H2 found in space and even a supernova cannot survive 400 million light years Chapt17 Telescopes are distance measuring tool #1376 New Physics #1584 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

First let me answer the question raised in the previous post of this
chapter where I asked whether molecular hydrogen H2 was found commonly
in Space or whether nonbonded hydrogen H was the predominant hydrogen.

Well here is a report of 2000 talking about this topic. And where they
say that 5 to 15 times more H2 in space than H.

Now, for me, the finding of H2 has to deal with Particle Physics
obeying the Maxwell Equations but for the authors of H2 such as
Marmet, Valentijn and van der Werf, they are coming at this
predominance of H2 for the purpose of solving Missing Mass. For me,
missing mass is bogus not because of H2 versus H, but because gravity
is a EM-gravity and we must have gravity cells that rotate and hold
Earth to the Sun since one is 29km/sec and the other is 220km/sec. So
I need no H2 for missing mass, but I need H2 because H is unstable and
decays because its single electron has no perpetual motion.

--- quoting from http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/
---

Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000, Pages 5 -
7
 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 widespread presence of hydrogen in the
molecular (H2) form in space (Marmet and Reber 1989; Marmet 1990a,b).
Although  hydrogen  in the atomic form is easily detected through
radioastronomy, the molecular form is difficult to detect.
--- end quote ---
Enrico wrote:
> On May 10, 3:31 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)


> Search string:= density of intergalactic matter
> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/universe/index.html


> Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.


> Abstract.
>           An increasingly large number of observations
consistently
> reveal the existence of a much larger amount of intergalactic
matter
> than presently accepted.   Radio signals coming from directions
> between galaxies is discussed.  An average density of matter in
space
> of about 0.01 atom/cm3 is derived.  It is known that the density
of
> matter is compatible with many reliable observations. These
results
> lead to a nonexpanding cosmological universe.


>                                 Enrico




I realize I have two experiments, not just the greenhouse fiberglass
panel as
a redshift duplicator via refraction. But I have to also check to
see
if a prism
held up at the edge of the road can redshift the oncoming white
headlights. So
I ordered a prism and found that it does duplicate the fiberglass in
producing a redshift.

By 2013, the redshift of galaxies and stars is due to the EM-gravity
cell that stars and galaxies form out of magnetic monopoles that are
Space. Space is magnetic monopoles and space is curved and bent in the
presence of
a lot of matter.


But thanks for the data of 0.01 atom/cm^3.


And that number makes my earlier talk of 1 atom per km^3 look
ridiculous.


But Enrico, I am making good progress here with your help in
searches.

Funny how Enrico's old reference is exactly the place to look to see
if H2 predominates Space rather than H1.

Now the question is, how long does H1 last when it is alone with a
lonely 1 electron and no perpetual motion of that electron? Does it
decay spontaneously into what? Does it become a Cosmic gamma ray burst
or a Cosmic Ray? And what type of experiment must be set up to prove
it?


But let me get back to the upper limit distance of
what a telescope
can see.


So after a certain
distance, the brightest
astro body of a supernova has its image destroyed at that distance.
Likewise, we cannot
see a tiny object in space with a run of the mill telescope because
of
the dust particles
in the air destroys the image making of the object.



Now the quasars, as Arp argues on his website that they cannot be
that
far away, for he
notes a bridging quasar with a normal galaxy that is not redshifted
as
much. And they
cannot be that far away because the telescopes can still form images
of those quasars. Now it would be interesting to find out what
exactly galaxy Arp was talking about and whether it is reputed to be
400 million light years away or less?

In 2013, with the idea of EM-gravity and gravity cell, then the quasar
is just a normal star with a large gravity cell that has much
refraction. And a pulsar are two stars close together for which each
star has a rotational EM-gravity cell that are clashing with each
other and this explains quasar energy, not as exotic but stars nearby
with clashing EM fields.


Now I need to figure how the 0.01 atoms/cm^3 determines the upper
limit of distance
of telescopes. Is it going to be 400 million light years away, and
that the billions of
light years away were all fake reports.


I wonder if there is a experiment setup that proves this 0.01 atoms/
cm^3 points to
a upper bound number? An experiment such as holding up a pie pan in
front of a
light source and the light coming through uniform holes in the pie
pan. An experiment
of holes in a pie pan, and at what distance can the source not be
seen
as a image?
I suppose a better setup would be a stroboscope light that imitates
holes in the pie
pan and which ultimately imitates a "dust particle every cm^3.


In May 2010
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)


> I wonder if there is a experiment setup that proves this 0.01 atoms/
> cm^3 points to
> a upper bound number? An experiment such as holding up a pie pan
in
> front of a
> light source and the light coming through uniform holes in the pie
> pan. An experiment
> of holes in a pie pan, and at what distance can the source not be
seen
> as a image?
> I suppose a better setup would be a stroboscope light that
imitates
> holes in the pie
> pan and which ultimately imitates a "dust particle every cm^3.

Alright, I am getting closer and closer to proving that around 200
million to
400 million light years distance is the upper limit of seeing any
object of
astronomy in any type of telescope. And the reason for this upper
limit is
because the light travelling from a distant astro body will
encounter
a
"dust atom particle" along such a long trip and thus unable to form
an
image of the object at that far distance.


So, now, how would a mathematician prove this upper limit?

In 2013, I would guess the mathematician would prove it by the
coherence and de-coherence of light waves with further and further
distance. So in Apparent Magnitude the quasar is brightness of 10^-6
(Wikipedia source on magnitude table) while Hubble Space Telescope is
10-13.

Now to be more precise the galaxies by binoculars are 6x10^-5 since
the quasar is in a distant galaxy as 6x10^-6 and Hubble is 1.5 x
10^-13
so dividing I get 4x10^8 which would be 400,000,000 and low and
behold, that magic number of 400 million light years distance.


So the dust and dirt and grime of Space does block the view but the
essential physics of how far light can travel before you lose complete
sight of the object has to deal with the feature of light splitting
apart with distance, its coherence is lost. Its photons are diffused
in Space and that after traveling 400 million light years, the
brightest objects of a Supernova do not even survive that trip.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies