argued that the big bang should be literally forgotten? Why bother even trying to compare us with them. Forget them, find out what needs to be explained, then explain it using the generic cosmology.

I tried to propose generic cosmology as an entry to Wikipedia, they told me to get a life. Well, I notice you used the term in one of your tables so you know what I am driving at. Very simple, while the big bang theory can be disregarded, gravity has stuck around. So that means plasma and gravity. I think that perhaps all the theories have something about them that is actually true. And I suspect that almost every scientist who works with what is true tries to extend what is true to things not so true. And there is where he fails. So I wonder if there isn't something about each of the alternative cosmologies that is absolutely true, and I wonder if all that which is true could be collected together into a generic cosmology? What if all that we know is true were collected together, what kind of cosmology would that create?

tommy

Hi Tommy!

Thanks for your worthwhile comments (JMB too). I looked at the "enterprisemission" link. I myself independently noticed the rather faulty rotational angular momentum - luminosity relation in summer 2003 and mentioned it in a talk to the ISU Math Dept. Oct. 2003, but the chart on the link is copyright 1998 and cites a 1980 source. Here are the post-Voyager intrinsic luminosity data:

Earth 7.3 or 5.9*10^(-12) W/kg
Jupiter 1.76 or 1.65 (He settling correction, see below)*10^(-10)
Saturn 1.52 or 1.06 (He settling correction, Stevenson)*10^(-10)
Uranus 3.92*10^(-12)
Neptune 3.22*10^(-11)

Saturn may have helium/hydrogen settling, producing 30% of its observed internal power, assuming an exponential decline from 25% to 15% surface He, over 5 billion yr (based on DJ Stevenson, Science 208:747, 1980). Uranus and Neptune do not need this correction because they are &lt; 20% H & He (JI Lunine, Annual Review of Astronomy & Astrophysics 31:217, 1993), and because their gravity is weaker. Jupiter's surface He is depleted only 5% (WB Hubbard et al, Ann. Rev. of A & A, 40:122, 2002) vs. 40% for Saturn; Jupiter's gravity is stronger, but its high core temperature permits settling only, perhaps, halfway down (JE Klepeis et al, Science 254:986-989, 1991). So my guess is 5%/40%x2=1/4 the W/kg from He/H settling on Jupiter vs. Saturn.

The first number for Earth is using 44 terawatts for Earth's internal power; the second number is using 1/5000 of total incident solar radiation. Giant planet values are from Voyager (JC Pearl & BJ Conraith, J. of Geophysical Research, Supp., vol. 96 p. "18,929", i.e. 18929, Oct. 30 1991, Table 7, penultimate line).

The "Pioneer deceleration" force, a = 8.1*10^(-8)dyne/gram (JD Anderson 1999)(a more recent estimate, by another investigator, is about 5% less), might act like friction to cause some of the heat output of rotating planets. The direction of the force, for space probes moving inertially, isn't exactly toward the sun; it's antiparallel to the probe's velocity relative to the inertial frames infalling from infinity toward the sun. For the distant Pioneer probes, that's about the same thing as toward the sun. For the Ulysses probe, attempting to fit the data with a force simply toward the sun, caused a somewhat larger apparent force with larger apparent error bars. For a photon, it's about the same thing as antiparallel to the photon's velocity, because the inertial frames, even of galaxies, infall at speeds &lt;&lt; c. Hence the Pioneer force gives the Hubble redshift, as observed by Aladar Stolmar (internet, 2000). If the rather unusual matter of white dwarf stars, is dragged by the Pioneer force as it spins, the resulting power output would correspond roughly to their observed temperatures.

For the rotating, supported (accelerated) mass of planets, suppose the rest frame moves at speed v along a line to the center of the galaxy (approximately Sagittarius A). If a mass element has rotational speed w&lt;&lt;v with axis perpendicular to that line, its frictional power output averages (2/pi)*w*m*a. I made a speed correction, e.g. sqrt(0.3307/0.4) for Earth, for planetary nonhomogeneity (PGJ Irwin, "Giant Planets of Our Solar System", Springer 2003). I used theta = 60, 90, 57, 16, and 75 for these planets in outward order, for the factor sin(theta) which accounts for non-perpendicularity.

I multiply by (fine structure constant, i.e. alpha)^2. The possible origin of this factor is that only the atomic electric field is dragged by the Pioneer force in this situation. The virial theorem for the Bohr model says that in a hydrogen atom the electric field of the electron has mass-energy equal to alpha^2 times the mass-energy of the electron, and the field of the proton is more massive in proportion to the proton's mass, because the proton's orbit is smaller. This gives, with my slide rule,

Earth 5.95
Jupiter 1.67
Saturn 1.01
Uranus 8.76
Neptune 3.58

(exponents same as above).

Jupiter's axial precession would negligibly affect its sin(theta); Uranus' tilt and distance, and Neptune's great distance, would seem to make their precession slow enough for temperature equilibration to keep pace. Earth's prediction should be increased 10%, to 6.5, for averaging sin(theta) over the precession circle.

Uranus' predicted value depends keenly on the direction to the effective galactic center. An accepted value for the sun's apparent galactic motion, is toward galactic longitude l=88 (BNG Guthrie & WM Napier, MNRAS, 1991, 253:533-544, p. 535). Small changes in the galactic longitude of the effective galactic center, little affect Uranus' present theta, but putting the center at l=87-90=-3 would imply that Uranus' pole recently has precessed through it. If then Uranus' characteristic cooling time were equal to 16/2=8 degrees of precession (a half-billion yr), the predicted present luminosity would be halved, to 4.38, barely outside the error bar.

Assuming that Neptune is identical with Uranus, its cooling time would be equal to 12 degrees of its precession. Using the precise value of Neptune's theta, together with this cooling time, predicts 3.51 for its luminosity.

If Saturn were identical in size and composition with Uranus, its cooling time would be just long enough that sin(theta) could be averaged over the precession circle, giving 1.105, instead of the present value which is near the cyclical minimum. Although distance and pressure is greater within Saturn than within Uranus, Saturn is hotter and made of lighter elements, so its cooling time might be less. So, the predicted luminosity, corrected for He settling and for precession, could be anywhere in the range [1.01,1.105] for Saturn. These revised predictions for Neptune and Saturn use the new position of the galactic center inferred from Uranus.

The difference between rms radius and mean radius, is 3% (resp. 6%) for a homogeneous sphere (resp. disk). So polar flattening (10% for Saturn, 6% for the other gas giants) is negligible. For a spherical Gaussian distribution, rms/mean is 1.08; this could account for the (4.38-3.92)/3.92=12% and (3.51-3.22)/3.22=9% errors of Uranus & Neptune, resp.

- Joe