Quantized redshift anomaly

Tom, I find it very difficult and effectively impossible to find further information on your theory on your website here. It has been a long time since I tried to look but if I recall correctly some of your pages are locked down. And as far as your book is concerned, 1999 is a long time ago, cosmolocally speaking, and apparently it is mixing several of your theories. I suggest that you post a summary page on the web and write a new book which is limited to your alternative cosmology. What I am trying to do here is start all over, introducing knowledge that we already know. It would seem, then, that we would end up where you are at. On would hope. I have a friend who is interested in this stuff but refuses to even access this forum let alone dig deeper. At the very least could you please post the appropriate links to your pages. I especially would like to see your views on plasma, because if we factor out the unecessary Dark Energy needed to explain away the anomalous expansion, 99% of the universe is composed of plasma. The big bang theory is gravity based, derived from General relativity, which I understand does not take electromagnetism into account. I also understand that high energy cosmic rays can create matter if it interacts with plasma components. I also read about experiments conducted in basements which are shown to create excess energy albeity just a small amount. IF it can be done in basements, seems like it can be done in stars too. A black hole is observed by the OUTFLOWING of energy/matter, contrary to the assumption that black holes suck matter in. This is explained away by a mechanism (accretion disk) which reflects excess matter back outward but that theory doesn't hold up with black holes having no excess surrounding matter to suck in. So can we agree that there is in fact a form/lind/state of energy which exists in what can be called INSIDE of emepty space, i.e., a fifth dimension as Maxwell called it?

<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 />I find it very difficult and effectively impossible to find further information on your theory on your website here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's in the book, and augmented by several articles in the Meta Research Bulletin. The Meta Model for cosmology not on the website, which contains only a fraction of Meta Science in all fields.

If you don't have a good technical library at your disposal, have you considered an inter-library loan?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It has been a long time since I tried to look but if I recall correctly some of your pages are locked down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what that means. The only part of the site not accessible to everyone is the Members Only area of this Message Board.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And as far as your book is concerned, 1999 is a long time ago, cosmolocally speaking, and apparently it is mixing several of your theories.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The first edition was published in 1993. What decent cosmology hasn't aged and been tested for at least a decade?

I don't know what the "mixing" remark refers to.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suggest that you post a summary page on the web and write a new book which is limited to your alternative cosmology.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not a bad idea. I will consider it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">99% of the universe is composed of plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">By volume, perhaps, but certainly not by mass. In the Meta Model, there is no need for "dark matter" or "dark energy", so we see most of the mass of the universe within range of our telescopes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">can we agree that there is in fact a form/line/state of energy which exists in what can be called INSIDE of empty space, i.e., a fifth dimension as Maxwell called it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Five dimensions are an essential part of the Meta Model. The fifth is mass/scale, and no space is trule empty in MM.

The main thing that distinguishes MM from all other cosmologies is that MM is not based on assumptions, whereas all others are. MM is deduced from first principles, whose only premise is "no miracles allowed". -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><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 />Obviously, the prevailing theory will not be replaced until a suitable replacement is proposed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">... the Meta Model ... is presently the only cosmological model that does not require magic or miracles at some stage. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do not think that science needs a cosmological model. When we cannot understand an observation, the right way is not making a religion, but saying: up to now, we do not know how to explain, speaking of an "origin of the Universe" is meaningless.

Personally, I try to explain astronomical observation using well verified laws of optics and an elementary model, a very hot source in a cloud of hydrogen; if the source is an acreting neutron star, it is a quasar, if it is a supernova, it is SNR1987A. No other hypothesis, no new physics, and a remarkable similarity between the theoretical result and the observations (spectra and pearl necklace of SNR1987A, spectra of quasars)

<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 ZPE seems to be a physical force evidenced by the Casimir force, that is, the ZPE in this case has a wavelength.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The zero point field (zero point energy) was known in the 19th century and was mainly used by dowsers to justify their charlatanism. It is a consequence of the properties of the classical electromagnetic field (CED): to absorb a field, we must add to it an opposite field. But, using Schwarzshild-Fokker trick the electromagnetic field is linear and all sources of field are charged particles (kernels, electrons,...) much smaller than their distance, so that they radiate a field much larger close to them than close to other sources. Thus a full absorption of an EM field is impossible and it remains a "residual field". Around 1905, Planck corrected his 1900 formula to take this field renamed "zero point field", but his computation was wrong. In 1916, Planck presented a paper of Nernst giving the true mean value of the energy corresponding of the field. Studying the start of lasers shows that the spontaneous emission is an amplification of the zero point field in the mode that an atom is able to emit, therefore to absorb (generally a dipolar field improperly named spherical).
The ZPF which is a very ordinary field is often presented as found from quantum electrodynamics QED) which appeared much after the computation of its energy. The experiments presented to show that QED is better than CED are interpreted neglecting the ZPF in CED, not in QED !
The problem for the ZPE is that its density is infinite if there is no limit of frequency. Proposed solutions are:
i) an arbitrary limit of frequency
ii) trying to introduce non-linearities in Maxwell's equations at gamma ray frequencies (true to get electron-positron generation),
iii) supposing that gravitation is the Casimir force at gamma frequencies (compatible with ii).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />the Meta Model ... is presently the only cosmological model that does not require magic or miracles at some stage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I do not think that science needs a cosmological model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No model to explain the nature and origin of existence? You would cede that territory to religions? How striking!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When we cannot understand an observation, the right way is not making a religion, but saying: up to now, we do not know how to explain, speaking of an "origin of the Universe" is meaningless.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True enough, but a non-sequitur from your first sentence. The Meta Model is not based on observation or the interpretation of observations. It is derived from fisrt principles using logic alone. Then the model tells us what observations will show. And indeed, observations do show what MM requires, although not with the interpretations usually placed on them. But with a guide from logic about what can and cannot be, the guesswork is completely removed from cosmology, and it is once again a true science. -|Tom|-

I would like to introduce some logic of my own. I understand that atomic particles such as electrons are not inert bit of stuff, but are forms of energy that are doing something. They are active. For example some of them have magnetic moment which I believe means they are moving. Furthermore these bits of energy radiate energy away. So the question arises that if we disallow magic, there must be a source for this energy which replaces the energy that is radiated away. I am not sure what kind of logic requires this source to exist, but I would bet my life on it. Noiw, we do not see a battery pack connected to al atomic particles, so isn't it logically reasonable to infer that this source of energy is not outside the atomic particle? If that is so, then the only alternative would be that the source is inside the atomic particle?

So my question at this moment is have I framed the statement correctly?