4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium
three editions, I have not been able to make the book
flow coherently, since I had all the posts rather mixed up and not
following the chapters. So this edition, essentially is the organizing
of this book so that the sequence of posts follows this chapter
layout. And so
that the reading of these posts, is a graceful flow of
reading.
Plutonium Atom Totality theory
Chapters of this book:
I. the theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory
(3) history of the theory and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(4) density and distribution of all galaxies
(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation
(7) Earth itself; age; zirconium crystal dating
(8) Solar System: CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet cores ; plane of
ecliptic
(9) Milky Way: Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
black-hole theory as science-fiction
III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the data
including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(14) missing mass conundrum solved
(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron
(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white
IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(18) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure constant
and proton to electron mass
ratio, all linked and explained
(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(20) Purpose and meaning of life
(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
theory and future news and research reports commentary
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
porky_...@my-deja.com
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright, this is the 4th edition of this book. In the first
> three editions, I have not been able to make the book
> flow coherently, since I had all the posts rather mixed up and not
> following the chapters. So this edition, essentially is the organizing
> of this book so that the sequence of posts follows this chapter
> layout. And so
> that the reading of these posts, is a graceful flow of
> reading.
You mean "the meaning of liff", don't you?
Archimedes Plutonium
strongest in
favor of the Atom Totality and the most damaging to the Big Bang.
I still believe the density and distribution of galaxies is the
"seeing
is believing" supportive evidence. That you cannot have a interference
diffraction pattern such as the double-slit experiment on the Cosmos
of galaxies, yet that is what we see in the density and distribution
of
galaxies.
What I want to do is talk about the most immediate and highly
supportive evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory
and that the
Big Bang is a fake theory.
I believe what will happen is that the astronomy and cosmology physics
will highly support and indicate the truth of the Atom Totality theory
but since the distances are so far away, that the pattern and
distribution
of galaxies that is equal to the distribution of the electron-dots of
the
electron-dot-cloud of a Plutonium Atom is not enough evidence for the
weak
minded physicist. And that the overwhelming evidence that even the
weak
minded physicist cannot dismiss will be evidence in our own backyard--
our
Solar System.
So the day in which it is announced that say the Earth and Sun are
twice as old as Jupiter and Saturn, is the day in which the Atom
Totality
theory will remove the Big Bang theory. Or the day in which it is
found a
chemical substance that dates the Solar System at 10 billion years of
age.
That the acceptance of one theory over an old theory takes place if
the evidence is nearby. It is sad that science and physics rely on
closeness or nearby evidence even though faraway evidence becomes
overwhelming.
As for my own journey with the Atom Totality theory, it was never that
of supporting data or supporting evidence. It was from the start in
November of 1990, that the beauty of symmetry or harmony that the
Universe had
to be an atom just as all matter is of atoms, that the Atom Totality
theory was borne. The logical symmetry and beauty allowed me to
discover it, much
like the discoveries by Dirac in the early 1900s with quantum
mechanics, that the logical symmetry demands it to be true. And then
afterwards
mount the supporting data.
So the above listed chapters are what I consider the best available
evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory and that the
Big Bang is a fake theory.
Now I am going to do something that maybe a first in book writing. I
am
going to add post-scripts to the page, in which I write about
something
important in science but which is out of place in the book and will
have
to pick up that post-script at a future moment in the book. This was
the
problem I was having in writing the 1st through 3rd editions in that I
was
having too many new ideas that the book was not flowing nor organized.
So here, in this edition, I strive for organization but can add new
ideas
that are out of place by calling them a "Post-script."
Post-script: I just recently finished a book called "Correcting Math"
and the last pages talked about the speed of light and how there is a
desert between slow moving objects and the speed of light.
Top speeds of galaxies is about 200 to 500 km/sec. The earth moves
at 30 km/sec, and the sun at 20 km/sec. Alpha particles move at
15,000 km/sec and beta particles about half the speed of light. I gave
a outline of why the neutrino rest mass is zero. That would leave
the fastest rest mass particle to be the beta-particle. And the desert
of no rest mass speed is from 1/2(c) to the speed of light c. This
means
that astronomers and physicists have it all wrong about galaxies
moving
with nearly the speed of light. It means that the most faraway galaxy
of
huge redshift is probably moving at a speed of between 20 km/sec
to less than 500 km/sec. And that we need a huge rethink of redshift.
In fact, I outlined that Special theory of Relativity works, only if
the speed
of light covers most of the range of speeds possible. This means that
the
fastest rest mass speed should be the beta particle at 1/2(c) and that
all
other speeds from 1/2(c) to c itself is covered only by light speed,
or light
slowed down. It means that Special Relativity exists only when the
speed of
light is the top speed and where the majority range of speeds is
covered only by
light slowed down.
Doppler redshift occurs but on a tiny scale in astronomy
because the galaxies are not moving away at such speeds. Rather
instead
what causes the huge redshifts is a geometry effect. Consider the
cosmos
as a large ellipsoid or a sphere surface and as the light from distant
galaxies
eventually reach us that light has been bent to the curvature of the
cosmos.
A good analog is a coin in a pond where the light is bent distorting
where the
coin actually is. It is redshifted. Now suppose the pond is made
deeper and
deeper and as the coin falls deeper and deeper, it is distorted or
redshifted
even more. So in this viewpoint, almost all galaxies have the same
intrinsic
speeds. And the reason for the huge redshift of faraway galaxies is
not due
to intrinsic speed, but rather, due to the fact that the light
travelling from these
distant galaxies was so drastically bent due to the geometry curvature
of the Cosmos, that by the time it reaches us, it is redshifted. So
the redshift
tells us nothing about the speeds of those faraway galaxies, but tells
us
how much of a curvature the cosmos has. (chapter 16: shape of Cosmos)
About the only supporting evidence of the Big Bang is the redshift,
but the
redshift is more about geometry of the cosmos, rather than some
ancient explosion
that ushered in a Big Bang. Redshift as a geometry effect can occur in
a nonexplosion
universe and is simply a measure of the degree of curvature of space.
P.P.S. Now I can do postscripts if I promise not to do too many in a
book, otherwise
it is disorganized again.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(some snipping)
>
> Plutonium Atom Totality theory
>
>
> Chapters of this book:
>
>
> I. the theory
> (1) what is this theory?
Actually the theory is easier to explain than is the Big Bang, because
everyone in
science has to learn the atomic theory. And so a final step of the
Atomic theory
is to say the Cosmos is a big atom. And this is how we get quantum
strangeness
in that the Cosmos is the same item as what it is composed of.
> (2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory
> (3) history of the theory and precursor hints
>
I wanted to spend some time on the observation and experiment support.
I do not know how the Big Bang will finally be swept away into the
garbage
of shame. What observation or experiment will discard the fake theory.
But we do have clues of past theories, especially geology as to how a
old decrepit theory gets displaced. In the Continental Drift or Plate
Tectonic
theory which replaced the Stationary Continents, it finally took the
observation of MidAtlantic seafloor spreading to win the Continental
Drift
theory. There was mounting evidence all along, but when the mechanism
for drift of continents by the seafloor spreading, the rift and the
movement
apart of the seafloor, when this mechanism was observed to be true,
then
the Continental Drift theory won.
So it is likely that the Atom Totality theory will follow a similar
pattern of
acceptance. That not until a "mechanism" of the atom totality is
observed
or experimented with, that the Big Bang will linger. And the perfect
mechanism
of the Atom Totality theory is the Dirac new radioactivities which in
this book
is chapter 6. If we notice that new atoms or new matter is how the
planets grow
or the Sun grows from Dirac new radioactivities, and we can notice
this here in
our own Solar System, measure it and experiment with it. So once we
show
this mechanism of Dirac new radioactivities, which I called a long
time ago
in the 1990s as spontaneous neutron/proton/electron materialization
and coming
via Cosmic Rays or Cosmic Gamma Ray bursts. So once this Dirac new
radioactivities is well known and established, then there is no
further need for a
Big Bang, because the Cosmos exists due to not a cosmic explosion with
supernova
spreading the matter to and fro, but rather, the materials in the
cosmos were slowly
built up from new radioactivities. The Sun, Earth and planets, the
Milky Way and
other galaxies came into existence not from a Big Bang with assistance
of supernovae
to spread around the matter and with Nebular Dust Clouds coalescing,
instead, these
structures were built up after billions of years, more than 20 billion
years by the steady
Dirac new-radioactivities such as Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts.
As soon as the MidAtlantic rift and seafloor spreading was seen and
reported, marked
the end of the Stationary Earth theory and Continental Drift won. As
soon as it is observed
and experimented and reported that the planets and satellites grow via
Dirac new-radioactivities, marks the end of the Big Bang.
So I am going to use a new trick in book writing. So that I can print
new ideas
and not have to wait for the proper chapter to reveal those new ideas.
I simply
add a Postscript and then when I reach that chapter, I repeat and
elaborate
those ideas.
Postscript for chapter 16:
The theory of Special Relativity is all true and well, but it was
never really
elucidated as to its full details and meaning. Only a small fraction
of its implications
have been revealed and cited in physics. One of the great implications
of SR was
never realized until now. That energy in SR is far more important than
speeds of
matter in SR. In the last postscript I mentioned a "speed desert" in
physics of where
the beta particle at 1/2(c) to that of (c) is occupied only by
photonic speeds and nothing
of rest mass objects. In order to have SR, in the first place, is that
the speeds of everything
in the Universe is either the slow speeds such as objects on Earth or
the motion of
planets or the motion of galaxies, a speed desert, and finally the
speed of light. In order for
physics to have SR, that the dominant speed is the speed of light and
only with photons and
that a "desert" must exist in order for SR to be true. This fact or
idea was never mentioned
or discovered in physics, and it lead to a false chase for looking for
neutrinos to have a tiny
rest mass, based on their ability to switch forms.
But the reason that SR must be slow speeds, a speed-desert, and then
predominantly
photon speeds with a slowed down photon speeds. The reason this must
be the case
is because the Universe has a set given amount of total energy at any
one given time.
Call that total Cosmic energy X. In order to have SR true and with a
given X, then you
must have most every speed that has rest mass of 500 km/sec or less,
the majority
at about 30 km/sec. From 500 km/sec to that of (c) must be
predominantly occupied by
only photons or slowed down light waves. So for a speed of 3/4(c)
there are few if no
rest mass objects with that speed, but alot of slowed down light waves
moving at
3/4(c). Now you can have a few beta particles in all the Cosmos,
moving at 3/4(c), but
you cannot have alot of them moving at that speed. And of course you
cannot have
any galaxies moving at faster than a upper limit of about 500 km/sec.
In order to have Special Relativity correct as a law of physics, means
that the Cosmos
has a given finite energy, which means that all mass objects have to
have a slow speed,
and that you have a speed desert, and finally you have photon speeds.
What this implies is that the interpretation of galactic redshift of
galaxies, has to be
rethought. It is false to think any galaxies in the Universe are
moving with a speed
faster than the Milky Way is moving. There are no galaxies approaching
the speed of
light. This means the redshift is a geometry effect. No rest mass
object ever gets
close to the speed of light, and the beta particle gets the closest,
but very few of them
do. The Cosmic energy X has to be preserved, and so we have this speed
zone
of the Cosmos.
Through the years after the redshift was discovered, we had other
mechanisms at
play such as gravitational lensing. So one begins to wonder whether
redshift was ever
on firm conceptual grounds. What is to say that redshift is not
gravitational lensing.
Another explanation of redshift which I think should be better than
the analogy of
the moving train whistle, is the coin in a pond. The position of the
coin is distorted
because of the way light moves in water. That distortion is the same
as redshift.
So if the Cosmos is a big atom, it is going to be like the surface of
a sphere or the
surface of a ellipsoid, and as light travels on this highly curved
surface, it becomes
distorted to a redshift. Not that the galaxy which sent off that light
beam is moving
fastly away from us, but rather, because that galaxy is so far away,
that the curvature
of the Cosmos, distorts that light when it finally reaches us, it is
hugely redshifted.
The redshift of a distant galaxy tells us it is far away, but it gives
us no information
as to the speed of that galaxy, and the speed is probably around the
speed of our
own Milky Way.
Now what I am saying makes far more sense than the old way with the
Big Bang,
because some galaxies are blue-shifted. And the Big Bang would say it
is because
they are moving towards us at a huge speed. But the known cases of
blueshift
do not reconcile with a speed coming towards us. The Big Bang should
have rare
cases of blueshift. The Atom Totality should have frequent cases of
blue shift.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 1: What Is This Theory
In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature
block for my posts to the Internet:
The whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.
If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like,
it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that
form a cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that
the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky.
So as you look up in the night sky and see shiny white dots as
galaxies and as stars, those white dots are mass-pieces of the
last six electrons of 231Plutonium.
To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like
this:
The universe arose from a big explosion.
That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and
does not have much information. It does not tell us why it
exploded and the Big Bang theory is not Quantum Mechanics.
The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that
only atoms,
including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is
a consistent theory
since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms
but science
neglected to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole
entire universe
must also be an atom.
The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion",
and
the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but
some
amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom
Totality
has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about
size, about
shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and
cosmic
electrons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms.
With the
Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is
nothing
to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened.
Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are :
(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom
(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that
this
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium
Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here
one minute and gone the next, type of mistake.
So how do I answer those two most recurring errors that both
laypersons
and even most
trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above?
I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron-
dot-cloud of atoms.
Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that
goes moving around the
nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed
wavefunction such as the
moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed
wavefunction has its
electrons as dot-clouds. The electron is a large cloud around the
nucleus of the atom and
is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or
piece of the electron.
So that if all the dots were put together then the electron would be a
ball. So now we begin
to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons is the galaxies of
the night sky. That
each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron of
the Atom Totality.
If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or
the d or the f orbital of
a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not
a ball but those huge
number of dots.
So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the
night sky of all
those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some
are galaxies. And now
we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like and
it is a bunch of
dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality
theory, that galaxies
and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the
electron dot cloud
and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element
that fits the numbers
of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element
plutonium.
Now to answer the other most often mistake by laypersons and even
those who call themselves
scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that
it would decay and be gone.
The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our
universe, our cosmos would not have
time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would
not have sufficient and ample enough
time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or
like an animal or plant that does not
grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If
every atom stood still and in place
and never changed position relative to all the other atoms,
then there would be no time. Life could
not exist if every atom were to stand
still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom
Totality is a radioactive element
is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has alot of
change going on and radioactivity
provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles
of protons appearing uniformly
and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is
what makes stars and planets
come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of
radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium
Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and
Milky Way Galaxy.
Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says
that the Universe itself is one big
atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and
numbers of physics and mathematics
the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar
explanation of the Big Bang theory
one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion
happened". And the two most often
made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an
electron is a single ball and the error
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an
Atom Totality.
Postscript for chapter (16) shape of the Cosmos:
I seem to like these postscripts, which allow me to add new ideas
whilst organizing the rest of the book. I am still stuck on chapter 16
with
the Special Relativity, speed of light and the redshift of galaxies as
to the
real meaning of redshift. Now I believe these four ideas in physics
are
closely related, some may even be equivalent or generalizations of the
others.
(1) Conservation of Energy
(2) Special Relativity
(3) Least Action Principle
(4) Finite Cosmos
I believe that the "finite Cosmos" is the most general of those four.
With a finite
cosmos the other three fallout naturally.
Let me set a analog in motion so that by the time I reach chapter 16 I
can elaborate
or embellish this analogy. Suppose we are the creator of the Cosmos
and we are
required to obey those four rules above. And let me call a series of
Universes possible
under those four rules as that of Universe A, Universe B, Universe C,
etc etc. And when I
reach Universe Z, I start with Universe AA, then BB, etc etc.
So I have to obey those four rules always in constructing a Universe.
Let me construct
a universe in which I am a parsimonious creator, so that I want to
maximize the largest
number of stars and galaxies. If my memory is correct the Cosmos has
10^11 galaxies
and each of them has 10^11 stars on average. So now, a parsimonious
creator wanting
the most number of galaxies and stars and obeying those four rules
would have rest mass
objects going at slow speeds as possible such as Earth going at 30 km/
sec and stars at
about 20 km/sec and only a few beta particles going at 1/2(c). So in
this Universe A, we
speeds of 0 to 500 km/sec of all astro bodies, and we have alpha
particles going at
15,000 km/sec at maximum, and we have a few, a very small number of
beta particles
in the entire Cosmos going at 1/2(c). All other speeds in this
universe is covered by the
speed of photons or slowed down photons. And this is our current
present day Cosmos.
But now in Universe K for example, the creator there likes energy and
so using the four
rules creates a cosmos that has just Space, and one planet moving at
9/10 (c). Just one
planet moving at nearly the speed of light. To have the planet
actually moving at (c)
requires infinite energy and that is against the Finite rule coupled
with Special Relativity
rule.
So the difference between Universe A and Universe K, is that in A, we
sought for the
maximum in numbers of stars and galaxies, and to achieve that maximum
we had
to have slow moving objects and few if any objects other than photons
moving fastly.
the fastest we have in A are a few beta particles. In K, however, is a
speed freak or
energy freak creator, so he puts all his resources of energy, mass
into speed and what
he is able to achieve is only a planet in all of space that is moving
near the speed of
light, at 9/10 the speed of light. Now suppose Space itself was a
resource, although hard
to imagine having a planet without some space to move in. And suppose
this
speed freak creator converted Space into more speed so that he now has
his planet
moving at 98% the speed of light.
And then there are thousands and thousands of other variations to
satisfy the whims
of creators, but they all must obey those four rules.
The point I am making, if not clear to the reader, is that those four
rules are a characteristic
or a feature of the Atom Totality itself. That we have a finite
Universe because we have
a Atom Totality. We have Special Relativity, because we have alot of
slow moving stars
and galaxies and only light is moving at the speed of light. We have
Least Action and
Conservation of Energy because those are a consequence of a Atom
Totality.
Now, by the time I reach chapter 16, perhaps I will have figured out
why Universe A, is
the only universe allowed by those four rules. I think we need a fifth
rule: Least Energy
Principle. The universe for a creator that requires the least energy
in creating is a universe
where there is alot of rest mass around and all of it moving at slow
speeds and only a
few items such as alpha and beta particles moving at faster than 200
km/sec and where
the majority of speeds is taken up by the photons or slowed down
photons.
So if the Universe has a Least Energy Principle, along with a Least
Action Principle,
then the universe has to be unique and no other universes allowed.
This is just the opposite
idea of the Many-Worlds idea, or the parallel universes. The Atom
Totality theory
dismisses many-worlds and parallel universes, and as seen above,
dismisses time
travel, because it is impossible to rearrange all the atoms for a past
or a future.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
> scientists have
> two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
> two errors are :
>
> (1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
> big atom
>
> (2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that
> this
> hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium
> Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here
> one minute and gone the next, type of mistake.
Now, I'm no scientist, but I have a couple of other questions about
this otherwise brilliant theory. The galaxies are the electrons,
right?
(c) What's the nucleus?
(d) How come we see somewhat more than 94 galaxies?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I have put all the information that you need at [a Yahoo! group] where
you'll notice a significantly better signal to noise ratio, as I'm
just about the only person posting." -- James S. Harris on noise
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Chapter 1: What Is This Theory
>
> Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
> scientists have
> two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
> two errors are :
>
> (1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
> big atom
>
They never saw a chemistry or physics book showing a electron-dot-
cloud.
Or, they never understood that all those dots is one electron, those
10^60 dots
is equal to one electron.
They do not understand that those 10^60 dots for an electron is the
actual
single one electron itself.
And so they come into the Atom Totality theory with the false notion
that the hydrogen
atom electron is one tiny ball or 1 dot and that the uranium atom has
92 tiny balls
revolving around it or 92 dots, or that the plutonium atom has 94 tiny
balls or
94 dots composing its electron dot cloud. When in fact, each electron
of a hydrogen atom or a uranium atom or a Plutonium Atom has 10^60
dots that make-up or compose that specific individual electron.
When teaching the electron-dot-cloud in High School or in College, it
is perhaps not
taught strong enough that all those dots, 10^60 dots are one single
distinct electron.
Now the night sky of stars and galaxies, it is estimated that there
are only 10^11 galaxies
and there are only 10^11 stars on average in each galaxy. So that
would mean the
Cosmos has 10^11 x 10^11, or 10^22 stars, and if we represent each of
those stars as a dot we would thence have 10^22 dots. But each star is
composed of
atoms and a star is typically about 10^30 atoms so that would mean a
night sky
represented by dots for atoms would have 10^22 x 10^30 = 10^52 dots
which is a huge
number but a tiny number compared to 10^60 dots. If we included all
the other matter
in planets and in energy particles we come close to 10^60.
Postscript for chapter (16) shape of the Cosmos:
Yesterday I talked about four ideas in physics that are important and
related
(1) Conservation of Energy
(2) Special Relativity
(3) Least Action Principle
(4) Finite Cosmos
Yesterday I added one more to that list, making five:
(5) Least Energy Principle
Least Energy is a generalization of Least Action. Least Action will
not require
a unique Universe to exist. But Least Energy requires a unique
Universe to
exist at any instant of time.
Let me draw an metaphor-analogy that is easily comprehendible. The
history of planet
Earth goes back a long time and we do not know details of its early
beginnings
but we do know somewhat accurately the history of life on Earth, and
we know that
a billion years ago, there was no electric power station, since there
was no
advanced intelligent life then. We know that we had to go through many
stages of development
of materials such as metal engineering in the past before we build a
electric
power station. Humanity has never built a Volcano electric power
station and
with the Iceland volcano eruptions as of recently, and although we do
have the
knowledge and technology to build a power station siphoning off heat
energy from
the Iceland volcanoes and making electricity, we shall do this in the
future, and
in fact, we shall do this to nearly all volcanoes on Earth, and
thereby making
fossil fuels of coal, oil, gas as obsolete. So we are at a threshold
moment in time
where humanity gets all its daily energy either from the Sun or from
the geothermal
interior of Earth, and where fossil fuels are rarely ever used again.
Now that evolution of technology to Volcano Electric Power Stations is
not a progress
of Least Action Principle. But it is a progress of Least Energy
Principle.
porky_...@my-deja.com
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chapters of this book:
>
> I. the theory
> (1) what is this theory?
> (2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory
Here is the first picture:
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped away)
>
> The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion",
> and
> the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but
> some
> amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom
> Totality
> has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about
> size, about
> shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and
> cosmic
> electrons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms.
> With the
> Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is
> nothing
> to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened.
>
I need to talk more about the fact that the Big Bang is so vague about
anything.
I need to spend alot more time about talking the overall features of
the
Big Bang versus the Atom Totality. And I am having trouble in finding
the
appropriate words to describe this inability of the Big Bang.
This topic alone, should persuade anyone, whether a trained scientist
or
a layperson that the Big Bang is a fake theory.
The best words to describe the situation so far are these:
(1) entity versus nonentity
(2) structures versus having no structure
(3) patterned versus amorphous or no patterns
The Atom Totality is a theory in which the Universe is a single
entity, a structured
single entity and a patterned single entity.
The Big Bang is only one thing -- an explosion. The Big Bang is not
an entity, and not a structure, and cannot have a internal pattern.
So that when Johns Hopkins in early 2000s reports a color for the
Universe, it could not be for a Big Bang since it is not a single
entity structure.
Or when Luminet team of researchers reported in the early 2000s that
the Cosmos fits a Poincare Dodecahedral Space geometry, they
could not be referring to the Big Bang because it is not a single
entity
with structure.
What I am looking for are more words and terminology to add to this
list.
Because the difference between a Big Bang theory and a Atom Totality
theory is that the Atom Totality theory insists that the Universe has
always and forever will be a structured patterned entity. It is not a
huge
onion or as the ancient philosophers once thought of a terra firma
resting
on the back of a elephant.
There is only one material object in the Cosmos that can be the Cosmos
itself. It is not a piece of cheese for the Moon is not cheese. It is
not the
onion nor the terra firma elephant. But it is the atom. In all of the
Cosmos,
only the atom itself can be the entire Cosmos.
So the Big Bang never is able, nor is it possible to conceive of the
Big
Bang as a entity. And that should have eliminated the Big Bang theory
as a viable theory of science. For it will always stay submerged in
its
obfuscation of some "explosion".
There is only one term that describes the Big Bang-- "explosion".
And that is vagueness, and in the veils of imagination and daydreaming
or nightdreaming.
So without doing any further work. Without doing any evidence searth
or computations or experiments. The Big Bang should be dismissed as
a fake theory from the start, because it lacks clarity. It lacks
details.
The Big Bang goes so far as to even imply that the laws of physics
were broken at the explosion or during the explosion and that some
time
after the explosion, when things settled down, do we even have Physics
arising.
The Atom Totality theory says that the Universe has always been
Quantum
Mechanics, and always will be Quantum Mechanics.
So any commonsense person, even those that hate doing science, can see
the deficiencies and faults of a Big Bang. That it is deceptive and
imaginary
and vague. It is everything that science should not be-- obfuse and
imaginary.
I am not happy with the words and concepts of Entity, Structure,
Pattern that
distinguishes the Atom Totality from the Big Bang. And this is
important since
the Big Bang is defeated as a fake before the starting block.
Archimedes Plutonium
Atom Totality
theory is that although both are theories for the entire Universe,
that the Big Bang
is a theory of a "process going on" , while the Atom Totality is a
theory of a
entity or something, and how that entity existed in the past and will
exist in the
future.
The Big Bang theory is like saying that Nagasaki is an explosion,
rather than a city
that existed before the explosion and a city that exists after.
Whereas the
Atom Totality would recognize the city when it first was settled and
where a
explosion was just one day in the history of the city.
So the Big Bang as a theory of Physics is really a paltry piece of
imagination
rather than a solid thoughtful theory.
But the worst reasoning of the Big Bang is that it has to violate all
the laws of
physics until much later in the explosion that all of a sudden the
laws of physics
seem to precipitate out of the explosion. So that Quantum Mechanics
comes into
existence about 5 minutes after the explosion and perhaps Maxwell
Equations come
into existence some days after the explosion. All of which is random,
capricious
and piecemeal. So that only a scatterbrained physicist would be
tempted to buy
into the Big Bang theory for what sense is there in a theory of
physics that destroys
universal laws of physics and then creates another batch of so called
"universal
laws" when they were never universal in the first place.
On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory sticks and stays with
Quantum Mechanics.
Atoms are Quantum Mechanics and so in the Atom Totality, never is
there a breakdown
of the laws of physics and the laws are truly universal.
So, in the Big Bang the universe is not a entity, not a something, but
rather a amorphous
process.
In the Atom Totality, the Universe is a atom of which it was borne or
risen from previous
atoms and the future is a transformation into a higher numbered atom.
Where the Universe
is an "it" a "something" and it includes processes and
transformations. Whereas the Big
Bang is only a process.
Now probably, the only reason that so many scientist accepted and
believed in the Big Bang,
is what happens in all fields of study, when there is only one theory
and no rival theory to
contend or compete with, well, most scientists will then blindly
accept a scatterbrained theory.
When the only drink in town is bad water, then you drink bad water.
But when someone digs
a well and runs the water through a purifier, then you have a choice
of what to drink.
Archimedes Plutonium
question
is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big Bang.
I should say alot more about the remarkable deficiency of the stating
of what the Big Bang theory is. Given the most active advocate of the
Big Bang theory and asked
to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would
be hard to write beyond one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory
for
about all that can be said is "there was an explosion." And I would
suppose
the advocate would then refer to some book about the Big Bang which
talks
about what happened after 3 minutes, after 4 minutes, etc etc.
When flawed science exists in the world of science, it is hard to
explain or
detail it and it becomes very vague, like the Big Bang theory. And it
leaves
more questions than any answers. What caused the Big Bang and what
was the material of matter/energy of the Big Bang and what is time in
a Big Bang? And why are all the Quantum Mechanics laws and rules
violated by the Big Bang and when does the laws or rules of
Quantum Mechanics come into existence for the Big Bang.
So that if any scientist in the world at present were to write a book
on the
Big Bang theory with similar chapters as this book on the Atom
Totality theory
that the book would be horribly short in any detail.
In fact I could write a whole book on just this chapter alone for the
Atom
Totality theory because it can include all that is known about the
chemical
elements and Atomic theory and Quantum Mechanics.
But the Big Bang book writer faced with a chapter on "What is this Big
Bang theory"
can say only about a sentence or paragraph -- It was a Cosmic
Explosion which
created the Universe" What made it explode? What was it in the first
place? And why does the Big Bang offer no clues as to the future,
or the purpose of life?
You see, when science has theories that cannot explain things, then
you should and
must distrust the theory. When the theory does not connect with other
science and
when the theory violates other physics theories such as Quantum
Mechanics, then
the sensible person should not buy the theory.
In the past history of physics there have been other theories
that were false
and which followed a similar deficiency of unable to detail what the
theory is. The
phlogiston theory for heat and the fluidia theory for electricity are
examples of
old theories in physics which could not detail or explain the basic
foundations of
the theory. So you say heat is a fluid or you say that electricity is
a fluid, but that
never gives you any details of either heat or electricity.
So I invite the most enamored lover of the Big Bang theory to write a
chapter on
the Big Bang of "What this Big Bang theory is" since I cannot see how
they
can say anything more than "there was a big explosion." In fact the
name Big
Bang theory suggests it is incapable of detailing the theory because
if it had
been named Big Explosion theory then the explanation may have said
"in the beginning was a big-bang."
On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory is so immensely rich of a
science theory,
that I could write a thousand pages alone on this one chapter.
And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the
supporting
evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of
supporting evidence
in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other
than that
observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not
even the
Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a
quantized
radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The
alleged fluctuations
in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the
measuring instruments
had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory,
they have only
one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more
than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support
the Atom Totality theory.
What is the theme or message of this inability or deficiency of
explaining in detail what a
theory of science is? The theme is that if a theory of science has a
difficult time of
explaining its foundations, then it is likely to not be a theory of
science but a fakery.
However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang
can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some
modifications.
In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to
that of a
Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of
Spontaneous
Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang.
But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory
inside of the
Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang
theory, 1920s
or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the
explosion of a primeval-atom.
I should make some comments on the features of true science. That when
science gets
caught up in a debate between two rival competing theories, is there a
logical testing
procedure which can indicate, not prove mind you, which of the two
theories is more
true than the other? I believe the above two paragraphs may have
uncovered a test of
validity for rival theories.
The test is that if theory A can incorporate theory B, given
some modifications of B, but where theory B
can never incorporate theory A given some modifications of
A. Then theory A is likely to be the true theory.
Now the underlying Logic of that test is the idea that a true theory
cannot be modified to
accomodate a false theory and thus be incorporated inside the false
theory. Whereas a
false theory can be modified and then fit inside the true theory.
Now can we go back in science history and see if such a test would
have worked or helped
in the unraveling of which of two rival theories was more true than
the other? How about
Continental Drift and its rival of Convection Currents? How about
Darwin Evolution and its
rival of Lamarckian traits? Or Darwin Evolution and its rival of
Biblical Genesis? Or how about
in astronomy the competing theories of geocentric and heliocentric
solar system? Or how about
the rival theories of light as particle or light as wave?
About the best example of rival competing theories where the test
works well is the Newtonian
Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics. Best example because we still
consider Newtonian Mechanics
as a subset of QM for slow moving and massive objects.
But is the test useful only for physics?
I do not think so, because in biology I have a recent theory of metal
causation for five diseases of
Alzheimer Autism Parkinson Prion and Schizophrenia. And where the test
applies in that a rival
Prion theory of rogue proteins is modified to fit inside the metal
theory but where the Metal theory
cannot be modified to fit inside the rogue protein only theory. So
here is a case example of
two rival theories being put to this test and where the Metal theory
is conferred more truth value than
the rival prion theory.
I am not going to spend time here on this test but just thought I
should comment on it since it stuck
out in my above writing.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the
> supporting
> evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of
> supporting evidence
> in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other
> than that
> observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not
> even the
> Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a
> quantized
> radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The
> alleged fluctuations
> in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the
> measuring instruments
> had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory,
> they have only
> one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more
> than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support
> the Atom Totality theory.
>
In the 1990s, it was seen that the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation had
become a poisoned piece of evidence for the Big Bang, in that the
radiation had
been verified as quantized blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation
means the
Microwave is on the inside of a cavity, the inside of a big atom of
plutonium. Yet
the Big Bang people ignored the fact that the CMBR was blackbody
quantized
radiation of 2.71 degrees K. This is science fraud, when you know the
evidence
no longer is supportive of the Big Bang yet you count it as
supportive. So then
there was a huge chase to try to reveal fluctuations in CMBR in the
1990s and
2000s, hoping that such a lure would assuage the fraud of the CMBR. It
was
announced there were "fluctuations" but in the announcement, it was
not
announced that the precision of their measuring devices had been
reached and
surpassed. So when the physicists said "there are fluctuations" they
were liaring
because they should have said "there are no fluctuations and that we
had
surpassed the precision of our instruments to measure fluctuations."
So the CMBR evidence supports the Atom Totality theory, that we are on
the
inside of a big atom of plutonium whose 5f6 cavity is blackbody and
has a
microwave temperature of 2.71 K.
That leaves only one other piece of evidence for the Big Bang theory,
the redshift
of galaxies. Here, the Big Bang people almost always point out this
analogy when
talking about the redshift. They say that a approaching train whistle
of given speed is Doppler
shifted to a blueshift or a shortening of the wavelength. And the
train moving
away has a redshift of the whistle or a stretching out of the
wavelength.
The trouble with the train analogy is that it does not take into
account the geometry
of the situation. And that the Doppler redshift is only useful in very
limited circumstances
but is not a Cosmic or astronomical measure.
Here is a alternative analogy that applies to stars and star speeds
and humans
measuring those speeds.
Analogy of straw in glass of water. In an earlier post I talked about
a coin in a
pond, a deep pond and how the refraction of light would alter what we
think of
as the position of the coin. This refraction of position is equivalent
to a redshift.
But let me use the straw in a glass analogy and since the light is
refracted and bent upon entering the water, this refraction shifts the
position of the straw and this is
equivalent to redshift.
Analogy of a corrigated peice of transparent plastic such as the
roofing sheets of
corrigated plastic or the greenhouse corrigated plastic. Here I have
some in my
own house and if you hang a sheet up against a window with a view of
oncoming
traffic from the road with their white headlights. What happens is
that instead of
a blueshift of the car white headlights, the plastic corrigated always
delivers a
redshift.
So the Cosmic Redshift of galaxies was never that of a speeding away
from
us, but was merely a measure of the Cosmic Overall Geometry. That our
Cosmos
is highly bent the further away we are (corrigated sheet). And those
far distant
galaxies are not moving near the speed of light to cause such a
redshift. The redshift
is caused by the geometry of the Cosmos as a highly spherical geometry
such as the
shape of a cigar surface or a sausage surface or a elongated balloon
surface which
is called an ellipsoid. So the redshift of galaxies was never a
measure of the speed
involved with the galaxies, because they were all slow moving speeds
just like the
Milky Way and local galaxies of 100 km/sec, and nowhere near 299,792
km/sec.
Big Bangers actually believe these faraway galaxies are moving nearly
299,792 km/sec to cause the redshift.
The cause of these redshifts is that as light travels through the bent
curvature
of space (through my corrigated plastic), the light is redshifted. The
redshift
says nothing about the speed of the galaxy but says alot about how far
away
that galaxy is from Earth.
So, here, we have a case of a theory of physics, that was borne and
lived on
two pieces of evidence. The Redshift of galaxies and the Microwave
Radiation.
Both pieces of evidence have turned against the Big Bang and are now
evidences that destroy the Big Bang theory.
A Cosmic atom is highly bent and curved into spherical or ellipsoid
geometry
and that light travelling far away is going to have to be highly
refracted or
redshifted, and the small speeds that these faraway galaxies possess,
makes
no difference upon the redshift affect.
Now I also have a argument against the Big Bang redshift based upon
the
theory of Special Relativity. That in order to have Special Relativity
true, that
you need nearly every speed that is higher than 5% of the speed of
light to be
that of either light slowed down or light itself. That due to
resonance and Special
Relativity, that there are no rest mass objects moving at more than 5%
of the
speed of light. So you have the occasional or rare alpha particle
moving at 5%
the speed of light or a beta particle moving at 50% the speed of light
but those
are rare cases. In order for Special Relativity to be true, that
99.99% of the
objects in the Cosmos that are moving at more than 5% of the speed of
light
is light itself. If there exists one galaxy moving with a speed near
that of light
it would destroy the theory of Special Relativity and the theory of
resonance
in physics. Because, really, honestly, do you think any galaxy can
actually
have a speed near that of light and not have disintegrated due to
resonance.
Does anyone actually think that a car can be moving at the speed of
light
and not have disintegrated? I often wonder whether physicists who love
their
Big Bang ever really think about what they have accepted.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Sorry to my foreign friends as readers for the spelling of corrugated
not corrigated. I pronounce it as that but it is spelled otherwise.
> Analogy of a corrigated peice of transparent plastic such as the
> roofing sheets of
> corrigated plastic or the greenhouse corrigated plastic. Here I have
> some in my
> own house and if you hang a sheet up against a window with a view of
> oncoming
> traffic from the road with their white headlights. What happens is
> that instead of
> a blueshift of the car white headlights, the plastic corrigated always
> delivers a
> redshift.
>
Some may find it odd for me to have an experiment, smack in the first
chapter,
but I find experiments are welcomed no matter where they are. And
especially
an experiment that defeats the Big Bang theory all in one experiment.
It is corrugated fiberglass and I bought a "greenhouse type of metal
and fiberglass
building". It was a small building of about 3 meters by 4 meters, but
it was not stiff
enough for South Dakota winds, and one day I just took out my
reciprocating saw
and sawed the four sides off. I cannot remember why I did not unscrew
the building
but rather ended up sawing the four walls off. I think it was saving
of time, not out
of frustration anger over the winds. And what I did next was to use
those wall panels
in my house up against windows so that light would always come in yet
still have
privacy.
But what I soon discovered with the panels with a view of the west to
east highway
in view that the oncoming cars and trucks with their white lights, all
were redshifted.
So let me detail these corrugated panels of fiberglass. They are about
182 cm high
and 116 cm long. Each corrugation is about 1.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm
deep. The corrugations
are spaced about 10 cm apart and in those 10 cm is somewhat flat but
with a slight small
angle.
Now I looked through the fiberglass tonight and through the plain
glass window and I focused
on the most distant white headlight and it was redshifted by 35 cm or
slightly more than
three full panels of fiberglass (a panel is 10cm + 1.5 cm). And as
that vehicle came closer
to the house, the redshift had been reduced to that of less than one
panel as that of 9 cm.
So I suspect over a distance of 1 km of the road that the redshift
started with 35 cm
and at the closest approach had diminished to 9cm redshift.
So now, what is the geometry of the corrugations equivalent to for a
ellipsoid surface? Is
it spherical or ellipsoid?
Anyone can repeat the above, for I described the materials and the
measurements.
And the above tells us that speed of the object is of no importance
for the redshift.
The redshift is totally a geometrical consequence, of white light
traveling through a
bent medium of fiberglass. And the redshift tells us only the distance
away of the
object. The further away, the more the redshift, and the closer, the
less of the redshift.
About the only blueshift that can ever be expected in astronomy are
the local galaxies
moving towards us, but those would be rare and a small and tiny
blueshift. There would
not be any large blueshifts.
So the geometry of the Cosmos as the 5f6 of 231Pu Atom Totality with
its electrons in
a lobe shaped geometry of high curvature would easily cause these
redshifts of slow
moving galaxies. It is not that these galaxies are travelling at
nearly the speed of light,
but rather they are white light galaxies travelling at say 30 km/sec
or 100 km/sec
and as their light travels through that curved space like the
corrugated fiberglass, that
white light is redshifted immensely.
So here we have a situation where the redshift discovered in the 20th
century, has
become not a support of the Big Bang but an actual invalidator of the
Big Bang.
Now I do not think the Schrodinger Equation is able to unlock the
curvature of the
lobes of the 5f6 of plutonium. But if it can, then the curvature of
these lobes should
agree with the redshift of galaxies.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
In fact I do not need the corrugations but only a flat sheet of
fiberglass
and the more of angle I tilt it from perpendicular the more of a
redshift I get.
And in fact, I need no motion in the white light that comes through
the
fiberglass. Just a stationary white light from the distance gives a
redshift.
So the motion of a white light whether coming towards or going away
is irrelevant to producing a redshift. The redshift is caused totally
by
refraction and the distance away of the white light source and the
power
of that white light.
Here is a entry by Wikipedia on refraction and showing redshift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
Now scroll down to the picture: "refraction in Perspex (acrylic)
block"
Notice the redshift of that initial white light beam.
So how does this affect the Big Bang theory? Well, it was assumed that
when
the redshift of galaxies was discovered, that it meant the Universe
originated in
a Big Bang explosion and that these galaxies are moving away causing a
Doppler
redshift and thus they are moving at nearly the speed of light.
With this experiment we have a better explanation of redshift in an
Atom Totality.
The curvature of Space of the 5f6 of the 231Pu Atom Totality is highly
curved
lobes, ellipsoids, and as white light travels from distant galaxies it
is bent since
Space is bent and it thus refracts the white light. Depending on
distance and
power of that white light source yields a redshift.
So in the Big Bang, the redshift is an explosion effect with speeds
causing a
redshift. In the Atom Totality, the speeds of galaxies are immaterial,
and whether
they are going towards us or away from us. The redshift is caused
solely by the
extreme curvature of Space over long distances. There can be a Doppler
shift
but it is only a tiny contribution and only for local galaxies.
The favorite explanation is the Atom Totality because it dismisses the
nonsense
that galaxies can have speeds nearly that of light, when anyone knows
that
it takes infinite energy to get a heavy object moving near the speed
of light.
And that Special Relativity theory is violated by having galaxies
speeding with
nearly that of light. And Resonance energy comes into play whenever
speeds
of astro bodies exceed that of about 500 km/sec. Galaxies just ripp
apart or
disintegrate with speeds higher than 500 km/sec.
So it is not that the Big Bang is supported and vouched for with the
redshift. But
rather instead the redshift shows how much the Big Bang is a fake
theory of
science. And the only reason any astronomer or physicist still
believes in the Big
Bang, is the same reason that they could not accept Quantum Mechanics
in the
early 1900s, because a mind reaches an age in which it is never able
to change
and adapt to the new truths. There are still people who deny that the
earth is round
not flat and that deny that atoms exist. And we should not assume that
scientists
are immune to denial-phases in history.
Archimedes Plutonium
an easy experiment
that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High
School students can
perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated piece
for the corrugation
only gets in the way.
I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be about
1929. Now I need
to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval
atom". It must have
been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier.
Now the idea and the experiment that the redshift is the geometry of
space and has
nothing to do with speed of galaxies or the speed of cosmic expansion,
but simply
the idea that as white light travels in highly curved space over long
distances causes
a refractive redshift.
So that the redshift of faraway galaxies was never due to a explosion
and expansion
of the Cosmos, but merely a result of white light traveling far
distances in a curved
space.
So this brings me to the logical conclusion that 3 dimensional
Elliptic geometry
needs to be detailed or discussed or made progress on. We know the
sphere
surface is a model of Elliptic geometry but that is 2 dimensional
Elliptic geometry.
Here we need 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry, because the lobes of
the 5f6
of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality is 3rd dimensional Elliptic
geometry. And we
need this 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry in order to see or
understand how
white light travelling in this bent space becomes redshifted. We
cannot expect
white light from a galaxy on the pole when it reaches the equator with
a galaxy
there to see a redshift because that is a two dimensional medium.
So I am going to take the most obvious suggestion of a solution since
we
cannot visualize 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry. I am going to say
that
3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry is the surface of the sphere and is
a layer
of the sphere above and below the surface. Now how thick this layer
is,
is not clear to me as yet and am hoping that by the chapter 16 on the
shape of the Cosmos, that this suggestion is good.
Now how thick that 3rd dimension layer is, would be governed by the
Dirac positron space that gives the force of gravity. So is this layer
about the
thickness of a galaxy? Seems kind of arbitrary.
Now here I am sort of guided by the astronomy of Earth in that we have
a
huge magnetic field surrounding Earth. So let me be guided by that
image
and to say that the 3rd dimension is a layer that is the thickness of
the magnetic
field surrounding a galaxy and that as we get into space where there
are no
galaxies the layer is the thinnest but still a layer.
So my image of 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry of the Universe is a
sphere surface
covered by "lenses" where one lense is contiguous to other lenses and
the thickness
of these lenses is the thickness of the magnetic field surround
galaxies. So that when
a white light wave leaves a distant galaxy it travels through these
lenses and when
it reaches Earth is redshifted.
The idea of lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic, sort of reminds
me of Leibniz's monads.
He called them monads but I call them lenses.
And the idea of lenses reminds me of the Luminet team's research into
the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space where traveling in one of the 12 faces ends up in
travelling down
an identical face. So the face is just repeated in the next face.
Likewise when in
a lense of Elliptic geometry, you can just go round and round inside
that lense.
So basically this post is about how a light wave travels in Elliptic
geometry and is redshifted,
just as the light is redshifted from oncoming cars by the fiberglass
panel. I need a
3 dimension for the light wave to be refracted and redshifted.
The easiest solution is to think of a lenses as the 3rd dimension of
elliptic geometry.
Now if this holds up by the time I reach chapter 16, then all the
better.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I wish every chapter of this book had an experiment with it, and such
> an easy experiment
> that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High
> School students can
> perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated piece
> for the corrugation
> only gets in the way.
>
> I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be about
> 1929. Now I need
> to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval
> atom". It must have
> been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier.
>
Surprize to me, for it looks as though the Big Bang theory arose
afterwards
of the Hubble redshift announcement that the distance to faraway
galaxies
was proportional to the redshift.
For it looks as though Lemaitre announced the Big Bang "primeval atom
explosion" after 1929, in the 1930s.
So the history has to be rechecked on the sequence of events. I had
thought
that the Big Bang idea was extant before Hubble's redshift
announcement, but
it looks as though the Big Bang was not extant.
The history of the Atom Totality theory is very clear. It was borne on
7 November,
1990 with the announcement that the Universe is a big atom of
Plutonium.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the Luminet interpretation of the
Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is a 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. What allows
a
3rd dimension is the 12 faces of the dodecahedron return to the
original face.
So that as you travel along one face and meet a second face you are
travelling
back through the first face. In this geometry Space, stars and
galaxies repeat
themselves.
So if I am not mistaken, If I substitute a face with a huge lense and
there
would be 12 lenses altogether in the Poincare Dodecahedral Space. That
such
a model would be 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry.
And so the travel of light from one galaxy to another galaxy is always
travelling
inside this lense medium and is refracted. The further away two
galaxies are
means that light travels through the thickness portion of the lense.
I am anxious to look up any blueshifted galaxy. Because I feel that
the blueshift
is able to separate the true conjectures from the false conjectures.
If I am correct
about lenses, then the blueshift should conform. In all these years
from 1990 to
2010, I have not focused on what galaxies are blueshifted, and it is
fun to now
have to explore what are blueshifted, if any.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
--- quoting from Wikipedia on blueshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift
The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards our own Milky Way Galaxy
within the Local Group; thus, when observed from earth, its light is
undergoing a blue shift.
When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning towards us will
have a slight blue shift (see Tully-Fisher relation).
Also, Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets towards us,
emitting synchrotron radiation and Bremsstrahlung that appears blue
shifted.
Nearby stars such as Barnard's Star are moving towards us, resulting
in a very small blue shift.
--- end quoting from Wikipedia blueshift ---
--- quoting about a quasar blueshift ---
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618..601A&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c07726
We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) of
the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III]
emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 relative
to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG
1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow-
line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date among
type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs).
--- end quoting ---
I need to look into these reported blueshifts. I think most of them
are due to rotational
speeds such as the quasar report above, and that most of them are so
tiny and small of a blueshift as to be insignificant.
I am unsure as to what the Big Bang theory predicts according to the
occurrence of
blueshifts and what the Atom Totality predicts according to the
blueshift occurrence. Whether the Big Bang predicts more occurrences
of blueshifts than the Atom Totality. According
to the fiberglass window on approaching white light auto headlamps,
all of them were
redshifted. So does the Atom Totality predict no blueshifts? And
should the Big Bang
theory predict alot more blueshifts considering there would be half
the galaxies heading
or approaching in our direction so that 1/2 of the galaxies be
blueshifted rather than a
rare occurrence?
If the Big Bang predicts about 1/2 or even 1/4 of the galaxies be
blueshifted, then
the Big Bang is falsified since nearly all the shifts are redshifted.
Archimedes Plutonium
Anyway, let me summarize the types of redshift commonly bantered
about. There
are three such types:
(a) Doppler redshift -- relative motion or speeding away of two
objects, causing
an elongation of the wavelength
(b) Cosmological redshift-- due to expansion of Space itself from a
Big Bang
(c) Gravitational redshift-- pull of a gravitational field.
We can leave out gravitational redshift. The Atom Totality theory
would argue
that since speeds of all galaxies are so tiny of speeds that we would
not
see any redshift cosmic wide. And the Atom Totality would argue that
the
Cosmological redshift is not due to a explosion, because Space is not
moving or expanding but rather standing still, and the Cosmic redshift
is due to light traveling through a highly curved Space.
So the Atom Totality theory would say on the issue of Cosmic redshift,
that
we can exlude Doppler redshift since the speeds of galaxies are so
small of
speeds that they have little to no contribution.
And as the experiment of a fiberglass window with oncoming headlights
of autos
shows that the redshift is all about refraction of Space.
Redshift as the curvature of Space is what the Atom Totality
prescribes, and it
is a relationship dependent on distance, similar to the Hubble law,
only the cause
is not an expansion but a geometry effect.
So, the question is, can the blueshift tell whether the Big Bang is
true or false?
And can the blueshift tell of the Atom Totality is true or false?
I think it can.
There should be alot more blueshifts occurring if the Big Bang is
true. In fact,
blueshifts are rare.
This indicates that the curvature of space causing redshifts goes into
action at a
relatively small distance away from Earth. Beyond the Andromeda galaxy
there
is hardly any blueshift seen. What blueshift occurrs is rotational
speeds and this
is a very tiny blueshift.
I think the data supports the Atom Totality. Because if blueshifts
disappear at relatively
small distance from Earth, indicates that the geometry of Space is the
cause, not
the motion or expansion of Space.
The Big Bang would predict a large number of cases of blueshift for
distant galaxies.
The Atom Totality would predict no cases of blueshift for distant
galaxies. As far as
I can see in the reports, there are no blueshifts, unless you want to
call the rotational
motion as blueshifts.
In a debate of the Big Bang versus Atom Totality over redshift and
blueshift, I want to
draw attention on a weakness of the Big Bang theory that is
exploitative. The Big Bang
says there are no edges to the Cosmos and there is no center of the
Cosmos. So they
are saying that the Big Bang is 2D Elliptic geometry as a sphere
surface to account for
an explosion and that this explosion gives a redshift since all
galaxies are moving away
from one another. But they are in trouble with that notion because we
know that Space is 3 dimensional.
The Atom Totality understands that space is 3 dimensional and tries to
show a 3rd
dimension to the surface of a sphere. It is this 3rd dimension that
light from distant
galaxies has to travel through and is thus refracted and redshifted.
This 3rd dimension
is sort of like a ** lens** and as white light travels through that
lens, it is redshifted.
So where the Big Bang explains redshift as a 2D explosion for a sphere
surface, the
Atom Totality explains the redshift as the 3rd Dimension of the sphere
surface with a
lens as the third that causes the redshift.
So the Big Bang people have been derelict in not coming up with the
3rd dimension
of Space. I do not think they want everyone to believe that the Cosmos
is only
two dimensional, just so their theory can pass.
Through the years someone should have composed a compendium of all the
blueshifts,
for I believe such a focused study on just blueshifts alone can decide
whether the
Big Bang theory is a fake or has a fighting chance.
Since blueshifts are rare and only local. Discounting all the
blueshifts due to rotations.
We can almost announce the end of the Big Bang theory.
Archimedes Plutonium
Relativistic Physics has the energy of light at E = mc^2
NonRelativistic Physics has the kinetic energy at E = 1/2mv^2
Notice that one is 1/2 and the other is 1. That is important as
to the shape of the Atom Totality whether it is 6 sided or 12 sided.
Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like:
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
_ _
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
There are six lobes and those lines represent those 6 lobes and all
the dots represent the
last 6 electrons as a electron dot cloud. Each dot is a galaxy in the
night sky. There are about 10^60 dots to each electron and that would
account for all the atoms in the observable Cosmos. So when
we look up in the nighttime at the Night Sky and see all those stars
and galaxies we are
looking at pieces of the last six electrons of one gigantic big atom
of plutonium. The isotope of plutonium is 231Pu, because that isotope
fits the special numbers of physics and math. Such special numbers
as the fine-structure constant or "pi and e".
Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
Archimedes Plutonium
show
you 10^60 dots, although we can start to see 10^60 dots by looking at
the Night Sky of galaxies. Of course, the dots in the Night Sky are
concentrated
in stars and galaxies and not effused and spread out.
This textbook which I have owned for a long time and perhaps the
best College textbook on physics, even though it is 1986 vintage,
for the newest physics textbooks are cluttered up with fake physics
such as black holes, neutron stars, Big Bang and other untrue exotica.
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---
If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots
are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots
(sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990.
And thus the Atom Totality theory was borne.
You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the
galaxies of the night sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.
Postscript: Chapter 1 on the topic of redshift. I departed chapter 1,
way to early.
And thank goodness for this device of a postscript so that I can
continue to
organize this book whilst adding ideas that are out of place.
If the Big Bang were true, then it is extremely hard to believe that
the redshift is the
expansion of Space itself. That is a new physics altogether and
contradicts other physics. The next question would
be to ask if the galaxies that are riding a space that is travelling
as fast or even faster
than the speed of light, would that also make the velocity of galaxies
be the speed of
light. So in the Big Bang theory explanation of redshift, we have a
whole new physics that
has never been tried before, because we have galaxies riding in Space
that is moving close to
or faster than the speed of light.
How do Big Bang people reconcile their theory with the implications
that Space is moving,
and would that not also make the galaxies move at the speed of light?
Whereas the Atom Totality theory explains the redshift as simply a
Space that is motionless
but highly curved as a lens is curved and that white light traveling
far distances is refracted
in this curved and bent space yielding a redshift.
So I ask the commonsense physicist or the commonsense layperson. Which
makes the easier explanation? The Big Bang which asks you to believe
that Space is in motion and
travelling beyond the speed of light and carrying galaxies along in
that motion to yield
a redshift? Or is the explanation that Space is motionless but highly
curved like the surface
of a sphere and that this curvature over large distances causes light
to be refracted and thus
redshifted?
Clearly the Atom Totality theory is the better commonsense
explanation. The Big Bang involves new physics that has never been
seen or heard of before, where you have
Space in motion, where you have Space as a separate entity, yet never
defining what Space is, and you have Space carrying galaxies
along in that motion. Sounds really farfetched and preposterous. But
then in the time
frame of 1930 to 1990, the Big Bang was the only theory on the block
and so any farfetched
and preposterous and ludicrous notions would pass, since there was no
other theory to
compete with.
I departed Chapter 1 without really resolving the issue of redshift
and blueshift in Big Bang
and Atom Totality. Here, I have resolved it. Because it comes down to
a choice between
Space travelling at the speed of light and thus the galaxies would be
travelling at the speed of
light, or a whole new physics. Or, the choice that Space is
motionless, and that galaxies are
travelling at slow speeds like that of 70 km/sec, and that the
redshift is caused by the
curvature of space that refracts white light and redshifts that light.
This is standard common
physics and nothing new. So on that account alone, where we do not
need to have to
compare redshifts and blueshifts, the Big Bang is a fake and only the
Atom Totality can reasonably explain the redshift. The Big Bang asks
us to accept new
and untried and farfetched physics-- that Space is separate from
matter and that Space
is in motion and that Space carries galaxies at upwards the speed of
light.
Archimedes Plutonium
I have a picture of the 5f6 of Plutonium in the book
THE ELEMENTS BEYOND URANIUM, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990, and page 73.
Shape of the Cosmos is more important than the color of the Cosmos.
And ever since I published and broadcast the Atom Totality theory
starting in 1991 in newspaper and magazines and on the Internet in
1993, that I have stated many times that the 5f6 Observable Universe
is the shape of 6 lobes. This can be seen quite clearly in the book
"The Elements Beyond Uranium" Seaborg & Loveland 1990, page
73 the General Set of nonrelativistic f orbital shapes. Now that
same
page shows the Cubic Set and the reader must realize that although
the lobes look like 8 lobes, that keep in mind that they are the
inside of a CUBE and a cube is a 6 faced regular-polyhedra.
This book has a chapter devoted to just the space of the Universe
and it was found in the 2000s decade by the Luminet team of
researchers that the Microwave radiation of the Cosmos fits a
Poincare Dodecahedral Space as the best shape of the Cosmos.
A dodecahedron is 12 faces. I find this as not alarming because
as mentioned earlier, that the nonrelativistic energy is 1/2 mv^2
and relativistic energy is mc^2, where one equation has a factor
of 1/2. And that 6 is 1/2 of that of 12.
The Seaborg and Loveland book on page 73 shows the 5f6 and the
lobes of that subshell. I often mention the word "lobes" as elongated
ellipsoids and this page of the book shows those lobes.
Postscript to Chapter 1 on redshift: Last night, luckily, I resolved
the redshift issue
for the Big Bang versus the Atom Totality. I need not have pursued on
whether the
blueshift or redshift data favors either the Big Bang or the Atom
Totality. I need
not have looked to see what each theory predicts for a blueshift or to
what
magnitude of a redshift occurs. The issue of redshift and blueshift
with the
Big Bang versus Atom Totality is all resolved by whether each theory
can have
a viable physics to promote their redshift and blueshift. The Big Bang
fails.
As I was looking at Hubble's law, it was graphed to where it had
increments of the
speed of light. Not only does the Big Bang reach the speed of light
but exceeds it
for one graph had from 0 to c to 2c to 3c to 4c to 5c and beyond. I
suppose these
people who believe in the Big Bang would also believe that a ship on
ocean tides
travelling at the speed of light, that the ship would stay in tact and
not disintegrate.
The Big Bang theory explains redshift as that of Space moving and
carrying along
with Space the galaxies. So Big Bangers impart a speed to galaxies
with the speed
of light and beyond. These Big Bangers have to explain these
questions:
(a) How is Space so independent of the Cosmos itself, when Space is
never independent
in normal physics?
(b) How can Space be moving at the speed of light and not have the
galaxies moving
with the speed of light?
(c) Why should Space in the Big Bang theory be treated differently in
physics, whereas
in all other physics, space is treated as if it is a medium that is
motionless?
(d) Had Big Bang believers ever heard of "resonance energy" and that
if you have a galaxy
nested inside a space moving at the speed of light, how in the world
would that galaxy
not bust and break apart due to resonance.
The Atom Totality theory rests on a simple experiment that anyone can
do in their homes
if they have a view of a road with car headlights. Simply buy a sheet
of opaque fiberglass and tilt it slightly in the the window. The sheet
I have comes from a greenhouse and has some
corrugations, but a flat sheet tilted would do. Anyway, the oncoming
white light headlights of
cars are all redshifted. The further away the car is, the more the
redshift. So the speed is
irrelevant and the concern of whether the car is moving towards the
window or away from
the window is irrelevant. The redshift is caused by the refraction of
light as it passes through
the fiberglass. So what this experiment tells us of the Cosmic
Redshift of galaxies is that
it is caused by the geometry of Space, and not a Doppler Redshift of
galaxies in a expanding
universe. In fact the Universe is probably pretty much stationary or
at rest.
So the redshift is due to white light travelling large distances in a
bent and curved space ends
up being redshifted.
So one needs not have to figure out the predictions of the Big Bang
theory as per what to
expect of redshift and blueshift. Nor does one have to figure out the
predictions of the
Atom Totality with respect to blueshift and redshift. All one has to
do is realize that the
Big Bang imposes anti-physics or non-physics upon that of physics. The
Big Bang expects
you to believe we can have a Space that is independent of the rest of
the Universe and that
this space can carry galaxies with the speed of light. So the Big Bang
is anti-physics.
Archimedes Plutonium
into one chapter since they
are not long enough as independent chapters.
There is going to be a point in my life where I no longer am able to
think
back and tell the history of the Atom Totality theory, where I forget
the
succession of events and where my mind is too old or for whatever
reason
unable to tell this story accurately. So it is good that this history
account
is told in every one of these editions before I reach that inability
stage.
And I want to make each edition
better reading than the previous one. This 4th edition is going to be
shorter.
I can cut out alot of the details and sort of skip to major points. I
am
going to start this history by accounting the history of the discovery
of the
Atom Totality theory, 7 November 1990. I am going to start the story
from
1975 when I was 25 years old and teaching math in Australia and
reading this
book on Pragmatism. Earlier editions give a larger version of this
history,
but I want a abbreviated one now. And this history is going to use
books
as the succession of events.
History of discovery of Atom Totality Theory as per books read:
(1) I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S.
Peirce who wrote "The Architecture of Theories" in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.
--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974
---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would
suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was
a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without
connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This
feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would
have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a
growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started;
and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all
the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will
remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect,
rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---
The first time I read this was in 1975, and I was so impressed
with that paragraph that I remembered it clearly by 1989
when it would come to me in a torrent of creativity.
I remember in 1989 in my apartment flat in New Hampshire
of this Peirce Cosmology coming into my mind. Almost
out of the blue, for it just came to me where I asked a
question. I had remembered this crystallizing out that
Peirce had written and asked the question, what in the
world is worthy of crystallizing out *into*? Is there anything
in existence worthy of crystallizing-into? And the answer
was, for me in 1989, yes, crystallizing out into becoming
an atom. That atoms were nearly perfect entities and the
only thing near to perfect as far as the world understands
perfect.
And now that I look back from 2010 to 1989 which was more than
20 years ago (my, time does fly), one would think that
I should have had the Atom Totality theory right then and
there. But actual discovery takes twists and turns and pauses.
The 1989 event for me was the setting-up of the discovery
of the Atom Totality theory. I gave this 1989 event a special
name since it occurred during the Autumn Equinox and called
it the Autumnal Electronox or Electronox for short. This 1989
event set the stage for the discovery of the Atom Totality
theory of 7 November 1990.
Before I get to 1990, I need to talk about another book that
was pivotal in the discovery. It was a book, but also a TV
series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember
this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis
music that accompanied this verse:
(2) I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and
remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.
--- quoting from book COSMOS ---
[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood.
There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.
--- end quoting COSMOS ---
Actually it was the music that made me tape record
it from the TV while I was in the Navy in the early
1980s and taped it over repeatedly so that for
1/2 hour of tape I would hear the above words
and the Vangelis music over and over again. I no
longer know what exact year that was, perhaps
1983.
So there I was, 1989 with the Peirce crystallizing out
of the Cosmos and with Sagan's Elementary Particle Cosmos
going into the year 1990.
Let me repeat, for more details, anyone can read my earlier
edition of the 2nd edition or possibly my 1991 copyrighted
manuscript that I sent to the Library of Congress and I posted
in the timeframe of 1993 and beyond to the sci newsgroups.
So here is the beginning of 1990, the year 1990 with me
set-up in my mind the Four Pragmatist paragraph of
crystallizing out, and with Sagan's paragraph
in Cosmos TV show of a "elementary particle universe".
So there I was with those two ideas mixing and turning
in my mind in 1989 and 1990, and then a third book that
finally tips the scales and sends me into a major discovery.
(3) This book was the textbook:
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---
If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots
are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots
(sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990.
You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the
galaxies of the night sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.
So in 1989 I had the Cosmos as crystallizing out in the future and
the only near perfect thing is an atom. And I had the nested
elementary
particle universe in Sagan's COSMOS tv show. Then on the
morning of 7 November 1990, and putting the Halliday Resnick
physics textbook picture of an Electron-Dot-Cloud to the night
sky of stars and galaxies. Eureka, I had put together that the
Universe was already an Atom and had always been an Atom
and that the night-sky of stars and galaxies were pieces of the
last electrons of an Atom Totality.
Looking back now, here in 2010, it does not look like it had
to be a huge step forward in logic to go from:
(1) Universe crystallizing out in the future as an atom
(2) Universe as nested elementary-particles
going from (1) and (2) to that of the Night Sky of galaxies are
the dots in the electron-dot-cloud and therefore the Universe
is already an Atom Totality. That the Universe had always
been an Atom Totality.
Reflection back now, it seems as though I should have discovered
the Atom Totality in 1989, but a new discovery often takes a
windy journey rather than a straightline to discovery.
So I quickly went to the library in New Hampshire to find out
what atomic element
would fit best the present day Cosmos? At that moment I
was not looking for exacting detailed evidence of a chemical
element such as the Fine Structure Constant or the Proton to
Electron mass ratio. I was looking for something much more simple
and immediate. I was looking for what element would have a
radius expansion from previous element to give a red shift in
galaxies. And to my delight, it was
the element plutonium. Later I would find out that 231Pu gives the
fine-structure-constant the best, along with the mass ratio of
proton to electron.
And as this 4th edition opens up with a refuting of the redshift,
shows
how much alot of what we think is true is rather in flux. The redshift
would not be something I would pin a decision on whether it is a
Uranium Atom Totality or a Plutonium Atom Totality, but rather
something
like the fine-structure constant in tandem with the proton to electron
mass ratio. Let me also add, that on 7 November 1990, my first fact
seeking of plutonium was not whether it had a larger radius than the
previous
element of neptunium for a redshift, but rather was to see if
plutonium
occurs naturally in Nature, and that was verified to be true, that
plutonium
atoms exist naturally in uranium ore deposits.
The above is a brief summary of the chain of events, and anyone
wanting more details can read my earlier editions or posts to the
sci newsgroups. As I get older, I run the risk of inaccurate memory,
but with age, also, I tend to want to summarize more than prior
renditions.
In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.
Postscript to Chapter 2: consider in the 5th edition to combine these
two chapters
into one, of the pictures and the history.
Archimedes Plutonium
made the changes
in this post and throughout the book.
Here is the revised chapters of this 4th edition book:
Plutonium Atom Totality theory
Chapters of this book:
I. the theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(3) experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is-- curvature
of the lobes of
an Atom Totality
Let me explain what I did in this chapter revision in the postscript
below.
And let me continue with the history, starting where I left-off from
the previous
post.
> In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
> Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
> may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
> It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
> ancients
> did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.
I am not going to talk about the Ancient Greeks with the Atomic
Theory.
There is plenty of literature on them. From Thales of Miletus with
amber
and lodestone of (-550 De Rerum Natura). To Leucippus as the founder
of the Atomic Theory and his most famous student Democritus (-400
De Rerum Natura) to Epicurus to Titus Lucretius who wrote De Rerum
Natura (0000 date time).
Notice that I use a system of date time that places the calendar as
the
year in which De Rerum Natura was widespread. So I link Science to
the calendar. So when I think of the year 2009, to me it means two
thousand nine years since De Rerum Natura was widespread and the
Atomic
Theory was extant on Earth.
I am not going to dwell on the Ancient Greeks and the Atomic Theory
for it is
easily accessible to anyone wanting as much information as they so
desire.
But I will talk about two other books before the Atom Totality theory
that
existed before I was born and which have a link to the Atom Totality
theory.
To keep my numbering in order this should be the book number (4).
--- start of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992
---
Lemaitre, Georges (b. July 17, 1894, Charleroi,
Belg.--d.
June 20, 1966, Louvain), Belgian astronomer and
cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory,
which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic
explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom."
.... His works
include Discussion sur l'evolution de l'univers
(1933; "Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe")
and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif
(1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom")
--- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---
The reason I bring up Lemaitre is that several
times in
his writings he refers to his Big Bang as the
"Primeval Atom"
as a description of the initial Big Bang in its
point-singularity, the universe as a point-complex of
matter radiation. Obviously Lemaitre used "primeval
atom"
as a purely descriptive term never claiming that the
present universe was an atom itself. Anyone whoever
claims to have had the Atom Totality theory would
have to make the obvious next step that they in fact
originated the theory by giving details as to what
chemical element the present universe actually is.
Sagan never had the Atom Totality or else he would
have specified a chemical element. Lemaitre never
had the Atom Totality or he would have specified
a chemical element.
Lemaitre's primeval atom had no effect on my
journey to discovery of that Atom Totality theory.
But just the idea of "primeval atom" as the start of the
Big Bang should have ignited the imagination of
many scientists into the next exciting question--
could the Cosmos be an atom itself? And can we
make a different Born Interpretation of the electron-dot-cloud
to accomodate a Atom Totality with the night sky of
stars and galaxies as tiny pieces of the last electrons
of an Atom Universe? Luckily for me, anyway, there
was no spark of imagination by anyone when learning
of a primeval atom. But I wonder if the French translation
above is really "primeval" or whether it means more of
"primitive". If it means more of "primitive" then there was
likely a less of a tendency to spark any imagination.
Science is pragmatic and practical and all great
theories have long
past previous suggestions or hints or forerunners or
one can sort
of "read more into past works" or, someone can
exaggerate past
works to hint of recent discoveries. It is fun to
trace past
histories for strands of thought that hinted of, or
suggested of
the Atom Totality and that is what this article
attempts to do. In
one of the listings, I show where Charles S.
Peirce,
the famous USA pragmatist hinted of Quantum Mechanics
long before
QM was discovered. And that is not to say that Peirce
is the
discoverer of QM but it shows how new important
discoveries have
had past hints. Some past hints have actually been the
catalyst
or booster in the forming of a new discovery.
I have wondered whether Democritus himself by pure
math logic
reasoning came to the conclusion that the universe
itself must
be an atom. For clearly, it follows that if all things
are made-up
of atoms (or is the void between atoms) then this
logically implies
that the whole must be an atom itself (or the void and
clearly it cannot be a void since we exist). Did
Democritus have
the idea that since all matter was made up of atoms
that by pure
math logic implied the entirety is an atom itself? Not
knowing
any physics or any science but just good in math
logic, that if
you make the theory that all things are made up of
atoms, by pure
math logic reasoning implies that the whole is also an
atom itself!
I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes
recognized his
talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to
push his Atomic
Theory to its logical conclusion. Perusing the physics
history
literature, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory,
I came across this gem.
Book number (5):
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite
indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were
indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be
divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be
broken.
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all
sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even
be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic
Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic
tradition.
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be
broken, but
it was also too small to be seen, and only thought
could
discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even
admittedly
speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if
he had
seen them with his eyes.
--- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
So what am I to make of this fact. A fact I cannot deny since
there is that book and I own a copy now. It is 1931, and Gregory
must have been referring to some evidence when he says "so some
said, as big as the world." Gregory was not making that up out of
nothing.
So let us say there was some evidence of a Democritean SuperAtom.
Then Democritus would have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and
the only thing holding him back from pinpointing what chemical element
it was, was that he had no chemistry and the periodic table of
chemical
elements that we have in modern times.
Now before I leave this history I should include a broad category of
other books that were very influential. Those chemistry and physics
books I used in High School and College which showed pictures of the
electron-dot-cloud. In High School it was PSSC and in College it was
Chemistry by Mortimer and in Physics it was Halliday and Resnick.
Let me just group them all into a category of books (6) and say they
had pictures of the electron-dot-cloud.
The discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to reinterpret the Born
Interpretation of the electron of an atom. Most everyone imagines the
electron as a tiny ball whizzing around the nucleus. When in fact, the
electron
is a dot-cloud-pattern. We have the electron as a ball when collapsed
wavefunction such as electricity in motion. But when the atom is not
collapsed
which is most of the time, it is in a electron-dot-cloud where its
tiny mass is
smashed like a broken windshield of a car and the tiny pieces
scattered all over
the place. Those tiny pieces, are each a galaxy.
So the discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to discover that the
electron-dot-cloud
is the night-time sky of galaxies.
Postscript to Chapter 2 and 3. I could not wait for the 5th ed., but
wanted to
make this change in this 4th edition. I have combined the "pictures
chapter"
with the "history chapter" as that of chapter 2. For chapter 3, I am
taking all
the discussion and experiment on redshift and placing it into chapter
3, rather
than have it in chapter 1 or in chapter 16 "shape of the Cosmos"
Now let me talk a little bit more about this redshift experiment
discovery using
a sheet of fiberglass for a window and seeing oncoming auto headlights
redshifted.
If one were to compute the refraction of the figerglass and translate
that into a
lens shape that would give the same refraction. And then correlate
what the
cosmic redshift is. Then I suspect one can compute what the Cosmic
Lens is.
Now that is important because noone has ever dared to describe 3
dimensional
Elliptic geometry. The Big Bang is deaf, dumb and silent about 3D
Elliptic geometry,
although it uses 2D Elliptic geometry of a sphere surface.
So what I am saying is that 3D Elliptic geometry is a sphere surface
but is a layered
sphere surface that has a lens as that 3rd dimension. Normally we have
dimensions
as orthogonal to one another. But a sphere surface is 2D Elliptic
geometry. So we
need that 3rd dimension Elliptic geometry and I propose that 3rd
dimension is a lens
type of layer to the 2D surface of a sphere. So 2D Elliptic is the
sphere surface and to
make it 3D Elliptic, a lens is that surface. Now how thick is this
lens? Well, I am thinking
that the experiment of fiberglass correlated with the observed cosmic
redshift can imply
the thickness of the lens layer of 3D Elliptic geometry.
Now I do not know if the Luminet work on the Poincare Dodecahedral
Space is a 3D Elliptic
geometry. I am not that familar or expert enough to evaluate whether
that Space is a
3D Elliptic geometry. I would guess it is since you return back to
your starting point if you
travel far enough. And maybe the 36 degree twist in the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is
a equivalent to what I am calling a lens as the 3rd dimension of
Elliptic geometry.
So this redshift experiment that falsifies the Big Bang theory
deserves its own full chapter.
Archimedes Plutonium
Unfortunately, in the history of astronomy, the Hubble Cosmic redshift
was
adopted by a fake theory, the Big Bang theory. Any theory want to
adopt
evidence that supports that theory. When this happens, in science, it
may
take some time before the evidence turns against the fake adopter. But
by
2010, we actually have a homemade experiment that any High School
science
student can do in their homes and thus prove the Big Bang to be false
science.
I am not going to repeat my previous posts of its "postscript" talking
about
the redshift experiment of a sheet of plastic fiberglass window on
auto car
white light oncoming headlights. The fiberglass turns all white light
into a
redshift. And the reason is obvious as a refraction.
The Cosmic redshift of galaxies is not due to a explosion but due to
what can
be called Electromagnetic Lensing produced by the fact that the
nucleus of the
Atom Totality holds the electrons in orbit and thus producing a
geometry of
a sphere surface which is a lens in 3 dimensional Elliptic geometry.
Here is a review of how redshifts are produced from Wikipedia:
--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Redshifts are attributable to three different physical effects. The
first discovered was the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in
the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves
emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler
effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.
Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe,
and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few
million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of
increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
It turns out that Wikipedia is wrong, grossly wrong about saying that
a redshift occurs from
a explosion, the Big Bang expansion of Space. That is a falsehood.
The Cosmic Redshift, as this book with its experiment of fiberglass
window on auto
headlights demonstrates, is similar to gravitational lensing, only the
producer of the
Cosmic Redshift is a force that is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and is
the force of the
Coulomb force that holds electrons to atoms, of their nucleus of
protons. It is
EM force of protons holding the electrons to the atom.
In the 231Pu Atom Totality, the 5f6 of its last 6 electrons, our night
sky are held in place
by the attraction of the Cosmic Nucleus. This EM attraction causes our
Space to be
Elliptic geometry such as a sphere surface. But a sphere surface is
only 2 dimensional.
To make it 3rd dimensional the surface has a thickness of a lens
shape. This lens shape
is recreated by the High School student performing a fiberglass window
upon oncoming
white headlights of autos on the road. It is redshifted, even though
it is counter to the
Doppler effect. The refraction is far greater than the tiny Doppler
effect.
So, Wikipedia is all wrong about their account and the Big Bang theory
is all wrong
about their hijacking of the Cosmic redshift, fraudulently claiming it
supports a
ancient explosion. And it is fitting that High School students
performing the experiment
are wiser than the professors of astronomy and cosmology and physics
who pretend
that there ever was a Big Bang explosion.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all snipped except this)
> --- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
>
> Redshifts are attributable to three different physical effects. The
> first discovered was the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in
> the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves
> emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler
> effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.
> Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe,
> and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few
> million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of
> increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational
> redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
> radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
> in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light-
> emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
> radiation moves into a gravitational field.
>
> --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So if we can have a gravitational lensing producing redshifts, why
not have electromagnetic Coulombs force lensing of holding together
a Cosmic atom? EM holding together the electrons to the protons.
With EM lensing there is no need for space to be in rapid motion,
rather
instead, Space is motionless. And there is never a worry or mystery as
to how any physics can have a Space traveling at speed of light, while
its galaxies are traveling at what speed?
If there ever was an Occam's razor of reasoning, surely, it is far
more
plausible to have slow moving galaxies in motionless Space and the
redshift due to a bent Space. Surely that scenario is far easier and
compelling than the scenario of a Space independent of the matter,
travelling upwards and beyond the speed of light, and reliant on 2D
geometry, to give a Doppler redshift.
There is a good reason that Big Bang theorists never discuss 3D
elliptic geometry.
Because their theory fails. They only talk about 2D elliptic geometry
where Space
has no edges and no center and where every point on the surface of the
sphere is
moving away from all other points.
But everyone knows that Space is not 2D. Everyone knows Space is 3D.
The
Big Bang does not work in 3D Euclidean nor does it work in 3D
Elliptic.
But the Atom Totality theory explanation of the redshift works in all
geometries.
In 3D Elliptic there is an edge and a center to the Universe. But
matter is confined
in 3D Elliptic.
The 3rd dimension in 3D Elliptic is a lens that covers 12 faces of a
dodecahedron.
Whether there are 12 lens for the Poincare Dodecahedral Space I am not
sure of.
Instead of the face being a flat pentagon, the face is a lens. And the
galaxies reside
in these lens. So as the light from one galaxy travels through this
lens to reach
another galaxy, it is refracted and thus redshifted.
The pros and cons of the Big Bang redshift :
Pros
(a) does predict a redshift since everything is moving away from each
other
Cons
(a) is stuck with only a 2D explanation, yet space is definitely 3D
(b) separates Space from Matter as independent entities
(c) must impart galaxies with speeds up to and surpassing that of
light
(d) resonance theory says that galaxies whether imparted with speed of
light or are carried by Space with speed of light, that these galaxies
would disintegrate.
Pros and cons of the Atom Totality redshift :
Pros
(a) natural offshoot of gravitational lensing is a EM lensing of the
atom held together by a nucleus
(b) offers a 3D explanation as a lens on the surface of a sphere
(c) makes Space and time a continuum and not separate entities
(d) has all galaxies with slow speeds and with Space as motionless
Cons
(a) there are no cons since it fits the data
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all snipped except for this with its typo error)
> (c) makes Space and time a continuum and not separate entities
> (d) has all galaxies with slow speeds and with Space as motionless
> Cons
> (a) there are no cons since it fits the data
It is probably good that I made that typo error of saying Space and
time a continuum.
It is already known that Space and Time are a continuum. What I am
trying to focus
attention on is the idea of a Space-Time/Matter continuum. Special
Relativity already
has Space and time a continuum. But the important new concept is how
matter fits into
a Space Time continuum.
If the Big Bang with its explosion and redshifts of Space moving
faster than the speed of
light is to be believed in, then it implies that Space is separate
from Matter. And Physics
does not really allow such a concept of Space being independent of the
Matter that resides
in that Space.
Space-time-Matter continuum is what Quantum Mechanics has in its
duality of time and energy since mass and matter are parts of energy.
So the Big Bang theory of redshift, fails, just on the issue of how
matter within Space-time
are separated.
In that Atom Totality theory, Matter is dependent on Space-time, not
independent. And that
you can never have a situation of a Space moving at the speed of
light, whilst it carries
galaxies as if they were ships on a water floating along with the
rapid moving Space.
So the Big Bang believers never really focused on this issue that is a
utter contradiction to
Physics we know. Again, when you have the only theory on the corner or
block grocery store,
you tend to overlook these huge flaws and gaps of reasoning and
understanding.
---
Let me also address a question raised about the experiment with the
fiberglass to prove
that curvature of space causes redshift, and not a explosion of a Big
Bang. The question
was whether the greenhouse fiberglass panels were tinted to a certain
color like green tint
and which would then see all car headlights as red. Whether a tinted
panel forces all
white light to be red. That is a good question. But I tend to think
that even if a tinted
panel were used, that a clear, untinted panel can be found that
matches the redshift
of a tinted panel. In other words, redshifting occurrs in all these
panels due to refraction,
only that the tinted panel has a booster headstart in redshifting.
My greenhouse fiberglass panels are not clear, they are opaque and
they are somewhat
tinted, whether it is a green tint or a blue tint, I am not sure.
Regardless, a clear panel
can be made that matches the redshifting of the tinted ones, only it
is probably much
thicker of a panel to compensate for the refraction.
Archimedes Plutonium
Atom Totality theories
are comfortable with reported large blueshifts from distant galaxies.
Both theories predict a predominance of
redshifts, especially the Atom Totality theory. Both are comfortable
with a few blueshifts
in nearby local galaxies. Blueshifts of rotation are expected. And
blueshifts of Andromeda
and Barnard star is acceptable, for they are tiny blueshifts and
nearby. But as for this report:
--- quoting about a quasar blueshift ---
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618...
We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) of
the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III]
emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 relative
to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG
1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow-
line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date among
type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs).
--- end quoting ---
Both theories are uncomfortable with that report. Could it be a report
in error?
Or, could it be what the Wikipedia says about a gravitational lens
blueshift
only in this situation a EM lens blueshift?
--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a
light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So that maybe, just maybe, the EM lens of a Atom Totality has a band
of blueshifted
galaxies at a special distance from Earth. Just like in that survey
where a "ring structure"
appears and not knowing if it is an intrinsic ring.
So maybe, just maybe, the Atom Totality theory with a predominance of
redshift has
a lens, such that a optical affect occurrs so that a Cosmic ring of
blueshifts occurrs
at a special distance from earth.
In summary, essentially the Big Bang and the Atom Totality predict
vast and
widespread and the overwhelming majority of shifts to be redshift, and
a rarity
of blueshifts.
Just as the fiberglass window panel sees every white light redshifted,
that only
the local galaxies and stars have a chance of a blueshift.
But because the EM lens of the Atom Totality is a lens of a optical
affect, that
there is a possibility that at a certain distance, the white light
becomes blueshifted
in a halo ring affect.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sorry, I should have referenced this "survey" and the "halo ring of
the survey".
In this survey a curious ring is found, and whether it is intrinsic or
not?
--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
So I ask the question whether the above Harvard furthest distant
blueshift
is a galaxy member belonging to this ring?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618...
So if the Harvard quasar blueshift is a member of the Caltech survey
reported
ring structure, then we may have solved a troublesome report. The
solution is
that the Cosmos has ring structure which is due to a EM lens of the
Atom
Totality.
Archimedes Plutonium
I am in the chapter of this book that I love the most, just
cannot wait to get here. It is the strongest single evidence
that the Universe is a Plutonium Atom Totality. It is the
observation of the position of all the galaxies and
the density of all the galaxies in the Universe.
In the Big Bang theory, we expect no ordering or organization
or pattern of the galaxies due to its explosion. But in the
Atom Totality theory, we expect a total pattern of where galaxies
are and how many in a region of Space.
The position of the galaxies matches the position of the
dots of the electron-dot-cloud of a plutonium atom. Galaxies
are very dense near the nucleus and decreases in density
trigonometrically the further away. If you ever studied the
Double Slit Experiment there are bands of density and
bands of voids and the proportion of dots is trigonometrically
distributed.
I have no reference to the 5f6 of Plutonium electron-dot-cloud
picture. I do have a picture in the book
THE ELEMENTS BEYOND URANIUM, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990 and page 73.
I do have several references of the distribution of galaxies:
Referring to this mapp of the cosmos of galaxies and especially the
Sloan Great Wall and the other Great Wall
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
Here is another good website:
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
And here is another good website:
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The point of this chapter is that it is the best and most
valuable evidence to date that the Big Bang theory is a fake
and that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory.
The position of galaxies follows the position of dots in the
electron-dot-cloud of the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations.
Especially its concentration in the Great Wall and Sloan
Great Wall with its Voids spaced regularly outwards.
So the Atom Totality theory predicts great walls of galaxies
near by where the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is, and between
the great walls are voids. And throughout the cosmic sky we
have intermittent walls with great density of galaxies and
then voids. This is a classical diffraction pattern as seen in
physics books.
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986. A picture of the Double Slit experiment diffraction
pattern is seen in this textbook on page
1138. The diffraction pattern is what the Great Wall
and Sloan Great Walls become in astronomy.
sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
Jan 13, 1:22 am
Date: Jan 13, 2010 2:22 AM
Author: plutonium....@gmail.com
Subject: ascii art of a Physics Diffraction pattern (use in 4th)
For reference one can look at this page of 1138 in
Halliday & Resnick:
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version ,
1986,
of page 1138.
And I am sure most every college physics textbook
has a picture of a diffraction pattern. What I want is to
resemble the diffraction pattern with an ascii art.
Each block represents a Wall of galaxies and the
intermediate space with no galaxies is a void.
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
So far in astronomy we have seen two Great Walls,
the Great Wall and the Sloan Great Wall and the
Atom Totality theory predicts more great walls beyond the
Sloan.
Archimedes Plutonium
Alright, this is a diffraction pattern of light waves
on a straightedge
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;;| |;;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;;;|
Now looking at these pictures of the galaxies
of the Universe, one sees that they form a
diffraction pattern of walls or clusters and then
voids intervening. So we have dense strips of
galaxies and then voids in between.
Below is a list of pictures showing the mapp of
galaxies. These pictures are probably the finest
set of pictures in all of astronomy for they are like
the mapp of what the Cosmos is. Same as an atlas
is indispensible for geography.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/greatwalls.gif
So what is this evidence in favor of which theory? The Big Bang or
the
Atom Totality. Obviously you have
no diffraction pattern of galaxies in a Big Bang explosion. But in a
Atom Totality theory wherein Dirac's
New Radioactivities that emits from the nucleus of the
atom totality in the form of cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts, which
experience a "diffraction" and so in some swaths of the cosmic skys
there is little to no
new radioactivities growing astro bodies such as stars and galaxies
and you have a "void region".
Then we couple that supporting evidence with another
supporting evidence. In a Big Bang, it makes no sense that given a
galaxy that its surrounding neighborhood of
galaxies would be of a wide range of ages where some are 2X older
than
others. In the Atom Totality theory,
you have a wide assortment of ages of neighboring galaxies because
the
mechanism that creates galaxies and stars is via Dirac New
Radioactivities.
So the Big Bang is found to be a fake because it can not explain a
diffraction pattern of galaxies nor can it explain why neighboring
galaxies vary in ages.
Now recently a team of astronomers claimed that they have found three
galaxies that are the oldest known galaxies dating back to about
13.1
billion years.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/11hubble/
But the trouble with their reporting and with some other 20 or more
galaxies with a 10 redshift as the oldest galaxies, is that none of
these astronomers is reporting whether these galaxies are old or
young
galaxies. So that of the 3 galaxies that were recently in the news,
that two of them were old elliptic shaped galaxies whilst the other
was a young spherical or irregular galaxy. This is contradictory
evidence as well as the
variance in ages of the 20 or more other alleged 10-
redshifted reported.
When scientists take their theory (Big Bang) for granted, they never
seem to focus on the contradictions of their reports or analysis.
They
only
report what bolsters their failing theory. And other astronomers,
more
level headed, have claimed that
none of these were distant galaxies but rather nearby
galaxies that were awash of some energetic glow of a
nearby galaxy.
Some suspect that this type of news is only political
news to get the Webb Space Telescope launched. And that the news of
these distant galaxies is only a prop, or false prop.
I am in favor of getting the Webb launched, but in the meantime, we
should have far better reporting than this
mere opinionated hocus pocus.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure
constant and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all linked
and explained.
I certainly like this device of a postscript to where I can write
ideas before I reach
the chapter they belong in.
I want to include my recent discovery of the speed of light as a
purely mathematical
derivation. The derivation comes out of geometry in that Euclidean
geometry is symmetry
broken into Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometries. This symmetry breaking
is the summation
of great circles in Elliptic divided by the Hyperbolic logarithmic
spiral.
I am still awe struck by that discovery. That without knowing any
physics, one can discover
what the speed of light must be for physics. What I did was take
strips or stripes as great-circles. For instance, for Earth I take
kilometer strips as great circles.
Here is how I did it for kilometer strips:
> Let me use the Earth as a sphere (not its oblate sphere) and using
> Earth's circumference as
> 40,000 km. So the width of the meridian stripes is in km wide. So for
> one meridian I have a
> distance of 4 x 10^4 km and since there are 4 x 10^4 such meridians
> the total distance of all
> these meridian stripes is 16 x 10^8 km. Now the distance of the
> Logarithmic spiral as time is
> about 5 x 10^3 km from 70 degree north to 70degree south latitude.
So we have for the speed of light 16x10^8 km/ 5x10^3 sec = 3 x 10^5 km/
sec
And whether we use meters or centimeters or other units, we end up
with
the speed of light, since the width compensates for the different
units.
So what I am awe struck about, is that geometry of a sphere surface
and
a logarithmic spiral, innately or intrinsically, or natively has the
speed of light
contained within being a sphere surface. That the distance of the
strips or
stripes of meridians divided by the log-spiral gives you the speed of
light.
No matter what size of sphere, the units are made irrelevant because
the width
of the strips. Of course one cannot compute the speed of light on a
tiny sphere
surface using km strip width but one can compute the speed of light on
a small
sphere like that of the globe in one's house by using strips of
millimeters or smaller.
What does this all mean? It means that Physics and Math are not
separate subjects
and that Physics dominates math. Physics tells us why pi and "e" have
the numeric
value they have and that the speed of light forms sphere surfaces.
We know that pi = circumference/diameter. Likewise, we can write that
speed of light = distance of summation of meridian strips/ log-spiral
strip
It is an amazing and awestruck discovery. That the speed of light
represents
the meridians of Elliptic geometry and how fast the Hyperbolic
geometry log-spiral
can cover them. It is purely geometrical, for the width gets rid of
all units. It is related
to the fact that pi is 22/7 whilst "e" is 19/7 so a difference of 3.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, this is a diffraction pattern of light waves
> on a straightedge
Well the other one looked more like a double-slit diffraction
pattern,
let me make it more like a straightedge diffraction pattern where
the
straightedge is on the rightmost portion:
|;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;;|
|;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;| |;;;;;|
> Now looking at these pictures of the galaxies
> of the Universe, one sees that they form a
> diffraction pattern of walls or clusters and then
> voids intervening. So we have dense strips of
> galaxies and then voids in between.
> Below is a list of pictures showing the mapp of
> galaxies. These pictures are probably the finest
> set of pictures in all of astronomy for they are like
> the mapp of what the Cosmos is. Same as an atlas
> is indispensible for geography.
> http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
> http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
> http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
> http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/greatwalls.gif
Now let me look through those pictures of Great Walls and Voids of
both Jarrett and Juric that comes closest to matching my diffraction
pattern. I think that Jarrett and Juric are the two most valuable
working
astronomers today, because they are trying to establish "what there
actually
is!" and not like the others who are living in a Big Bang fantasy
dreamworld.
These three items of observation when assembled together:
(i) location of galaxies on a Cosmic mapping
(ii) density of galaxies on that Cosmic mapping
(iii) the variance of ages of galaxies with their neighbors of a
factor of at least 2X the age of a nearby neighbor
Those three factors falsify the Big Bang and the only viable theory
is
the Atom Totality with its Dirac New Radioactivities.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light,
all linked
and explained.
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)
>
> It is an amazing and awestruck discovery. That the speed of light
> represents
> the meridians of Elliptic geometry and how fast the Hyperbolic
> geometry log-spiral
> can cover them. It is purely geometrical, for the width gets rid of
> all units. It is related
> to the fact that pi is 22/7 whilst "e" is 19/7 so a difference of 3.
>
I meant a difference of 3 subshells from 22 subshells in plutonium
with only
19 occupied.
But the reason I am bringing up the speed of light in a postscript is
that I
"cheated" in the math book where I first covered this idea. Cheated by
using only 5 x 10^3 km for the log-spiral. The circumference of Earth
as meridian is truly about 4 x 10^4 km and the radius is about 6 x
10^3 km.
So why use only 5 x 10^3 km of the log spiral? Well, I have until I
reach
chapter 18 to reconcile using 5 x 10^3 km of the log-spiral. It maybe
that
time in seconds has to be fixed by physics, so that the speed of light
is
not a pure mathematical derivation. I have to get the time factor from
physics
but then the length or distance is determined by the pure math
geometry.
Maybe the answer lies in radius of the log-spiral is 5 x 10^3
seconds,
having replaced the kilometers with time in seconds.
But that I have to use only seconds in all the other speed of light
measures,
where the length or distance can vary.
This is not as spectacular or awestricking as a pure math derivation,
but still
it is profound and spectacular. That one can only have Euclidean,
Elliptic
and Hyperbolic geometries provided that the speed of light is a
measure
of meridian strips/ log spiral = speed of light. The usual formula of
circumference / diameter = pi is only in Euclidean geometry, but the
speed
of light is in all three geometries of symmetry breaking.
So, yes, I cheated since I had to depart the other book, and did not
really
justify my 5 x 10^3 km which would be replaced as 5 x 10^3 seconds. I
knew that number was not going to go anywhere or disappear and that
I could justify it later. Here I am giving myself this time span to
justify it.
So I have until I reach chapter 18 to justify that number. I think, it
probably
comes from the radius of the log-spiral, whereas the radius of earth
would
be 6 x 10^3 km.
Archimedes Plutonium
involved:
Chapter 4: galactic density & distribution
Looking at this picture by Juric, I see I have it turned around.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
The diffraction pattern is leftmost, not rightmost. So it looks
like this:
|;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;| |;;;|
|;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;| |;;;|
|;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;| |;;;|
|;;;;;;| |;;;;;| |;;;| |;;;|
But I would reckon that the pattern of location and density of
galaxies from the Great Wall towards the Milky Way is the opposite
of the above where the Milky Way density is a decreasing towards
the Milky Way.
> Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
> structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light,
> all linked and explained.
>
Alright, I have plenty of time before I reach chapter 18 to find out
and
understand the significance of Earth's log spiral having 5 x 10^3 km
whereas Earth radius is 6 x 10^3 km and Earth's meridian circumference
is 4 x 10^4 km. Obviously I get the speed of light from
(4 x 10^4 km)(4 x 10^4) / 5 x 10^3 sec = 3 x 10^5 km/sec
So I have 4 x 10^4 strips of meridians all of which are a km width
strip.
And I need to account for the number 5 x 10^3 km for the log-spiral.
I do not need to account for how I can switch out km for that of
seconds,
since it is hyperbolic geometry and a dual switch is allowed. But I
do
need to account for why 5 x 10^3 is of special significance for the
log
spiral on Earth.
Experiment: I love it when a High School student can do this figuring
out
with an experiment. Materials needed: a globe of earth. Mine is about
a 30
cm globe (it is an old one showing both east and west Germany). Other
materials are a long enough electric fence wire. I use electric fence
wire
because it is bendable, yet will not break with enormous number of
time
bending it, whereas plain old wire when bent breaks after a few times
bending. Now I cut a piece of wire that will be the circumference.
And since 5,000 is 1/8 of 40,000, I need to cut another piece of wire
that is 1/8 of the circumference wire.
Now I use the circumference wire to sort of bend into shape a log
spiral
not being fussy with the polar region, but more to see what the shape
is
near the equator and that the equiangles with the meridians.
Now I lay the 1/8 piece of wire from the pole and see where it ends
up.
It ends up at about 43degrees North latitude.
Keep in mind that 8 of these segments make a circumference. Now I am
wondering of the significance if any of this 1/8 circumference
segment.
I believe from applying the log spiral with the other wire. That the
log-spiral
intersects the meridian at 43 degrees North latitude. And I am
assuming the
pole to be the center of this log spiral. So I think this number 5 x
10^3 km
for a log spiral on the globe of Earth is related to the sphere as a
point
in which the log-spiral and the meridian intersect.
If true, is there a special name for this line segment? Should it be
called
a log-spiral-radius?
If all the above is true, then I have found what I needed and have
proven that
geometry of symmetry breaking yields the speed of light. It is not a
pure math
derivation because the Time factor is held constant in terms of
seconds. But the
length factor can be in any length desired because the width of the
strips compensates.
So, is 1/8 the circumference of a sphere of any sort of special
significance as per
the log spiral placed on that sphere surface? Mind you, it maybe not
exactly 1/8 = 0.125
but perhaps something like 0.126.... since pi and "e" are irrational.
Or does the log spiral intersect a meridian in 8 equidistant spots?
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4, density and distribution of galaxies; Great Wall self
similar to Sloan Great Wall?
Now I looked at this site of the above of Logarithmic Maps of the
Universe:
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/greatwalls.gif
And I was struck by how the Great Wall is repeated in pattern with the
Sloan Great Wall, yet the two are separated as entities by many light
years
distance.
So, if not mistaken, I am seeing self-similar patterns in the Walled
structures
of galaxies. And I cannot draw the Great Wall pattern but I can
describe it.
It looks to me like this, but tilted at an angle
\ \ / /
\_____\ \ / /____/ /
/______________\ \
| |
| |
It looks like a acrobat on a balancing beam with two wings on his
back.
The remarkable thing, though is that the pattern looks to be repeating
in the Sloan Great Wall, separated by many light years distance.
And here is another good website:
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The position of galaxies follows the position of dots in the
electron-dot-cloud of the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations.
Especially its concentration in the Great Wall and Sloan
Great Wall with its Voids spaced regularly outwards.
---
So good progress on this, for I found out that the Golden Ratio Log
Spiral is
approx made up of 1/4 circles and gets wider by a factor of 1.618....
the
golden ratio.
Now I was asking for 1/8 for the entire circumference, but a 1/4 for a
SemiCircumference
is just as good.
I seem to come into such problems often where I am 1/2 or 2X off mark.
As for example
the 6 lobes of 5f6, whereas the Poincare Dodecahedral Space is 12
faces (or lobes).
Here I was looking for 1/8 of circumference when I should have looked
for 1/4 of semicircumference.
It is no loss to my arguement.
So do I call this new entity in case of the Earth in kilometers of its
circumference as
40,000 km and its radius of 6,000 km and this new item of 5,000 km. Do
I call this
new item the golden-log-spiral-radius? It acts like a radius, but am I
justified in calling
it a radius in Hyperbolic geometry?
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So, if not mistaken, I am seeing self-similar patterns in the Walled
> structures
> of galaxies. And I cannot draw the Great Wall pattern but I can
> describe it.
> It looks to me like this, but tilted at an angle
>
> \ \ / /
> \_____\ \ / /____/ /
> /______________\ \
> | |
> | |
>
> It looks like a acrobat on a balancing beam with two wings on his
> back.
>
> The remarkable thing, though is that the pattern looks to be repeating
> in the Sloan Great Wall, separated by many light years distance.
Chapter 4
density and distribution of galaxies; ring in 3rd layer of Caltech's
map ; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
In the 2nd edition of this book I raised some very spectacular sort
of issues and questions. I am not fully safe and sound on my own
with these issues. The question was, and still is, in an Atom Totality
would it be possible to see the frontside and backside of a
structure such as a wall of galaxies if you looked to the furthest
reaches in one direction and then the furthest in the 180degree
direction. If one lives on a elliptic-geometry surface, then looking
furthest in one direction and 180 degrees opposite, we would
be looking at the front and back at that furthest point. I can
imagine radio waves sent from USA to Australia in one direction
and then coming back around in the opposite direction.
And in the second edition I came upon several instances of where
the front and back of a galactic structure and this curious "ring
formation".
--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
I happen to believe that in an Atom Totality we can see the front and
back if
we look to the furthest in that section and since an atom is elliptic
geometry
we end up with a "ring structure" because the Universe is an atom and
it is
round, so we have looked completely "around" that section of the sky.
Since I wrote that, in the 2nd edition, I have come to learn more
about
the Poincare Dodecahedral Space, which would imply that the Universe
would be seen as self-similar the further we go in distance. So that
like
mirrors, we would begin to see the same galaxies if we traveled far
enough.
Elliptic 3D geometry is very complex and hard to understand.
---
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light,
all linked and explained.
Alright, I resolved the issue of the significance of a 5,000 km of the
log
spiral as per the reason that the log spiral is quarter-circle-turns.
There
are 4 of those 1/4 circle turns in a semicircumference.
So here is the numbers for kilometers/second, using Earth as sphere:
40,000 km meridian and 40,000 meridian strips gives 40,000 km x 40,000
equals 1,600,000,000 and the log-spiral radius (1/4 turn of circle) is
5,000
and that 5,000 is in seconds gives a speed of light 300,000 km/sec
Now we can do it in miles/sec as 24,000 miles x 24,000 mile strips
divided by 3,000 seconds for the 1/4 turn of circle for log spiral
gives
190,000 miles/sec.
The last problem I have to reconcile with this is to find out why
seconds
is fixed. Probably the reason being that there must be some physical
features, and that it is not totally a pure math derivation. So why is
the
5,000 in kilometers as seconds and not as minutes or hours? It would
be
nice to know if the log-spiral of time can be connected to the
meridians
so that the 5,000 is seconds and only seconds.
Archimedes Plutonium
Looks like my 4th edition of this book will not attain a high degree
of organization but
only a "more organized" than the 3rd edition. But I am happy because
in this edition
I focus on redshift which was almost absent of attention in prior
editions. Seems like
in every new edition I focus on something else, and something new. In
the 3rd edition
I focused on MECO theory, and in this edition I focused on redshift.
First Postscript: this belongs in Chapter 3: Redshift
Chapter 3
Subject: low mass electron-positron states, and a bit of history of
Halton Arp
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped)
> Also ran across a website of Arp's dated 2002, but a website
> has no reliable dating and who mentions low mass electron-positron
> states.
> http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/is_physics_changing
> Now I wonder if that was connected to Dirac's Ocean of Positrons as
> Space? Or
> where this fascination for low mass electron-positron states came
> about?
> For me, the fascination is of course that in an Atom Totality, gravity
> is the
> attraction between ordinary matter (which is the electrons of the
> Plutonium
> Atom Totality) for the attraction by Space which is positron-Space. So
> space
> attracted by matter yields gravity as the lowest Coulomb attraction.
> And then,
> of course, when matter is concentrated, it forms a MECO with matter-
> antimatter
> annihilation and we see it as a quasar.
Here is a quote from Arp's website listed above:
--- quoting ---
This brings us to the conventional assumption of extragalactic
redshifts as representing large recessional velocities versus the
evidence for their being an intrinsic property of young matter. The
key here is the rock upon which science is founded - the observations.
Large redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic
objects which are at the same distance. Intrinsic redshifts are
required. But now what is the consequence of having low mass
fundamental particles? It is simply that low mass electrons
transitioning between atomic orbits will emit and absorb lower energy
photons, i.e. they will appear redshifted compared to atoms with
heavier particles.
--- end quoting ---
Okay, I begin to see why Arp is harping about low-mass-electrons as a
means
of explaining redshift and how Arp seemed to focus on Narlikar's 1977
work on
the field equations for particle-mass changing with time.
---
The above was in the 3rd edition and this is the 4th edition. I
decided
to include Arp's mechanism of low-mass-electrons. It is an alternative
mechanism for having redshifts. And I prefer Arp's mechanism over that
of the ludicrous Big Bang of a speeding expansion causing a Doppler
redshift. Rather ridiculous and preposterous to think of Space as
independent
of Matter and speeding along faster than the speed of light. So, Arp's
mechanism is far better than ever was the Big Bang mechanism.
---
Second Postscript: I departed the chapter 3 on Redshift, probably far
earlier
than I should have departed that chapter.
Slowly I am beginning to think that there are very easy tests of
experiments that
can be performed to prove which of these three possible Redshift
mechanisms
are true:
(i) Big Bang mechanism of speeding away expanding Space as Doppler
redshift
(ii) Arp's low mass electrons producing a redshift
(iii) Atom Totality's 3D Elliptic geometry curvature of a lens surface
causes refraction
of all white light at a distance.
There must be some astro objects for which there distance is known to
a high
degree of confidence, and for which the redshift of those objects can
be analyzed
and picked apart as to favor one of those three mechanisms.
I suspect (i) is not uniform whereas (iii) is totally uniform in that
experiment of the
fiberglass window refractor. So if we analyze the Cosmic redshifts in
detail, we
will find that they are too uniform and thus eliminating (i) as a
viable contender.
As for (ii) I sense it is too weak to be a Cosmic redshift and just
the opposite
of (iii) in that it is too strong of a redshifter since it is the
geometry curvature
of the Universe itself.
So I think if the astro community sets itself up as a strict and
serious analyzer of the
Cosmic redshift, in an attempt to credit or discredit the three
mechanisms listed.
That they should be able to eliminate two of those contenders without
much difficulty.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4,
center of this ring in 3rd layer of Caltech's map is the Great
Attractor ; 4th edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
> > --- quoting ---
> > http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
> > The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster
> > (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
> > ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
> > disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
> > chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
> > southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
> > whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
> > cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
> > --- end quoting ---
Now I could be mistaken but if I connect the Sloan Great
Wall through Great Wall through Great Attractor, what happens is that
this is a straight line and it becomes the center of this cosmic-ring
in
the picture above of Caltech's mapping. And more remarkable yet, is
that the tilt
of the ring makes it the Great Attractor center of the ring. Because
the
Great Attractor is about at the 3:30 O'clock angle and the Ring is
tilted at
about the 9:30 O'clock angle.
By the way, I looked it up and the Great Attractor and its stars are
redshifted,
not a mistaken blueshift that some have blurted out.
---
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light,
all linked and explained.
Alright, I bounced around, back and forth several times now on
deriving
the speed of light out of pure math and then sometimes not so pure
math
but with a help from physics.
I have now come to a realization that the derivation is a pure
mathematics
derivation. Just as easy as realizing that "pi" is a pure math
derivation for
it is circumference divided by diameter and where the units disappear
in the
division. So lets say you measure in meters or in centimeters or some
other
units, well the units disappear in the division and all that remains
is a number
of "pi" as 3.14....
Difference with speed of light is that we have to have units of
distance/time
as the end result. So we cannot make nor do we want to make the units
disappear.
But this desire for units does not hinder us from deriving the speed
of light
out of pure math.
So looking back at my posts on this topic, where I finally concluded:
speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
radius
Definition: Log-spiral radius is the 1/4 of semicircumference.
Definition: meridian strips are strips and not lines for they have a
width
involved and in the case of Earth in kilometers the width of the
strips
is a kilometer wide.
Now obviously one cannot do the speed of light for Earth sphere in
parsecs/sec
since that meridian strip is not amenable to such a small sphere.
Likewise
I cannot do km/sec on a globe in my house that is only 30 cm diameter
sphere.
So the idea of the speed of light is the same as the idea of pi as a
division. Only
instead of dividing circumference by diameter, the speed of light is
the summation
of meridian strips distance divided by the log-spiral-radius.
And the idea is that a light wave wanting to travel around every
meridian strip on Earth
that is a km wide strip, and divided by the log-spiral-radius will
take 1 second to do that
travelling.
Now if given a tiny sphere, and the strips are now in millimeters,
then here also, in one
second, the light wave will travel through all those millimeter
meridian strips.
Now given a large sphere such as that of the Sun and if we choose to
have the strips in
millimeters. Then the log spiral radius will be large also and have
the effect of dividing
out the large number in millimeter distance so that the end result is
the speed of light
in millimeters/sec.
So, yes, the speed of light is derived out of pure mathematics,
without ever having
to refer to physics. The speed of light in summary is:
summed distance of meridian strips / log-spiral-radius
It is a beautiful discovery and the most beautiful realization of what
the speed of
light is all about. It is about the breaking of symmetry of Euclidean
geometry
into its two component geometries of Elliptic and Hyperbolic. The
meridian strips
are Elliptic and is a distance or length measure. The Log Spiral
Radius comes
from Hyperbolic geometry and is the measure of time.
When you divide that hyperbolic radius into the summation length of
meridians
is a constant in Nature, a speed of light constant. Just as "pi" is a
constant in
Nature. Pi is constant in Euclidean geometry. The log spiral is
constant in
Elliptic geometry with equiangular. But when you have both Hyperbolic
with
Elliptic geometry as one geometry, the speed of light is a contant in
that unioned
geometry.
Eureka Adeste Fideles!!
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Sorry, that is confusing and will lead to errors in thought. It does
not take
1 second for a light wave to go travelling through every km meridian
strip,
just as it does not take 1 second for a light wave to go travelling
through
every millimeter meridian strip of the Sun.
It takes longer for a light wave to travel through all the millimeter
meridian
strips on the Sun than to travel through all the km meridian strips of
Earth. But what remains constant is the speed of light and it is
constant
due to the division out of the log-spiral-radius.
So sorry I set the reader up for a error confusion.
So let me add a few more ideas here. Speed of light as a constant
provides
for Special Relativity which means Space and Time are one continuum
and that
flows directly into the idea that Elliptic geometry unioned with
Hyperbolic geometry
is our Universe.
Another way of thinking about the speed of light as a constant is that
the Maxwell
Equations need to be invariant as to whether a magnet in motion
through a stationary
wire loop is the same as a stationary magnet with moving wire loop
(another form of
Special Relativity). So when we look at electricity and magnetism such
as the
iron filings pattern with a magnet close by, that those filings form
elliptic geometry
rings but also there is the hyperbolic opposite ring pattern.
Light waves are the travelers between two geometries and can be
thought of as
the glue that holds together the two geometries. It was Faraday who
remarked that
light is a disturbance in the EM field. Well, light is what holds
together the Elliptic with
Hyperbolic geometry as a glue between them, and when disturbed it
releases that light
wave glue.
Archimedes Plutonium
(most snipped)
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
> > structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
> > light,
> > all linked and explained.
(snipped)
> > So looking back at my posts on this topic, where I finally concluded:
> >
> > speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
> > radius
> >
> > Definition: Log-spiral radius is the 1/4 of semicircumference.
> >
> > Definition: meridian strips are strips and not lines for they have a
> > width
> > involved and in the case of Earth in kilometers the width of the
> > strips
> > is a kilometer wide.
> >
(i) Alright, so I have the number "pi" from pure physics as 22
subshells in 7 shells
of the 231Pu Atom Totality
(ii) I have the number "e" from pure physics as 19 occupied subshells
in 7 shells
(iii) I have the Fine-Structure Constant as 22 / (22/7)^7 from pure
physics
(iv) I have the mass ratio of proton to electron as 6 (22/7)^5 from
the fact that
231Pu has the 5f6 energy level, where the fifth energy level has
exponent 5
and the seventh energy level has exponent 7 in Fine Structure
Constant.
(v) Now I have the Speed of Light from pure math and it is :
speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
radius
Now let me see if I can write that in terms of just pi and "e" where
time is in
1 units and distance is in 1 units and using the fifth energy level:
Archimedes Plutonium
So the circumference of this generalized unit distance and unit time
is that of 22
So in the equation of the Speed of Light we would have:
Speed of Light = 22 x 22/ log-spiral-radius
Now the Log-spiral-radius is going to be a tiny bit larger than the
Euclidean
radius of 7/2 = 3.5. Remember the golden-ratio-log-spiral is
approximated
by 1/4 turn circles, where sometimes it is slightly larger than the
radius of
the true 1/4 circle.
So we have 22x22/ 3.5 = 138
And the inverse fine structure constant is 137. But if we had the tiny
bit
larger portion of the golden ratio the phi-log-spiral-radius
22x22/3.53 = 137
Now the Inverse Fine Structure Constant uses the speed of light c as
in:
hbar*c/(e^2)
But here, I have derived the Inverse Fine Structure Constant from the
speed of light itself. How is that possible? Well, I simply removed
the
hbar and the (e^2) by calling them unit distance and unit time.
So the speed of light is basically one and the same as the Fine
Structure Constant.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4,
parallel rings in galactic structures and equatorial oblate spheroid
of galaxies as indications of "spin" ??; 4th edition book: ATOM
TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
Let me just make some further comments for it appears to be at least
three rings and not just two rings that this Caltech mapping shows:
--- quoting from the above website ---
Figure 2. Galactic projection of the 2MASS Galaxy Catalog. Galaxy
clusters and large scale structures are labeled. The CMB dipole
(Lineweaver et al 1996) is located to the right of the Shapley
Concentration (item "F" in figure), while the galaxy clustering dipole
(Maller et al 2003b) is located 16 degrees northward of the CMB
dipole, adjacent to the Virgo and Shapley superclusters. A more
detailed chart is given here.
--- end quoting ---
If you look at the superstructure of galaxies in that figure-2. just
quoted it
appears to form a ring and which is parallel to the ring cited as
layer three
(0.01 < z < 0.02) and it appears that these two rings are parallel.
Also in
the second layer, there appears to be a third ring in the lower right
hand
corner of the picture.
But let me also talk about another feature of an Atom Totality that
maybe
apparent in these pictures. An Atom Totality would have a "spin" on
its
electrons. Now this spin is not what we normally think of as a top
spinning
around its axis. But let us just imagine a spin on an electron as
having some
visual characteristic. Earth spins on its axis and what if anything
can we
notice from the affect of that spin? Well we can notice it from the
way water
drains in the northern versus southern hemisphere, but such a test
would be
difficult to pursue on a cosmic scale. But there is another test of
"spin" which
maybe easy to perform and observe. When we have spin we usually have a
oblate spheroid or pear shape where we have an equatorial bulge. So if
the
galaxies are concentrated in a band of latitude would lead us to
suspect
a bulge in the Cosmic skys of mass.
--- quoting the above Caltech website ---
The eighth and final layer (z > 0.06) contains the most distant
structures that 2MASS resolves, including the Pisces-Cetus (located
behind P-P), Bootes (located behind Hercules), Horologium and Corona
Borealis galaxy clusters.
--- end quoting the above ---
If we look at the pictures on Caltech website, I come to the
inference that
the most mass is concentrated near the equatorial plane that is
parallel to the
plane of the Milky Way Galaxy and offset by about 30 degrees arc. I
would
thus anticipate that the distribution of galaxies favors the Milky Way
plane.
And perhaps many galaxies have their plane oriented as to the "Cosmic
Spin"
So that the plane of orientation of galaxies, for the most part are
due to the
influence of the Cosmic spin.
Archimedes Plutonium
edition, this book,
that I wll start the 5th edition with only one purpose in mind-- to
organize and make the
book flow. The creativity process is such that it is not amenable to
organization. In this
book, I have spent creative energy on redshifts and speed of light,
and thus neglecting
the ability to organize the book. Already this edition is
disorganized.
Chapter 4,
four rings in the Great Wall & Sloan Great Wall; 4th edition book:
ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/all300.gif
As the above website unfolds it looks like a Double Slit Experiment
interference
pattern of electrons, but this is a picture of the galaxies of the
Universe.
I can see four distinct rings from the Great Wall of a single ring and
of three rings composing the Sloan Great Wall. Sort of stacked on top
of one
another.
Now if we are to take the Universe as a dodecahedron shape as the
Plutonium Atom Totality as a dodecahedron then we can consider our
part of the
Cosmos as one face of that dodecahedron with its five sides. So the
rings
would be five sided. The rings, however, in the Sloan Great Wall look
to me
more like rectangular than five-sided pentagon.
Chapter 4,
can we compare a Double Slit Interference and get what looks like the
Sloan Great Wall; 4th edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe)
THEORY
--- quoting from Wikipedia on the Sloan Great Wall and Great Wall ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall
The Sloan Great Wall is a giant wall of galaxies, (a galactic
filament), which is the
largest known structure in the Universe. Its discovery was announced
on
October 20, 2003 by J. Richard Gott III and Mario Juriæ, of Princeton
University,
and their colleagues, based on data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
[1]
The wall measures 1.37 billion light years in length and is located
approximately
one billion light-years from Earth.
The Sloan Great Wall is nearly three times longer than the Great Wall
of galaxies, the previous record-holder, which was discovered by
Margaret Geller and John Huchra of Harvard in 1989.
The Sloan Great Wall in a DTFE reconstruction of the inner parts of
the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_(astronomy)
The Great Wall (also called Coma Wall), sometimes specifically
referred to
as the CfA2 Great Wall, is the second largest known super-structure in
the
Universe (the largest being the Sloan Great Wall). It is a filament of
galaxies
approximately 200 million light-years away and has dimensions which
measure over 500 million light-years long, 300 million light-years
wide and
15 million light-years thick. It was discovered in 1989 by Margaret
Geller
and John Huchra based on redshift survey data from the CfA Redshift
Survey.[1]
--- end quoting ---
I wanted some facts, the facts of how far away and the Sloan is 1,000
million light years away while the Great Wall is a mere 200 million
light
years away.
Imagine that, the Sloan is longer in length than the distance from
Earth to the Sloan.
The Great Wall can not be fully measured since it is hidden by the
Milky Wall galaxy of view obstruction.
But one item that caught my attention was the picture of the Sloan,
DTFE.
Now what I am going to propose can be an actual **proof** that the
Atom Totality theory is the true theory and the Big Bang is a fake
theory.
We have enough pictures and data of the Sloan Great Wall and of the
Great
Wall itself. What I propose is that we run a Double Slit Experiment
using
perhaps electrons and see if we can imitate that pattern in the
interference
of the electrons in a Double Slit. In other words, if we can produce
the
same sort of picture of dots out of the Double Slit that is the dots
of galaxies
in the Sloan and Great Wall, is evidence that is more than just
coincidence.
Likewise, we can take where the galaxies are more precisely known such
as
in the vicinity of Earth itself and mapp the positions of galaxies and
see if that
same Double Slit yields a "patch of dots" that resembles not only the
Great Walls
but this "precise patch" all within one Double Slit Experiment. In
other words,
one Double Slit Experiment yielding the same density and distribution
of dots
from electron interference as what the Cosmic galactic dots are, is
not just
coincidence but actual proof that the Universe is a Atom Totality.
Also, let me comment on that DTFE, for it appears to me that where the
dots
are dense in the leftward slice, the rightward slice has a void. So I
am wondering
if in the Double Slit of electron interference that corresponding
slices of leftward
and rightwards follows this sort of pattern of dense in one and void
in other?
Archimedes Plutonium
first page of the 5th
edition for I am sick and tired of a disorganized book. I need to
start seeing this
book flow in a organized consistent pattern.
Chapter 4
Subject: Further speculation that Great Attractor --> Sloan Great Wall
--> Quasars ; what Quasars are-- cosmic gamma ray bursts 4th edition
book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
Suggestions from this website, that the Great Attractor is really
a doorway into the true attracting body which is further out
as the Shapley SuperCluster, or Shapley Concentrate as some
like to call it.
--- quoting from
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/greatatt.htm
In late 2005, a team of astronomers engaged in a X-ray survey called
the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project revealed that the
Milky Way is not being drawn towards a concentration of mass called
the Great Attractor but to an even more massive region behind it
called the Shapley Supercluster, which lies around 500 million light-
years away or four times the distance to the Great Attractor.
--- end quoting ---
Now it is difficult to unravel the locations of superclusters when
a different website has them in different places. One website
has the Coma Supercluster in the lower righthand corner
and another has it in the upper right hand corner.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/all300.gif
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
So, now, let me make a prediction of future astronomy
observations of the Great Attractor, since it is already
been implicated as a part of the Shapley Supercluster.
So I predict based on Atom Totality theory that the Great
Attractor is merely a straight line direction vector that goes
from the Milky Way to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality
and along this straight line direction is the Shapley SuperCluster
which goes into the Sloan Great Wall and finally goes into
the Quasar belt.
So that apparently, scientists in 2005 announced that the
Great Attractor was really a part of the Shapley Supercluster.
And what I predict is that some months or years down the road
it will be ascertained that the Great Attractor runs through and
past the Shapley Concentrate and runs through the Sloan
Great Wall and then through the Quasar belt.
I predict this because it is merely the direction to the
center of the Cosmos as the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
Now I think I maybe have a mechanism that explains the
energy emission of quasars. That they are "cosmic gamma
ray bursts" of the highest energy. A few years back was reports
of one of these bursts at 10^20 MEV, which is enough energy
to incinerate the Solar System if it occurred nearby.
So here is a possible explanation for the energy source of Quasars.
That Quasars are galaxies near the Nucleus of the Atom Totality
and where gamma ray bursts occurr the most often and where
the average burst is in the 10^17 to 10^20 MeV range. And where
on Earth we gaze upon Quasars what we see is a ancient
cosmic gamma ray burst of that galaxy. One way of verifying
this idea would be to see whether a quasar seems to disappear
after a long stretch of time. Say a quasar seen 10 years
ago and no longer there now.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4,
can we compare a Double Slit Interference and get what looks like the
THEORY
> --- end quoting ---
Well sorry, let me quote another paragraph of Wikipedia on the Great
Wall:
--- quoting ---
The Standard Model cannot account for such large structures, so in the
actual cosmology it is hypothesized that such structures as the Great
Wall form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter. It is
thought that this dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe
on the grandest of scales. Dark matter gravitationally attracts
baryonic matter, and it is this normal matter that astronomers see
forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters.
--- end quoting ---
Here is an example of the beauty of pure logic and reasoning as to the
truth or
falsity of one theory over another theory. It is the use of Occam's
Razor. If
I can show in a Double Slit Experiment of electrons intefering to
create a pattern of
dots and those dots match what the galaxies match in a density and
distribution of
dots. If I can duplicate these two, then why would anyone in the world
believe
the above of "dark matter hocus pocus tiddly winks". It is an Occam's
Razor-- the
most simple explanation is the true theory. Dark Matter has to conjure
up an entire
new theory of Strings and what not. The Atom Totality theory simple
points to a
known phenomenon-- atoms in a Double Slit.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light,
all linked and explained.
Well for the past several weeks I have been celebrating this important
discovery
of the Speed of Light in its bare essentials:
Speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
radius
It works for the Earth globe whether we use km/sec or miles/sec
4 x 10^4 km x 4x10^4 / 5 x 10^3 sec
And we can do it in miles/sec as 24,000 miles x 24,000 mile strips
divided by 3,000 seconds for the 1/4 turn of circle for log spiral-
radius
gives 190,000 miles/sec.
But it also works for the units of measure in their most primitive
form where
the Atom Totality in large is 22 subshells divided by 7 shells:
22 x 22 / log-spiral-radius is 7/2 = 3.5 but since it is phi-log-
spiral it is 3.53
which gives 137 or the inverse fine structure constant. This means
that in
unit measure of its most primitive measure, the speed of light is
equal to the
inverse fine structure constant where Plancks constant and electric-
charge
are units of 1.
Now what this further leads into, is a review as to a deeper
understanding of
how Forces work in Physics. Our best picture in the 1900s century, was
the
view that a Force is like a tennis match where two players keep
hitting a ball
back and forth. And what holds the players together as a force, is the
ball
hit back and forth. So that was our best understanding of the most
fundamental
idea of how a Force works in physics.
But with this new insight in the Speed of Light, let me see if I can
expand our
understanding of how Forces in Physics work.
We see from above derivation of speed of light, that the photon or
light wave
creates the Earth globe as it traces out every meridian strip. We can
sort of picture
a black picture screen and then we send a single light wave towards
the picture
screen and it starts to light up each meridian strip of Earth in the
speed of light.
So, at first the screen is black and then as the light wave moves, it
carves out
a sphere or globe of Earth.
Now picture that enactment of carving out Earth from black nothing to
the proton
in a hydrogen atom sending a photon to the electron. The electron was
dots in the
electron dot cloud but as the light wave or photon comes to a spot in
the hydrogen
atom it starts to do the same reenactment of carving out the full
electron as a
collapsed wavefunction and as a sphere, tiny sphere of the hydrogen
atom.
Now when the electron then shots a photon to the proton , the same
picture goes
on that the photon finds a spot in the Nucleus where it begins to
carve out the
proton.
So the Coulomb force is not a picture of tennis ball being shot back
and forth
between proton and electron. But rather, the picture is that the
photon materializes
the electron and the proton in succession.
Now to see if this is reasonable, let me try it on gravity force.
Here, in the Atom
Totality the force of gravity is again a Coulomb force of the Positron
Space pulling
on the normal matter of Space that is the Electrons of the Atom
Totality.
So now, when Earth by gravity pulls on the Moon, what happens is that
the Earth
has a amount of Positron Space and this space is attracted to the
normal matter
of the Moon (since it is a electron fragment of the Atom Totality).
And the Positron
space of Earth then shots a few photons in the direction of the Moon
which then
goes to carving up the meridian-strips of the Moon.
The difference between Coulomb force is that there are many photons
going back and forth
between proton and electron. In gravity force, there are a tiny few
photons going back and
forth.
So yes, this makes better sense than the old picture of forces and how
forces work.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4
Subject: a straight line from Earth to Great Wall, to Great Attractor
to Sloan ; 4th edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
I need some distance measure because I can see the Great Wall
then Great Attractor then Shapley Concentrate then Sloan Great
Wall are all in the same direction. So I need some distance measure.
--- quoting some more of Wikipedia to get some distance gauge ---
Location
The first indications of a deviation from uniform expansion of the
universe were reported in 1973 and again in 1978. The location of the
Great Attractor was finally determined in 1986, and is situated at a
distance of somewhere between 150 and 250 Mly (47-79Mpc) (the latter
being the most recent estimate) from the Milky Way, in the direction
of the Hydra and Centaurus constellations. While objects in that
direction lie in the zone of avoidance (the part of the night sky
obscured by the Milky Way galaxy) and are thus difficult to study with
visible wavelengths, X-ray observations have revealed that the region
of space is dominated by the Norma cluster (ACO 3627),[1][2] a massive
cluster of galaxies, containing a preponderance of large, old
galaxies, many of which are colliding with their neighbours, and/or
radiating large amounts of radio waves.
The Shapley Supercluster (Shapley Concentration) is the largest
concentration of galaxies in our nearby Universe that forms a
gravitationally interacting unit, thereby pulling itself together
instead of expanding with the Universe. It appears as a striking
overdensity in the distribution of galaxies in the constellation of
Centaurus, approximately 650 million light years from the Milky Way.
--- end quoting ---
So here is the distance measure:
(1) Great Wall at 200 million light years from Earth
(2) Great Attractor at 250 million light years from Earth
(3) Shapley Concentrate at 650 million light years from Earth
(4) Sloan Great Wall at 1,000 million light years from Earth
All four of which line up in the same direction from the
plane of the Milky Way Galaxy as 3:00 plane 9:00 O'Clock
in the lower right hand corner of about 4:00 O'clock.
The above transition from Great Wall to Sloan is a Double
Slit pattern where you have concentrations of dots then
voids, and then more concentrations.
Archimedes Plutonium
the
Earth evidence into that chapter 7, then all the Solar System evidence
into 8
and Milky Way into 9.
I. the theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(3) experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is-- curvature
of the lobes of an Atom Totality
(4) density and distribution of all the galaxies
(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-
creation
(7) "Earth evidence" such as age; zirconium crystal dating; Titius-
Bode Rule as diffraction pattern
(8) "Solar System evidence" such as CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet
cores ; plane of ecliptic
(9) "Milky Way evidence" : Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary
Stars
(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and black-hole theory
as science-fiction
III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet
old galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old;
the
data including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(14) missing mass conundrum solved
(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron
(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white
IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(18) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all
linked and explained
(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(20) Purpose and meaning of life
(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
theory and future news and research reports commentary
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4
Subject: Why does the Double-Slit and the galaxy distribution have
honeycomb structure? ; 4th edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe)
THEORY
So looking at this website of the Sloan Great Wall
region the voids look like a honeycomb or wasp hive
structure.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/all300.gif
Looking at the Double Slit pattern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit
File:Double-slit experiment results Tanamura 2.jpg
--- quoting ---
[edit] Summary
Results of a double-slit-experiment performed by Dr. Tonomura showing
the build-up of an interference pattern of single electrons. Numbers
of electrons are 10 (a), 200 (b), 6000 (c), 40000 (d), 140000 (e).
--- end quoting ---
Frame "b" looks alot like the galaxy dots, and frame
Frames "c" and "d" show the honeycombing of voids
Frame "e" if a little more dense looks like the last frame (z > 0.06)
in Caltech's site:
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
So, a few questions: does the Schodinger Equation have
honeycomb like structure? And what is the physics of why
a honeycomb structure develops?
Archimedes Plutonium
Now a picture of a diffraction pattern is also seen in this textbook
above on page
1138. The diffraction pattern is what the Great Wall and Sloan Great
Walls become in astronomy.
Now below is a list of websites which shows the
pattern of distribution of the galaxies. The distribution
of galaxies is the same as the distribution of dots
of an electron-dot-cloud of an atom of plutonium.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/greatwalls.gif
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
1138. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
Figure 50-7
(a) An arrangement for showing a diffraction pattern for a straight
edge E.
(b) The pattern on screen P if the incident beam is visible light
--- end quoting ---
The single most strongest evidence of the Atom Totality
and the fakery of the Big Bang theory is the distribution
and density of the galaxies.
This evidence is the Sloan Great Wall density
of galaxies next to the Great Wall of galaxies. In other words, a
Big
Bang theory can not explain why the density of galaxies is hugely
dense in one spot
of the Cosmos and thins out everywhere
else. Where there are dense clusters of galaxies intermittent
between voids of galaxies, which reminds one of the diffraction
pattern seen in the Double Slit Experiment.
The Atom Totality theory easily explains density of galaxies as
that the Great Walls are closer to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality. And the overall dense clusters
intermittent by voids is what happens in a Schrodinger
Equation of the density and distribution of the dots of the
electron-dot-cloud in a atom.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.
A few posts back, I was talking about revising how we see "forces
of physics". What happens when a force is in action. I told of the
often
cited analogy of tennis players who are "forced together" due to
hitting
a ball back and forth.
And with my recent discovery of deriving the Speed of Light out of
pure math
as this:
Speed of Light = summation total of meridian strips / phi log spiral
radius
That such a insight on light speed allows for a revision of forces and
how
they work.
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
747 of Figures 34-1 and 34-2
Actually, I believe we had a better analogy and understanding of how
forces
work rather than the tennis player analogy. It is the force of
magnetism
with bar magnets and where iron filings become lined up. As the
Halliday &
Resnick pictures on page 747 shows.
With magnetism we can see the Coulomb force at large, and in the
MacroWorld.
We do not have to rely on a tennis player analogy.
So what happens when a Coulomb force of magnets or electric current in
Ampere's
law? And what happens in the force of gravity?
The tennis player analogy wants you to think that the tennis ball hit
back and forth
gives rise to the force. The tennis ball in this case is the light-
wave or photon (even
in gravity).
But what those iron filings in the Halliday and Resnick book shows is
that the photon
changes or transforms the geometry. So that if the tennis players were
the force of
magnetism the tennis ball would be the photon and when it is moving
towards tennis
player A, the photon forms the geometry of tennis player A, likewise
for B when the
photon moves towards B.
So the Forces of Physics, with the Speed of Light as a creator of the
meridians of a sphere,
the force of magnetism or electricity or gravity, occurs when the
photon moves from A to B
and creates the geometrical image of B. In the force of gravity, the
number of photons creating the image of the massive body is small
number in comparison to the number of
photons involved in electricity or magnetism. Also, we must remember
that in electricity and
magnetism the distances involved are tiny such as inside a wire, so
the photons used in
the forces of EM are stronger because the distances are usually tiny.
In gravity, the number
of photons involved are small numbers and which have to travel large
distances.
So, when we apply a current to iron filings as seen in Halliday and
Resnick for the EM force,
the photons involved from the wire to the iron filings transforms the
geometry of the iron
filings. Likewise, in gravity, the photons of Earth's positron space
going towards the Moon
and those photons create a geometrical change, like the moved iron
filings or the compass
needle.
So it is not the Moon and Earth like tennis players hitting back and
forth a photon, but instead, the Moon and Earth geometry is going to
be slightly changed by that photon
that etches out the Moon sphere or Earth sphere.
Summary: all forces in physics are like the magnet that realigns or
changes the
geometry pattern of iron filings. It is the photons in EM that causes
this change
in geometry. And the picture of Magnetism is the best picture of how
forces operate.
Now I am having trouble in conveying my thoughts on this, but the more
and more I
refine this book, the better will the explanation become.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4
So of all the supporting evidence for the Atom Totality theory the
most damaging to the Big Bang is the fact
of density of galaxies implies the Universe is a single big atom and
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is
nearby to the Sloan Great Wall.
If you ask me now in year 2010 what is my favorite single piece of
evidence that the Atom
Totality is true and the Big Bang is false is a piece of evidence
that
has not even raised a debate or
clamour or raucous in either the physics or astronomy community. In
fact, it was only recently
discovered of the Sloan Great Wall. It was recently discovered that
the Great Wall has a larger
and more dense structure nearby and called the Sloan Great Wall.
This
Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies is my single favorite supporting evidence that the Atom
Totality is the true theory
and the Big Bang a fake. Why do I say that? Because the Big Bang
cannot have a Universe that
is dense with galaxies in one spot and successively have
intermittent dense sheets with voids and overall thins out the
further one goes from the Sloan Great Wall (alleged nucleus). The
Big
Bang explosion creates a Cosmos where a large enough cross section
is
uniformly dense
of galaxies. By contrast, the inside of an atom has its electron dot
cloud dense near the nucleus and thinning out the further
away you get from the nucleus.
In physics, some experiments are special and some observations are
special. They are what is
called Deciding Experiments or Deciding Observations. They are
special
because they decide which
of two theories is the true one and which is the fake one. The
observation of missing mass as
99% missing is not a Deciding Observation since the Big Bang could
say
the missing mass is
dark-matter and thus cannot really decide between the two theories.
But the observation that the
density of galaxies is dense near the Sloan Great Wall and Great
Wall
but thins out uniformly and intermittent with sheets of galaxies
then
voids beyond them
is a deciding-observation for there cannot be an explanation of this
in the Big Bang theory.
Likewise the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds was a deciding-observation
for you cannot have quantization of galaxy speeds in the Big Bang.
The Freedman-Sandage debate over the age of the Cosmos was not a
deciding experiment or
deciding observation since both were fuzzy as to their ages and
where
precision of measurement
is not really available that would lay to rest the fierce and
contentious debate. But there is no
question of the fact of quantized galaxy speeds or the two dense
Great
Walls. So as it stands
here in April 2010, my single favorite piece of evidence is the
density of Great Walls of galaxies
which describes the dots of the electron-dot-cloud of an atom and my
second favorite evidence
is the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds.
One would think that when I first posted on the Internet the Atom
Totality, and who accepted
and believed in the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds would immediately
embrace the Atom
Totality theory, for the two are part and parcel of one another. The
dots of the electron-dot-cloud
are quantized. Maybe they did embrace the Atom Totality theory but
were not going to publically
say so.
I need to voice alot about the naming of this
theory which I discovered in
November of 1990. I originally gave it a name of something like
"Atom
Universe" or "Single Atom
Universe" or "Plutonium Atom Universe". But I did not like the term
"universe" because that term
is so overused that it lacked the power of description of the
theory.
I do not know where the term
"Big Bang" was first used to give name to that theory, but it is a
very good name because it
conjers the image of a cosmic explosion. They could have named it
the
Cosmic Explosion Theory
instead of the Big Bang. So the first several years after discovery
of
the Atom Totality theory
I never used the name "Atom Totality" but used some variations of
"Atom Universe". And then
some years after 1990, someone blurted out the name "Atom Totality"
and I recognized
instantly that such a name was superior to the name "Atom Universe"
or
"Single Atom Universe"
or "Atom Whole Universe" or other variations. In science, it is
important to give the best name
to a theory as what you can possibly give, for if you do not then
someone else in the future
will rename it. And the best name is one in which it best describes
the theory in as few of
words as possible. Given just two words, the name Atom Totality is
the
best name I can
think of for the theory. The word "Universe" in "Atom Universe" is
too
nebulous (sorry for the
pun). For the term "Universe" in "Atom Universe" can have several
different meanings such as "atoms exist in the universe." But the
name
"Atom Totality" has
the meaning that the Universe or Cosmos is a single big atom.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.
Now some may complain about the description of force such as gravity
as the photon interaction of Earth's positron space with Moon's
positron
space. Complain because, why would not the Sun's photons obliterate
any photonic interaction of gravity with Earth and Moon? And that is a
good
question, when considering that forces are the exchanging of particles
such as the photon.
And my first impulse to answer that question would be to say that
since all
the matter that we see and observe in Nature is "electron matter" of
the
last six electrons of an 231Pu Atom Totality. The Positron Space of a
astro
body is a different physical entity than the "electron matter". So
that the photons
of the Sun or a star are different photons than that of the Photons
from Positron
Space interacting with the electron-matter of the Earth and Moon. Now
I am
a bit skeptical of my answer on this, and it may improve with time.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4 the distribution and density of galaxies
Referring to this mapp of the cosmos of galaxies and especially the
Sloan Great Wall and the other Great Wall
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
Of all the books I will write this is my most important one and I
suspect this is my most important chapter and should
have it perfected sometime in the future perhaps in the 5th edition,
as I
improve it with each new edition.
And of all the chapters this is probably my most favorite in that I
can see the order of laying out the most convincing evidence
starting
with the distribution and density of galaxies.
The distribution and density of galaxies is the very most convincing
evidence in favor of the
Atom Totality and the ruination of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang
cannot explain why the density of galaxies is most dense near these
two great walls and yet thins out the further away one gets from
these
two great walls. The
Atom Totality says this density is exactly the same as the dot
density
of the electron in a electron-dot-cloud for the element
plutonium. Or as in the diffraction pattern of photons hitting a
straight-edge. So as one looks at the Princeton
mapping of the two great walls one could easily say they are looking
at the electron-dot-cloud
pattern of 231Pu atom of its 5f6 electron orbital or the diffraction
pattern
in a slit or double slit experiment.
Note also the Great Attractor of astronomy in the above Princeton
mapping. This is important also since the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality
is the Great Attractor, where
nearby galaxies are all heading and plunging in the direction of the
Great Attractor.
The Atom Totality predicts that as we penetrate further beyond the
Sloan Great Wall that we will find an even denser Wall beyond the
Sloan. And the Atom Totality predicts that in the opposite direction
of Sloan Great Wall to planet Earth that the number of galaxies
thins
out enormously. And ditto for the reverse direction.
Let me do a sort of diagram of a chemistry textbook dot cloud
arrangement of the p orbital or the d orbital or f orbital of an
electron. And a line drawn from the nucleus of the atom outward into
the electron space has a large density of dots near the nucleus but
those dots diminish in density
the further this line is drawn. So is there a name for this line in
math or physics. That it is dense with dots near the nucleus but
tapers off as the distance further away on this line. It would be
nice
if math or physics has a name for such a density-line. Perhaps
gradient is the concept.
And the use of that density-line with the Sloan Great Wall and the
other Great-Wall is that sometime in the near future will be
discovered a further Great-Wall that lies closer to the Nucleus and
is
sandwiched in between the Sloan Great Wall and the nucleus of the
Atom
Totality. Let me call this future discovery the Plutonium Great
Wall.
And this would be the schemata of that discovery: where N = nucleus
of
Atom Totality, PGW =
Plutonium Great Wall, SGW = Sloan Great Wall, GW = Great Wall
In the 1990s we had this schemata of the Universe:
(GW).......................................................MilkyWay
Then in 2003 of the discovery of Sloan Great Wall we had this
schemata:
(SGW) (GW) .........................................MilkyWay
Today, I am happy to announce that in the near future there will be
further discoveries of even more dense galaxies the closer we
observe
to where the Nucleus of the Atom Totality 231Plutonium resides and
thus our schemata will look
like this:
(N) (PGW) (SGW) (GW)....................................MilkyWay
And, then even more into the distant future we will find an even
greater density of galaxies between the Plutonium Great Wall and
the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
So what is the math or physics name for a concept of a line which is
dense and by increasing the distance from that line the density
diminishes. Is the term that I seek "gradient"? Density gradient?
And, can the Schrodinger Wave Equation estimate what the density of
dots of the electron-dot-cloud should be in the f-orbital of an
electron, and would that density match the galaxy density in the
Sloan
Great Wall, given of course a scaling up.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.
> Now some may complain about the description of force such as gravity
> as the photon interaction of Earth's positron space with Moon's
> positron
> space. Complain because, why would not the Sun's photons obliterate
> any photonic interaction of gravity with Earth and Moon? And that is a
> good
> question, when considering that forces are the exchanging of particles
> such as the photon.
>
I remember reading a long time ago about some novel mechanism to
create
gravity. I think it was a Feynman book "Character of Physical Law"
which
I no longer seem to have, or have misplaced it. If my memory is
correct,
the way it is set up is that for Earth and Sun, there are uniform
mediating
particles coming
from all directions of the Universe. But since the Sun casts a shadow
on Earth
that a tiny bit more particles coming from outer space give a push of
the Earth
towards the Sun and resulting in gravity. Now I do not remember how
Feynman
debunked that mechanism.
But anyway, since the question of photons as the particles that
mediate gravity,
I should have the reverse problem with the Sun's photons. Unless
however, I can
make a claim that there is another type of photon, a photon that we
have not
yet discovered. And it is a photon associated with the Dirac Positron
Space.
If we scratch around in empty space, the vacuum of space we can dredge
out
a positron, what Dirac called a hole in Space. So Space is never
really empty but that Space are these Positron holes.
Dirac describes positron space in his books.
So if we have this Positron Space, then do we have Positron Photons
that are
altogether different from the photons we encounter in physics labs?
Since the
positron is the antiparticle of the electron, then would not the
photon of
positron be somewhat different? Now modern day particle physics would
say that the photon is the same everywhere. But that is really using
the fake
theory of the Standard Model. That probably, the photon with the
positron may
have a difference. And all I need is one tiny difference.
And to make the force of gravity, we really do not need many of these
positron-photons since
gravity is about 10^40 weaker than the EM force.
So that if we were to imagine as an analogy the center of Earth and
the center
of the Moon as magnets and that this center was the force of gravity.
Since
EM is 10^40 stronger, then the size of this magnet that simulates the
force
of gravity is a small magnet indeed. And here we run into another
strange
problem, in that the magnetosphere of Earth is probably strong enough
or
stronger than a center of Earth magnet to simulate the force of
gravity. So I
have the opposite problem of the Feynman gravity mechanism.
Archimedes Plutonium
Chapter 4
Subject: distribution of galaxies implies a cosmic atom; 4th ed; Atom
Totality theory
As mentioned in previous posts, I will start 5th edition
of this book as soon as this 4th is completed in that
I need this book organized for once. Organizing has become
elusive for me as yet in this book writing, due mostly to the fact
that my creativity and curiousity displaces organizing. I have posts
scattered from
different chapters and is annoying. So
I want this book organized and will devote full attention
to that prospect in the 5th ed.
High Energy Ray from direction of Centaurus
- Show quoted text -
Now recent news of a journal report of a high energy Ray in the
direction of Centaurus A about 13.7 million light years away
and of another Ray about 326 million light years away makes me
want to give some order to these newsflashes because they do not
make the basic information briefing. They neglect to tell us what
position of the Cosmic Sky those Rays are in the "direction of"
and that is a very important piece of information. Because the
direction of drawing a straight line from Earth to the Great
Attractor which also has the Great Wall and then the Sloan
Great Wall all involved in this one straight line drawn.
Of course this information belittles the Big Bang theory and
places it in jeopardy as being a fake theory.
But scientists need to be more precise and detailed and focused
in their reports. They seem to want to tell us how far away
Centaurus A is from Earth but they never seem to want to say
where in the Cosmic Sky that Centaurus is relative to a straight
line drawn from Earth to the Great Attractor. So that if scientists
had said in this newsflash that Centaurus A was directly on that
Cosmic line of sight to the Great Attractor and Great Wall and
Sloan Great Wall, then they would have made a far better report then
their sloppy report.
Now here I have gathered a partial list of Cosmic Gamma Rays:
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
GRBs of significant historical or scientific importance include:
* 670702: The first GRB ever detected.[28]
* 970228: The first GRB with a successfully detected afterglow.
The
location of the afterglow was coincident with a very faint galaxy,
providing strong evidence that GRBs are extragalactic.[29]
* 970508: The first GRB with a measured redshift (distance). At
z=0.835, it confirmed unambiguously that GRBs are extragalactic.[30]
* 971214: In 1997, this was believed by some to be the most
energetic event in the universe. This claim has since been
discredited.[31][32]
* 980425: The first GRB with an observed associated supernova
(1998bw), providing strong evidence of the link between GRBs and
supernovae. The GRB itself was very unusual for being extremely
underluminous. Also the closest GRB to date.[33]
* 990123: This GRB had the optically brightest afterglow
measured
to date, momentarily reaching or exceeding a magnitude of 8.9, which
would be visible with an ordinary pair of binoculars, despite its
distance of nearly 10 billion light years. This was also the first
GRB
for which optical emission was detected before the gamma-ray
emission
had ceased.[34]
* 030329A: An extremely close (z=0.168),[35] and therefore
extremely bright GRB, with an unambiguous supernova association.[36]
GRB
030329 was so bright that its gamma radiation ionized the Earth's
upper
atmosphere.[37]
* 050509B: The first short GRB with a host association.
Provided
evidence that (some) short GRBs, unlike long GRBs, occur in old
galaxies
and do not have accompanying supernovae.[38]
* 050724: A thoroughly observed short gamma-ray burst with an
afterglow suggesting the demise of a neutron star orbiting a black
hole.[39]
* 050904: The most distant GRB observed as of 2005, at z=6.29
(13
billion light-years).[40]
* 060218: A low-redshift GRB with an accompanying supernova.
[41]
* 060505: The first, well-observed, long duration GRB not
accompanied by a bright supernova.[42]
--- end quoting an encyclopedia ---
Now what I will try to track down is whether any or many of the above
originated from the line of sight of Earth to the Great Attractor.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.
Now to get Gravity as the Coulomb interaction of Positron Space to
Electron Matter
of the Observable Universe, I need to get a difference of the photon
of a positron
from the photon of the electron. In the Standard Model, a photon is a
photon is a photon.
That is, never any difference. However, I may have the answer by
saying that the
photon in a positron causes there to be a **different neutrino** than
a photon in a
electron to proton matter interaction. So that gravity is a different
neutrino involved than
when electron to proton matter Coulomb force.
Do you see what I am saying? Probably not. In ordinary matter of
electron to proton the
photons involved would issue a specific type of neutrino to make
gravity in that interaction.
But when a positron to electron interaction occurrs to give gravity,
the photon involved issues
a different neutrino to make the process of gravity work. So that,
consider the Earth Moon
gravity. The gravity that holds Earth together is a proton to electron
ordinary matter and the
photon issues a specific neutrino to carry out gravity. But looking at
the gravity that holds
the Moon to Earth in attraction is created by the positron Spaces of
both Earth and Moon
which cause the photons to issue a different neutrino.
So as Feynman was describing in his Character of Physical Law of a
novel approach to
solving gravity as a force, he was describing a universe awash in
uniform particles. That is
alright if we think of that awash as the predominant neutrinos. But
there are a small number
of "pecular neutrinos" in the wash, the uniform overall general wash
of neutrinos. These
pecular or different neutrinos arose from the Positron Space, that is
interacting with the normal matter which is the electrons of the atom
totality.
In other words, I am making Feynman's gravity work, whereas Feynman
debunked that
mechanism. That mechanism is too good to not be true, or at least a
new look at that
mechanism.
Essentially, what I am doing is recrafting gravity as a force that is
merely a Coulomb Force
and that is originated by the Positron Space upon electron-matter.
Archimedes Plutonium
future news-- second ring like structure will be discovered
Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
I am going to guess that the way that the Atom Totality theory will
trashcan the Big Bang theory is via the ever
increasing observation evidence of the distribution and density of
galaxies. Now that we have a space-telescope in orbit to gain clear
pictures of the Cosmos
the fact that we see successive Voids with successive
Clusters of galaxies and especially Great Walls and Sloan Great
Wall.
That this pattern is the pattern of Atom Diffraction. The Big Bang
falls apart in the face of this galaxy distribution pattern. No
explosion can render a diffraction pattern of galaxies.
And another pattern is the emerging "ring structure" as
cited by that Caltech website above. I am guessing the
ring structure is the "lobes of the 5f6 of a Cosmic Atom
of Plutonium 231Pu." If I am correct on that guess then
future rings will be discovered. So that the rings are a
integral part of the diffraction pattern.
So that the proof the Atom Totality theory is, perhaps,
going to come by simple observation of what the Cosmos is. And like
the proof of Continental Drift theory in Geology was, afterall, the
observational data
that the continents fit together, that similar plants and animals
existed but separated, and finally the seafloor
spreading observation.
So the observations that the galaxies are in a diffraction pattern
and
more dense at a special place--
Nucleus of the Atom Totality, and that the galaxies form "cosmic
rings". These observations will, in my guess, bring an end to the
fake
theory of Big Bang.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.
What has become a derivation of the Speed of Light out of pure math,
has
developed into a pursuit of an enlightened theory of gravity.
This chapter 18 has become a huge chapter, but will trim it by the 5th
ed.
In my last post I asked whether a neutrino could be the graviton
particle,
behaving very much like that of a photon.
Photons are the mediating particle in Electrodynamics, and the gravity
force
is identical to EM except it is 10^40 weaker. So the gravity force, in
an Atom
Totality becomes the attraction of Positron Space to the ordinary
Electron Matter
since matter is the last six electrons.
We all know that positrons are attracted to electrons by opposite
charge.
What is hard to conceptualize is that the ordinary matter composed of
both protons
and electrons is "electron matter of the atom-totality". When I say
the dots of the electron
dot cloud are galaxies, and those galaxies are composed of both
protons and electrons,
well, that is mighty difficult for most people to understand that in
whole it is all
Electron Matter of the Atom Totality. It is hard for me to even accept
it, but I do.
So what causes gravity to hold together the Sun or the Earth? And the
answer is
that inside the Sun or Earth resides a Positron Space center and this
ball of positrons
attracts all the mass-matter of the Sun or Earth and holds the bodies
as a astro body.
Now how does the gravity of the Sun hold the Earth in orbit? Here
again the Positron
Space center inside the Sun and Earth form an attraction of the normal
matter of either
bodies.
But the particles doing this mediating cannot be the photons, as
photons are the
mediating particle in Electromagnetism. If not the photon then what? I
believe the
neutrino is that particle that causes the mediating for gravity.
I looked up what Wikipedia says about the graviton to see if they shed
light
on the characteristic features that the graviton must have in order to
be the
mediating particle for Positron Space.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that
mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field
theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the
gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2
(because the source of gravity is the stress-energy tensor, which is a
second-rank tensor, compared to electromagnetism, the source of which
is the four-current, which is a first-rank tensor). To prove the
existence of the graviton, physicists must be able to link the
particle to the curvature of the space-time continuum and calculate
the gravitational force exerted.
Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of quantum field
theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of
all other known forces of nature as being mediated by elementary
particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by
the gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. The
hypothesis is that the gravitational interaction is likewise mediated
by a – yet undiscovered – elementary particle, dubbed the graviton,
instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime as in general
relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical
results, which are required to conform to Newton's law of gravitation.
[4][5][6]
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Recently in my Correcting Math book I spoke of the idea that the
Neutrino must be massless.
And here again the question of a neutrino rest mass is supported with
the idea that the
graviton must be massless.
About the only objection that the graviton cannot be a neutrino,
according to Wikipedia,
is this issue of spin 2.
The spin 2 comes into play because of a false and fake theory of what
gravity is and the
Standard Model applied to gravity.
If the physics community entered a debate with a clear mind, and
forget everything they
were brainwashed with. And told that Gravity is the Positron Space
attracting to the
normal Matter which are the electrons of an Atom Totality, then the
issue of a spin 2
for graviton is immediately dispensed with. That the graviton needs a
spin that matches
the neutrino.
So when you have no idea of the mechanism of the force of gravity and
you apply a
fake theory of Standard Model, you end up with ridiculuous
characteristics and
constraints.
Now another satisfying feature of having the neutrino as the mediating
particle in
gravity, is that the neutrino is a pervasive particle and fundamental
for every
atom, just as gravity is pervasive.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Now there is another immensely satisfying feature of the neutrino as
the mediating
particle of gravity. I use the concept of Positron Space and refer to
Dirac's
writings and musing on the "hole" in Space as positrons, or the idea
of the vacuum
of Space as full of positrons.
But let us ask the question why is the electron so endowed with
antiparticles
and why the Universe needing positrons and neutrinos in their huge
immense
abundance? Whereas the proton seems like a very lonely fundamental
particle.
Where the proton has no abundant antiparticle. Where the proton family
of
particles is rather dearth and depleted. But where the electron seems
to have
family of particles that is huge and immense.
So the EM forces are with the proton, electron and the photon.
So it is reasonable to suspect that since the electron gives rise to
this
huge family tree of particles of the positron, the neutrinos, that one
would
have to say that the force of gravity is involving those positrons and
neutrinos.
Now I bandied about the term or concept of Positron Space wherein the
matter of
the Atom Totality resides in this Positron Space. But since neutrinos
are so
pervasive, as much as photons are pervasive, is it not reasonable to
suspect that
the Positron Space is this sea or ocean of neutrinos.
Now it is known that neutrinos change from one type into a different
type of
neutrino. This is documented with the Sun neutrinos that seem to
change
flavors enroute to Earth. Now some have speculated that the changing
of
types has to have a rest mass for neutrinos. But if one were to say
that the
neutrinos that flipped from one flavor to another flavor, were
massless, and that
the switching or transforming of flavors was because the neutrino
interacted with
a positron in Space. Much like a photon in EM when it goes from one
energy level
to another and is reemitted that it has so to speak been transformed
or changed
flavors, and we would not be so crass as to think that the photon had
to have
rest mass to do this switching.
The universe is flooded with neutrinos, awash in a Cosmic ocean of
neutrinos.
And it would be silly of any active working physicist to think that
this huge
cosmic count of neutrinos does not cause a "Force of physics". There
is only
one force of physics that has not been given a mediating particle--
gravity.
So, the reasonable, commonsense person would put 2 and 2 together. We
have
gravity. We have a Cosmic ocean of neutrinos. Those neutrinos are not
just
lotterying in the Cosmos, but fullfilling some important job. That
job, is the
mediating particle of the force of gravity.
Archimedes Plutonium
Subject: Re: NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance
limit for galaxies; use in 4th ed. galactic density and distribution
--- quoting ---
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/11hubble/
A longstanding problem with these findings is that it still appears
that these early galaxies did not put out enough radiation to
"reionize" the early universe by stripping electrons off the neutral
hydrogen that cooled after the Big Bang. This "reionization" event
occurred between about 400 million and 900 million years after the
Big
Bang, but astronomers still don't know which sources of light caused
it to happen. These new galaxies are being seen right in this
important epoch in the evolution of the universe.
--- end quoting ---
This is like asking, where was the Holy Grail in the recent Hominid
Orrorin fossil find or where was the Shroud in that find.
Or, like asking where is the "bear" that caused the Devil's Tower in
Wyoming?
When a bunch of illogics assembles data and information, and then
imposes their
fake-theory to try to fit that data, of course they run into
nonproblems and worries.
The Atom Totality theory with Dirac New Radioactivities has no
reionization and
needs no "reionization".
And if those astronomers study their latest finds carefully, they
will
see that there are
all shapes of galaxies in that new finding. Meaning that there are a
variety of "ages"
and that some of those galaxies are older than the Big Bang's
alleged
upper limit of
less than 14 billion years old.
So as Hubble peers back in time and as the newer Webb telescope
starts
sending back
pictures we find ourselves going further and further beyond what the
Big Bang says and
has as an upper limit.
The only amazing part of the story is how steadfast these so called
astronomers can
cling to a fake theory before they jump ship.
Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.
Now I am the author of the theory that says the Coulomb force, or EM,
is the unifying force of physics. What this means is that all the
other forces
of physics are just different forms of a Coulomb force. The
StrongNuclear is
a Coulomb force and the Weak Nuclear is a Coulomb force and the force
of
Gravity is a Coulomb force. But they may vary in strength, but in the
endresult
they are Coulomb.
Do we have evidence of that from Particle Physics in spin? Of course
we do.
The mediating particle for Coulomb is the photon with spin 1. So we
would expect
the StrongNuclear to be a mediating particle of spin 1, and sure
enough the gluon
bosons are spin 1. And the WeakNuclear Force mediating particle is the
W and Z
bosons and of course they are spin 1.
Now for Gravity force, with its mediating particle. Noone has ever
seen a graviton
and it probably does not exist. The Graviton was a fictional
imagination run amok
in a fake theory of Standard Model which guessed the spin to be 2.
Of course the Standard Model never said what all the forces of physics
reduce to
that single unified force. That was too much of a commonsense to ask
of Standard
Modelists. For they sought for, and were seeking unification, but
bizarrely, never realized
that unification means "one force is all forces".
I, on the other hand, starts to make a theory by asking commonsense
rational questions,
and not locking myself up in some stifling ivory tower spewing
incoherent math gumbblywads.
No, I start out the theory by asking which one of the four forces of
physics is the most perfect
force? Which force is invariant both in the macroscale and microscale?
Which force uses
the photon? And the answer is really crystal clear. Only the Coulomb
is the most perfect of
forces of physics. That starts me off correctly, and unlike the
Standard Modelists with never
any achievement.
So if the spin of the particles that the Coulomb force has the photon
as mediating particle,
has the proton with spin 1/2 and the electron with spin 1/2 means that
the photon is
spin 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
This works the same for the StrongNuclear where we have 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
and the same
for the WeakNuclear.
So we come to the Gravity force and here we have something different,
in that the gravity
is caused by Positron Space upon Electron-Matter of the Atom Totality.
So we do not have
a 1/2 plus another 1/2 for spin. We have only one spin of 1/2 which is
the positron spin of
1/2. That means the spin of the mediating particle is not a spin 1 nor
a spin 2, but rather is
a spin of a mere 1/2. And that particle that mediates gravity is the
neutrino of spin 1/2.
Archimedes Plutonium
see all the Yankton
traffic going east. And I have my windows on the west side of the
house with these fiberglass
slightly corrugated fiberglass that I pulled from a greenhouse.
I did, truthfully see a huge redshift of the oncoming headlights of
the traffic from Yankton.
But I tried to duplicate it on another west facing window and was
unable to duplicate, and
the headlights appeared white, not redshifted. At first I thought it
was the angle at which
the fiberglass panels were leaning into the window.
But then I realized it was from an interior light source of a light
fixture that was perpendicular
to the fiberglass in the window.
So here is a odd situation. If I have the interior total darkness the
headlights of cars from
Yankton heading east are white lights. But if I have an interior light
on that is perpendicular
directed to the fiberglass, then the headlights of distant cars are
redshifted.
Is this Diffraction? Or is it a highly more complicated and complex
physics explanation?
It obviously is a redshift of oncoming headlights. But why is there
two light sources needed?
Archimedes Plutonium
Alright I re-did the experiment. It is going to be more difficult to
do this experiment
during the tree growing seasons since all those leaves on trees will
block my view
of the eastbound headlights from Yankton going east.
But I redid the experiment tonight, waiting for someone with their
"bright lights turned
on".
I found that if the interior of the house is total dark, that the
headlight is redshifted,
with a caveat. That the angle of tilt of the fiberglass panels is
important as to whether
you see a redshift or not. One of my panels is not tilted properly and
it appears white
light from the headlight. But two of my panels are tilted enough that
the redshift occurrs.
Now when I turn on an interior light of a perpendicular directed lamp
from the fiberglass
panels there appears a permanent redshift in the fiberglass as a
result of this interior
light turned on. And in earlier posts where I described the redshift
of distant cars
with a cm measure, that was inaccurate because that redshift was due
to the interior
light source being on, not to the far away car headlights.
So when I have an interior light perpendicular to the fiberglass, I
have a permanent
redshift of that light appearing in the fiberglass. If I have no
interior lighting then the
cars headlights are redshifted if the panels are tilted properly. I
would guess a 10 degree
tilt from normal or a 80 degree when it should be 90 degrees.
So the redshift occurs and is due to geometry and some complex
refraction of light.
Sorry if I said "diffraction" for I meant refraction to yield the
redshift.
This is mighty important to physics and cosmology because until now we
have
assumed the redshift of galaxies, or Hubble's law was due to the
expansion of the
universe from a Big Bang explosion. But in this experiment, we can see
that simply
geometry of the Cosmos yields the redshift and that no explosion is
needed.
Why impose a explosion with galaxies moving or carried by Space at
speeds greater
than the speed of light, whereas a far more simple explanation is that
the Cosmos
has some geometrical arrangement that matches the fiberglass panels of
my window.
The Chief Instigator
> You see, I live between Yankton and Vermillion South Dakota and can see
> all the Yankton traffic going east. And I have my windows on the west
> side of the house with these fiberglass slightly corrugated fiberglass
> that I pulled from a greenhouse.
Between Yankton and Vermillion? That means you're either in Mission Hill,
Meckling, or Gayville. (My inlaws are in both Dakotas, all the way from
Sioux Falls to Pierre, Watertown, Dell Rapids, Roberts County, and Richland
County, and one in the Cities. If you're a Dakotan, you'll understand that
term.)
> I did, truthfully see a huge redshift of the oncoming headlights of
> the traffic from Yankton.
Oops! If they were coming at you, it would shift towards the blue end of
the spectrum.
> But I tried to duplicate it on another west facing window and was unable
> to duplicate, and the headlights appeared white, not redshifted. At first
> I thought it was the angle at which the fiberglass panels were leaning
> into the window.
>
> But then I realized it was from an interior light source of a light
> fixture that was perpendicular to the fiberglass in the window.
>
> So here is a odd situation. If I have the interior total darkness the
> headlights of cars from Yankton heading east are white lights. But if I
> have an interior light on that is perpendicular directed to the
> fiberglass, then the headlights of distant cars are redshifted.
>
> Is this Diffraction? Or is it a highly more complicated and complex
> physics explanation?
>
> It obviously is a redshift of oncoming headlights. But why is there
> two light sources needed?
Try it in Clay County, as that's where you'll find at USD.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener, in October 2010
Archimedes Plutonium
I took a
single panel 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5
millimeters.
Now I do not know how science of optics describes these panels.
Whether they
are translucent for they are not clear, and whether they are opaque
and the difference
between opaque and translucent. They are fiberglass and you can see
white streaks
inside. And if I held a sheet of paper with handwriting on it, if held
up close to the
panel, one can read the writing but at a tiny distance away, the
writing is too blurred
to read.
The panel comes from a small greenhouse, much like a small shed bought
in
Lowes lumber yard. The greenhouse could not stand up to the South
Dakota
winds so I cut it and use it inside the house. It is this use that I
began to notice
redshifting of auto headlights.
So I took this panel outside the house for I was getting too much in
house reflections
that was creating a redshift. So to eliminate the in house reflection
and refraction
causing redshift, I went to the side of the road and to conduct the
experiment directly
on the autos and headlights.
Immediately I spotted all the white light headlights were redshifted
coming towards me.
Only when the autos were close by, could I see any white light from
their headlights.
When they were at a far distance these white lights were redshifted,
and their was
a maximum redshift at a specific distance. This is the same distance
at which the
opposite traffic exposing their taillights of red vanished from view
in the panel.
So in other words, when a car's taillights of red are in view of my
panel, I see a
bright red in the panel but at a select distance away, the auto red
light vanishes
in the panel and is black, but removing the panel, I still see the red
light.
And it is this distance at which is the maximum redshifting of the
oncoming white
light.
Now the tilting of the panel has some role in the lateral spreading
out of the redshift
but not of the intensity of the redshift. Now if I tilted the panel to
becoming more and
more parallel to the road itself, there was a point at which the
whitelight was able to
be seen instead of the predominant redshift.
So now, this is proof that the Cosmic Redshift, need not be a Doppler
Effect of an
expanding Universe wherein Space is moving at the speed of light or
greater and carrying
along with it the galaxies.
In fact, this experiment points out that the speed of an object is
immaterial in causing a
redshift, because the white headlights should be blueshifted, yet none
were blueshifted.
All were redshifted.
So what this experiment implies is that the Geometry of the Cosmos, or
the curvature of the
Cosmos, or perhaps, the opaqueness of the Cosmos causes a redshift.
I returned inside my house to see to what extent that reflections off
walls plays in the redshift
and had a lamp near a white painted wall surface. The lamp itself was
white and not redshifted
but the reflection of the white light on the nearby surface was
redshifted. So to some extent,
reflected light can be redshifted and I do not know the physical
explanation of how the interior
walls can reflect the light so that the fiberglass panels cause a
redshift.
And I tried experimenting with obtaining a blueshift. I took a white
light lamp and I vigorously
waved the sheet back and forth, and I suspect I obtained a blueshift,
however it was
too small to be assured.
The implications of this experiment are grand, because it offers a
more simple explanation
of Cosmic Redshift of galaxies. An explanation that does not depend on
the speed of galaxies,
nor their distance, nor a convoluted concept of Space in motion.
In fact, we can probably decipher what the curvature of Space or the
opaqueness of space,
or the width of Space is from the redshift data. If we have enough
reliable redshifts and the
motion of those bodies derived not from Hubble's style law, but
derived from other tests of
motion, that we should be able to describe the geometry and curvature
of Space.
So what I suspect will happen is that we can gather the data of cosmic
redshift and gather the
data of the motion of astro bodies, without the reliance on redshift,
but the motion derived
by other means. And then we can compute what the curvature or width or
the geometry of
Space has to be in order to have the redshift that we currently have.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all snipped except this)
>
> I returned inside my house to see to what extent that reflections off
> walls plays in the redshift
> and had a lamp near a white painted wall surface. The lamp itself was
> white and not redshifted
> but the reflection of the white light on the nearby surface was
> redshifted. So to some extent,
> reflected light can be redshifted and I do not know the physical
> explanation of how the interior
> walls can reflect the light so that the fiberglass panels cause a
> redshift.
>
One explanation of the physics of redshift of reflected light is, I am
guessing a sort of blackbody cavity effect.
Earlier, I had argued that a big difference between the Big Bang
theory
and Atom Totality theory is that the Big Bang assumes Space is only
2D on the surface of some balloon like sphere that is inflating
bigger.
Whereas the Atom Totality theory attempts to set the Cosmos into
a 3D Elliptic geometry. So the Big Bang is stuck in 2D Elliptic and
the
Atom Totality goes into 3D Elliptic, by saying the 3rd dimension in 3D
Elliptic is sort of like a thickness to the surface of a globe. It is
not the
entire interior of the globe but like a lens thickness. So that white
light
when traveling in this lens thickness medium is refracted so that we
see a redshift.
But another possibility is that 3D Elliptic is the entire interior.
So let me entertain you and myself with that prospect. On Earth, the
thickness
3D would be to say that of the bottom of the oceans and all surfaces.
But let us say that we are affixed to the interior of Earth and can
see across the
interior to all other points. Here the interior would be hollow and
transparent. The galaxies
would all reside on some point of this interior shell and send us
light across the interior. And
everything above the surface of this globe is nonobservable.
So here I have outlined two possible 3D Elliptic geometries.
(1) the outer surface of a sphere and it has a thickness of its
surface to provide
the 3rd dimension and where the interior is nonobservable and beyond
the
surface is nonobservable. In this model, a distant galaxy light
reaches us after
it is bent around until we actually come in sight of the bent light
and thus
redshifted.
(2) the second model of 3D Elliptic is the interior of Earth is hollow
but is the 3rd
dimension. In this model light from a distant galaxy shots straight
across in the
hollow zone medium and is observed. And some may argue that this
cannot be
Elliptic geometry but rather Euclidean, and I would say it is only the
behaviour of
light, but the motion of all other objects is in Elliptic.
Now the reason I am bringing these ideas up, is that if the redshift
of my interior house
of the reflections of white light lamps onto the fiberglass panels is
a blackbody effect
supports the notion of 3D Elliptic as a hollow interior globe.
Now what is neat about the hollow interior is that it allows for alot
of blueshifting
in the local neighbors for they would be "seemingly coming at us".
Whereas on
the exterior surface, the local neighbors would be seemingly spreading
out and
moving away from us.
And a bonus feature of the 3D Elliptic as the hollow interior is that
all galaxies
are visible and observable.
WG
Arche you should really read up on redshift before you post and spew.
A common misconception of amateurs is that they believe redshift due to Doppler effects means the object appears redder to the eye! This is incorrect. For a pure white light [continuous over the visible spectrum and beyond], it will exhibit no change of color whatsoever when moving away or towards the observer. Redshift and blueshift are generic terms used to describe which direction the entire spectrum is being shifted. You need markers, i.e. emission bands or absorption bands [if they are associated with the object, most aren't] in a characteristic spectrum in order to notice the shift.
There is reddening of light but that's due to scattering, a different topic.
I could give you an example of light being redshifted and appear bluer to the eye .... but ,,, ahh....
nevermind.
WG
"Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e59f6d27-bff6-4de2...@o11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
Androcles
"WG" <wgil...@I-zoom.net> wrote in message
news:hrmrm7$rbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snip nonsense]
Arche you should really read up on redshift before you post and spew.
A common misconception of amateurs is that they believe redshift due to
Doppler effects means the object appears redder to the eye! This is
incorrect. For a pure white light [continuous over the visible spectrum and
beyond], it will exhibit no change of color whatsoever when moving away or
towards the observer. Redshift and blueshift are generic terms used to
describe which direction the entire spectrum is being shifted. You need
markers, i.e. emission bands or absorption bands [if they are associated
with the object, most aren't] in a characteristic spectrum in order to
notice the shift.
There is reddening of light but that's due to scattering, a different topic.
I could give you an example of light being redshifted and appear bluer to
the eye .... but ,,, ahh....
nevermind.
WG
==============================================================
Our sun isn't pure white, it is a yellow star. If the blue end of the
spectrum is absent or diminished and the light is doppler red-shifted then
the star will appear red. So while I accept your premise, I do not accept
your assumption.
WG
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message news:tDCDn.23059$fQ1....@newsfe13.ams2...
This is correct in this instance.
There are no pure white radiators in nature I suspect , if there was we could never detect shifts without markers, but all spectrums are different and a radiator that emits heavily in the ultraviolet and shorter end of the spectrum and emits little in the yellow would appear bluer to the eye when redshifted.
Androcles
"WG" <wgil...@I-zoom.net> wrote in message
=======================================================
Yes, of course a hotter (UV) star would appear blue when redshifted,
but can we apply that to a galaxy? Without examining the spectra of each
and every one, in detail, looking for absorption lines of specific elements,
it takes a leap of faith to agree with Hubble's hypothesis based on the
images from the telescope named after him.
I see more blue than I do red in this image and I'm not about to believe
that entire galaxies are UV emitters that are flying away from me,
especially
when the face-on galaxy appears white (no shift).
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/DetailWF4.gif
Lowell wanted to believe in canals on Mars so he found canals on Mars.
Those who want to believe in an expanding universe will find enough
red-shifted galaxies to convince themselves, but they'll ignore any that
are blue-shifted and fail to convince me.
Archimedes Plutonium
Androcles wrote:
> "WG" <wgil...@I-zoom.net> wrote in message
> news:hrmum7$9jm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message
> news:tDCDn.23059$fQ1....@newsfe13.ams2...
> >
> > "WG" <wgil...@I-zoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:hrmrm7$rbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > [snip nonsense]
> >
> > Arche you should really read up on redshift before you post and spew.
> > A common misconception of amateurs is that they believe redshift due to
> > Doppler effects means the object appears redder to the eye! This is
> > incorrect. For a pure white light [continuous over the visible spectrum
> > and
WG, I have offered an experiment that WG can easily repeat. So, let us
see
if you have an iota of science in you to repeat my experiment or
whether
you are more of the same as just another nonscientist ad-hominer.
Well, good on you, Androcles, for we now have an experiment that puts
the Hubble law to a test and whether the Hubble Law can survive that
test
or whether the test destroys
the Hubble Law and its fallacy of conclusions. An experiment that
every
High School student can try out and force their local college
professor of astronomy a
better understanding of redshifts.
Let me summarize what the Experiment unfolded last night.
(1) I took my fiberglass greenhouse panel along the road.
The panel measures 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5
millimeters. It was a part of the greenhouse type of shed bought at
Lowe's lumber
yard and the greenhouse was manufactured in Canada. I have some other
fiberglass
I bought at Menard's and some of it is clear and some blue tinted and
will try them
in the future to see if they redshift also.
(2) Anyway, I first tried the panel on the street lights of white, yet
stationary. And they
were not redshifted but rather were white, with maybe a tiny tint of
green and blue
from the stationary street light. I tilted the panel to see if there
was any significant
change of the appearance of the street light and there was none to
note.
(3) Then I reached the side of the highway of SD 50 that goes from
Yankton to
Vermillion. And I first observed a line of oncoming white lights at
about 5 km distance
from me. All of these vehicles with white headlights were redshifted.
A big glaring
red blotch for their white headlights. They remained
redshifted until they were about approx 500 meters from me and then
they resumed
a white light appearance.
(4) Next I waited until there were no white lights oncoming to observe
the red taillights
of vehicles in the opposite direction. The red taillight appeared very
red in the
fiberglass panel, and about approx 3 km away from me, the red
taillight disappeared
from view in the panel but as I removed the panel I could see the red
taillight with
my naked eye. So I figure that the "redshifting effect" caused by the
fiberglass
had cancelled the redlight of the taillight at that specific distance
of 3km.
(5) So in summary, stationary white lights are white lights in the
panel. Oncoming
moving white headlights are redshifted in the panel from 5 km out to
about 500 meters
distance from the panel. Red taillights of opposite moving vehicles
remain red until
about a distance of 3km away where they vanished completely.
What I conclude from this experiment is that the Cosmos has some
intrinsic Opaqueness
that makes almost everything appear redshifted. That the Hubble's Law
is mostly wrong and deceiving of the true nature of the Universe. An
intrinsic opaqueness of the
Cosmos would cause almost all galaxies to appear to be moving away
from us
yet the experiment of fiberglass panel clearly shows the vehicles
moving directly
at us, and leaving astronomers drawing a false conclusion that the
Universe was expanding, when in fact it is mostly just a balanced
overall galactic motions, just as some vehicles are
moving to Yankton whereas an equal number over time are moving away
from Yankton. Whereas Hubble and his followers would draw the
conclusion that all vehicles are moving
towards Yankton except those at 500 meters or less.
Now I do not know how this Opaqueness translates into geometry. Does
it mean that
the Opaqueness is a direct result of the Curvature of the Cosmos? It
surely means that
Hubble's Law is wrong and that the redshift is caused by some
intrinsic feature of the Cosmos.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Tonight I wanted to recheck my observations and the accuracy of my
report:
>
> Let me summarize what the Experiment unfolded last night.
>
> (1) I took my fiberglass greenhouse panel along the road.
> The panel measures 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5
> millimeters. It was a part of the greenhouse type of shed bought at
> Lowe's lumber
> yard and the greenhouse was manufactured in Canada. I have some other
> fiberglass
> I bought at Menard's and some of it is clear and some blue tinted and
> will try them
> in the future to see if they redshift also.
>
> (2) Anyway, I first tried the panel on the street lights of white, yet
> stationary. And they
> were not redshifted but rather were white, with maybe a tiny tint of
> green and blue
> from the stationary street light. I tilted the panel to see if there
> was any significant
> change of the appearance of the street light and there was none to
> note.
>
I rechecked stationary street lights and other stationary light
fixtures. A few
of these stationary lights that had a yellowish tinge resulted in a
redshift with
the panel. But bright white lights that are stationary have no
redshift. So what
I am thinking is that the lamp itself may be prone to redshifting if
the candescence
is lower than a brighter white light.
> (3) Then I reached the side of the highway of SD 50 that goes from
> Yankton to
> Vermillion. And I first observed a line of oncoming white lights at
> about 5 km distance
> from me. All of these vehicles with white headlights were redshifted.
> A big glaring
> red blotch for their white headlights. They remained
> redshifted until they were about approx 500 meters from me and then
> they resumed
> a white light appearance.
Sorry, the 5 km is probably not accurate. Perhaps I can only see about
3 km
at maximum, down the road.
Also, the white headlights always remained redshifted and only about
500 meters
did the redshift begin to wane, and at about 100 meters could I begin
to see
the white light in glimmers, but throughout, the redshift was present.
>
> (4) Next I waited until there were no white lights oncoming to observe
> the red taillights
> of vehicles in the opposite direction. The red taillight appeared very
> red in the
> fiberglass panel, and about approx 3 km away from me, the red
> taillight disappeared
> from view in the panel but as I removed the panel I could see the red
> taillight with
> my naked eye. So I figure that the "redshifting effect" caused by the
> fiberglass
> had cancelled the redlight of the taillight at that specific distance
> of 3km.
>
More accurately, probably about 1km distance not 3km, did the red
taillight vanish from the panel but where my naked eyes could still
see them.
> (5) So in summary, stationary white lights are white lights in the
> panel. Oncoming
> moving white headlights are redshifted in the panel from 5 km out to
> about 500 meters
> distance from the panel. Red taillights of opposite moving vehicles
> remain red until
> about a distance of 3km away where they vanished completely.
>
Here again, I can probably only see about 3km down the road at maximum
and the vanishing of the red taillight occurs at about 1km. And the
oncoming
white headlights were always redshifted but that the redshifting
diminishes
somewhat at 500 meters or less.
> What I conclude from this experiment is that the Cosmos has some
> intrinsic Opaqueness
> that makes almost everything appear redshifted. That the Hubble's Law
> is mostly wrong and deceiving of the true nature of the Universe. An
> intrinsic opaqueness of the
> Cosmos would cause almost all galaxies to appear to be moving away
> from us
> yet the experiment of fiberglass panel clearly shows the vehicles
> moving directly
> at us, and leaving astronomers drawing a false conclusion that the
> Universe was expanding, when in fact it is mostly just a balanced
> overall galactic motions, just as some vehicles are
> moving to Yankton whereas an equal number over time are moving away
> from Yankton. Whereas Hubble and his followers would draw the
> conclusion that all vehicles are moving
> towards Yankton except those at 500 meters or less.
>
> Now I do not know how this Opaqueness translates into geometry. Does
> it mean that
> the Opaqueness is a direct result of the Curvature of the Cosmos? It
> surely means that
> Hubble's Law is wrong and that the redshift is caused by some
> intrinsic feature of the Cosmos.
>
>
I am beginning to think or suspect that this phenomenon is a mix of
refraction
and scattering of light in the panel of fiberglass.
The important feature is that a motion towards the observer creates a
redshift
and unlike Doppler and Hubble's law, oncoming white light as
redshifted
is opposite of what Doppler and Hubble concluded.
So I can begin to assess the value of the collected observations of
galaxies and
stars to date.
If the Big Bang is correct, then there is a predominance of
redshifting since all the
galaxies would be moving away from the Milky Way. And blueshift in the
Big Bang
should be extremely rare, and no blueshifts for distant galaxies.
The Atom Totality using the above fiberglass experiment to imply that
the redshift is
some intrinsic property of the Atom Totality such as curvature or
intergalactic opaqueness
implies that galaxies that are relatively motionless with respect to
the Earth and
Milky Way can be seen as no-shifting or even a blueshift and it
matters not about
distance, so long as the galaxy is relatively motionless to Earth. But
if the galaxy
is moving towards Earth or away from Earth, it will be redshifted.
So in the Atom Totality there is alot more blueshifting than in the
Big Bang. And I believe
the current state of knowledge on all the observed shifting supports
the Atom Totality.
I recently posted about news of a very far away galaxy that is
blueshifted. This is
conflicting news for the Big Bang, but quite a common feature of the
Atom Totality.
And so many of the local galaxies are blueshifted because they are
relatively motionless
with respect to Earth.
And there is a very nice way of deciding if the Opaqueness is true and
the Doppler redshifting
is false. The Opaqueness implies that we can have rapid motion towards
Earth and still
be highly redshifted. So there must have been quite alot of cases of
redshifting of galaxies
which were originally thought to be speeding away from Earth, but upon
closer
examination were actually coming towards Earth yet having a redshift.
Now there is some sadness in this reporting of the experiment because
the chapter that
follows this redshift chapter is the galactic density and
distribution. And that mapping
was based on redshift. So I am afraid that a new concept of what
causes redshifts
is going to vastly jeopardize all that mapping which would have to be
revised. The distances
are no longer so large, but rather, the Cosmos has shrunk
exponentally.
Question: would I be correct in surmizing that the amount of blueshift
of galaxies
observed is close to about 25% of all the shifts seen?
And another interesting feature of Opaqueness Generated Redshift, is
that there would
be alot more galaxies that have no-shift. And that is not what a Big
Bang would predict
since they have a Space expansion, and thus either a blueshift or
redshift, but not a
no-shift.
Funny, how no-one before me had the insight to go out and put a sheet
of fiberglass
to see if a oncoming headlight is redshifted. But of course I have to
be humble about
this myself, since I only found it by accident. That I bought a
greenhouse made of
fiberglass see through panels. That it was not sturdy enough for the
winds. And that
I eventually brought it inside the house to make use of it. So only by
accident, was
I able to find a experiment that threatens to falsify all of Hubble's
Law and the Big Bang.
Archimedes Plutonium
scattering. There
are many forms of scattering.
> > with the object, most aren't] in a characteristic spectrum in
order to
> > notice the shift.
> > There is reddening of light but that's due to scattering, a
different
> > topic.
> > I could give you an example of light being redshifted and appear
bluer to
> > the eye .... but ,,, ahh....
> > nevermind.
> >
> > WG
Probably noone in astronomy today has a good enough handle on these
questions
of information:
(1) how much blueshifted galaxies exist and their percentage overall?
(2) how many stars are red-giants and their percentage overall?
What is known with some confidence is that of the Luminet Poincare
Dodecahedral
Space is far smaller of a Cosmos than is conceived of by Big Bang
believers.
Exponentially smaller of a Cosmos in the Luminet Poincare Dodecahedral
Space.
The Luminet team uses the Microwave Background Radiation, but am not
sure
whether they totally stay away from ever using the "supposed Big Bang
redshift."
What I am going to have to do, whether in this edition or some future
edition of this
book is to figure out what would cause a Cosmic redshift that is
equivalent to
the fiberglass translucent panel that turns white lights of a car into
a redshift.
Is it purely a refraction problem, or a scattering problem or a mix of
the two?
Probably a mix of the two.
And then I would have to translate that fiberglass panel into what
features of
a 231Pu Atom Totality causes the Cosmic redshift? Is it a purely
geometrical
feature of the Atom Totality or is it far more messy with
intergalactic mediums
that scatter light?
Funny, how the most reliable data and information available is not the
astronomers
who observed and cataloged all the redshifts and blueshifts, but
rather the
Luminet team working with Microwave Radiation who computed the Cosmos
as
being far smaller in size than what Big Bang redshifters want you to
believe.
And this is probably going to be a trend that has alot more fruit to
harvest in the future.
The trend of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation versus the Cosmic Redshift
data. Both
are cosmic data and somewhat independent. And it is reasonable to
suspect that
one of them can actually falsify the other.
Now I understand very well that my panel of fiberglass is an extreme
case of
redshifting and that the Cosmic redshift is a phenomenon that is tiny
in relation
to the redshift that I see with the fiberglass. But the point of the
experiment
is that it shows us it is very easy to create a Cosmic Redshift and
that Doppler
Shift has nothing to do with it. For the Doppler shift of auto
headlights is a tiny
shift, whereas my fiberglass view is an enormous shift.
At this moment in time, I suspect the explanation for the Cosmic
Redshift is
due not to scattering, for the Cosmos seems to be rather "clear and
clean"
of scattering on a universe scale. So I am prone to think that the
Cosmic
Redshift is due to a geometrical feature of the 231Pu Atom Totality
and so
I think it is a refraction problem. If it were a scattering problem
intrinsic, I think
the scientists would have been alarmed over how messy the Hubble Law
would have become, but the Hubble Law and its observers have rarely
complained over messiness of findings. There are the blueshifts of
very
distant galaxies, but if scattering was involved, I would think the
messiness
of many reported sightings would have occurred. So I am prone to think
that the Cosmic Redshift is a rather "clean affair." And that would
lead
me to believe it is a refraction problem and thus a geometrical
feature of
the Atom Totality. If the Cosmic Microwave Radiation is so smooth as
to be so difficult to have fluctuations (in fact no fluctuations in
the Atom
Totality since it is blackbody and thus cavity radiation), that such
would
also be the case of Cosmic Redshift be as quantized and smooth.
At this moment, those inductions would lead me to believe the Cosmic
Redshift is a geometry feature and that feature would be the 3rd
dimension
of Elliptic Geometry. No human mind can actually visualize 3D Elliptic
geometry.
We can easily picture 2D objects on the surface of a sphere as 2D
Elliptic,
but none of us can think in terms of 3D Elliptic. I believe this
Cosmic
Redshift that my fiberglass panel imitates or mimics is the 3rd
dimension
of 3D Elliptic. I am guessing it is a lens shape that refracts light.
So that the
12 faces of the Poincare Dodecahedral Space is a 12 lens that compose
that
Space and we reside in one of those 12 faces or lens.
So that the light of every body that is moving away or towards us is
perceived
by us as redshifted. The redshift is not a Doppler Redshift but is due
to the
light traveling in a lens shaped Cosmic medium. This would cause there
to
be a large percentage of blueshift of the galaxies and especially
distant
galaxies, and this would also cause nearby galaxies that are moving
towards Earth to be the opposite of blueshift that Doppler predicts
but rather
redshifted.
The data collection and information of Cosmic Redshift is hodgepodge,
depending on whom you ask. Noone in astronomy can give you an accurate
measure of how much blueshifting? And noone is offering a list of
disconforming
redshift reports or contradictory redshift reports. Such is a hurdle
of when
a fake theory like the Big Bang has taken over a community, that the
reports and
reporters are not coming clean on their contradictions, and so the new
theory
of Atom Totality has to work around these nonclean reports.
Archimedes Plutonium
mapping:
--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring"
or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
Let me tell you how I feel at the moment about the situation I am in.
I feel what Kepler may have felt without having Tycho Brahe's data
or without being able to make the observations to prove which theory
is the true theory and the fake theory.
The astronomy communities data and information of redshift is not a
clean data form. They do not tell you of the blueshifts nor the
contradictory
or nonconforming reports of shifts. The data on shifts is only the
data that
agrees with the Big Bang. So I have to go around this propaganda
reporting
of science, that reports only which favors the Big Bang and deletes
any
contradictory evidence.
It is good that I have these two chapters close together of Redshift
and
Galactic Density and Distribution. Because the galactic mapping is
based
upon the redshift.
I was a trained mathematician and knows that when you have a mapping
of
galaxies and a "ring" appears, means that the Cosmos is a Elliptic
geometry.
The trouble with a mapping based on redshift that is a wrong redshift
understanding.
I mean Doppler redshift when it should be a Refraction redshift. The
trouble
with reporting a "ring" by Jarrett in the third layer above, is that
Jarrett and the other
mappers are basing the redshift on a Doppler Expansion Cosmos.
But if the redshift were based on a Refraction Redshift due to an Atom
Totality,
there would be a "ring" and that ring would signify the edge of the
Cosmos.
So that the ring in Jarrett's report, maybe the edge of the Cosmos as
outlined
by Luminet's team working on the Poincare Dodecahedral Space.
So as my fiberglass experiment that the oncoming white lights from
cars is redshifted,
and if Hubble were doing the same on those cars, would falsely
conclude the cars
were very far away, while I would conclude the cars are very close
because the
redshift is not Doppler but refraction.
In these mappings:
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/all100.gif
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
These mappings based on Doppler redshift, what if they are really
based
on Refraction redshift.
Then would not the "ring" in the third layer actually be the edge of
the Cosmos.
The finite distance that the Luminet team has found for the Poincare
Dodecahedral
Space?
Archimedes Plutonium
fiberglass sheet. This
is the type of sheet one uses for patio roofing or shed roofing that
lets in the light. It
is translucent and opaque.
So on the bright white street lights there was no shifting involved
but I could see
some violet color.
Onto the highway with oncoming white light headlights. They were white
with some
blue color. On the red taillight it was red throughout. And it did
vanish about 1 or 2 km
away.
Which got me to thinking about redshift of very distant galaxies.
Seems to me that theory
would say that there is a point at which a redshift luminosity makes
the light source
vanish. Speculate with me on this. Consider a very bright white light
flashlight and seen
from a distance. But if far enough away, that white light has not the
brightness and the
flashlight cannot be seen at all because of the distance.
So if these far away galaxies are redshifted lights, would not their
luminosity be so weak
that they never reach Earth to observe? So that there comes a distance
and a redshift
of the galaxies where we cannot observe them due to the attenuation of
the light source
itself.
So what I am arguing is a case of my previous post where I said that
the ring in the third
> --- quoting ---
>http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
>
>
>The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
> supercluster
Is perhaps the edge of the Cosmos and all the layers thereafter are
really closer to us
than the ring in the 3rd layer.
Just as the oncoming white lights are redshifted by the fiberglass
greenhouse panel, that
the 4th, 5th, 6th and beyond layers of Jarrett's mapping are actually
closer to Earth than
is the 3rd layer.
So, has any physicist, has any astronomer ever asked themselves the
question, can we
really be seeing such distant galaxies and quasars so immensely
redshifted, that would not
their light have vanished due to the drop in light intensity.
I guess some physicists and astronomers feel that light intensity goes
on infinitely far without
and loss in luminosity and that we should always see it.
And here we raise the issue of Quasars. They are supposedly very far
away because of
their redshift. But for my panel fiberglass experiment, the worst
redshift is the closest
white light headlight coming towards me.
So with my experiment on fiberglass, I would say the Quasars are some
of the closest
galaxies to Earth and instead of being beyond the Sloan Great Wall,
the Quasars are
probably in the vicinity of the Local Group of galaxies since their
luminosity is so bright
yet their redshift is so large.
So, I stumbled tonight on the very best supporting evidence that the
Cosmic redshift is
due to Refraction and not due to a alleged Expansion with Doppler.
Archimedes Plutonium
experiment. Simply to say that a greenhouse fiberglass panel redshifts
oncoming white lighted headlights of
cars and trucks. Thus the Cosmic Redshift is caused by a refraction,
not a Doppler.
So what would be the most glaring big mistake by physicists and
astronomers when they have Hubble's Law all wrong and backwards?
Apparently, the largest mistake they can make
is the quasar conundrum.
Wikipedia says it best about quasars:
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
More than 200,000 quasars are known, most from the Sloan Digital Sky
Survey. All observed quasar spectra have redshifts between 0.06 and
6.5. Applying Hubble's law to these redshifts, it can be shown that
they are between 780 million and 28 billion light-years away (in terms
of comoving distance). Because of the great distances to the furthest
quasars and the finite velocity of light, we see them and their
surrounding space as they existed in the very early universe.
Most quasars are known to be farther than three billion light-years
away. Although quasars appear faint when viewed from Earth, the fact
that they are visible from so far away means that quasars are the most
luminous objects in the known universe.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
The last sentence above tells it all, and speaks for the big glaring
error. "Although quasars appear faint when viewed from Earth, the fact
that they are visible from so far away means that quasars are the most
luminous objects in the known universe."
So in my experiment of the traffic and cars and trucks along South
Dakota highway 50
with my panel of greenhouse fiberglass where oncoming white headlights
are redshifted,
that by Hubble's Law I would have had to conclude the cars and trucks
were so far away
that they had to be in China to give me that redshift, when in fact
they were only meters
away from where I stood.
As the sentence of Wikipedia, that quasars are really some utterly
dull and boring object
with a high redshift, and totally unnoteworthy of reporting except for
that huge redshift.
So what is the truthful explanation of Quasars? Well, according to the
fiberglass experiment
these objects are indeed moving towards Earth and are white lights and
the Refraction is
so high that causes the Refraction Redshift.
If I use Hubble's Law and assumptions on the white headlights of cars
coming from Yankton
I would have to report that those cars are in China. But if I applied
the fiberglass refraction
explanation, I would report the cars are a few kilometers away and
coming directly at me.
So you see, it is truly amazing how physicists and astronomers report
unbelievable stuff such
as Quasars and have you believe in an all new category of humungus
energy and forces
at play to give Quasars existence. When all along, they were merely
dull, faint white stars nearby to Earth and moving towards Earth with
a huge redshift caused by Refraction, not
Doppler.
I mean, really, somewhere along the line one expects the physics and
astronomy community to wake up, grow up. If you cannot explain a
simple thing like "quasars are very faint" and so
why attach the opposite of Occam's Razor by attaching the most
energetic forces ever
to a faint red looking star. Whereas the alert and fully grown
scientist would have asked instead, hey, we probably have the Hubble
Law all screwed up and turned around 180 degrees
to what the real truth is. There is a moral theme to this, like those
Greek stories of platitudes
"the ants and the grasshopper" where the grasshopper comes to begging
the ants for food
in the winter. I forgotten the author or the name of these type of
stories.
But the Hubble Law should be another moral story. That before anyone
accepts a science theory or Law, which thus forces the belief in some
extraordinary new energy or force
such as quasars being terribly energetic, that before you succumb or
submit to such
fantasy, you had better inspect the opposite of the Law so that you
can reject it. Occam's
Razor rejects Hubble's Law since it causes Quasars. A Cosmic
Refraction Redshift
obeys Occam's Razor since a very faint star that is heavily redshifted
requires no
absurd explanation such as a Quasar.
Enrico
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I am going to have a shortform version of my fiberglass sheet
> experiment. Simply to say that a greenhouse fiberglass panel redshifts
> oncoming white lighted headlights of
> cars and trucks. Thus the Cosmic Redshift is caused by a refraction,
> not a Doppler.
>
> So what would be the most glaring big mistake by physicists and
> astronomers when they have Hubble's Law all wrong and backwards?
> Apparently, the largest mistake they can make
> is the quasar conundrum.
>
> Wikipedia says it best about quasars:
>
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
=============================================================================
This one looks interesting...
http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/Static.htm
Chapter Two: The Hubble Universe.
Edwin Hubble was the first to realise it - there is no real evidence
for expansion. It is unsupported by observation and actually
contradicted by it. Edwin Hubble did not discover the Hubble Law, and
spent the rest of his life trying to tell people that. The original
data indicating expansion were found to be specious, abandoned, and
never replaced. It came from nowhere and, observationally, it seems
it’s going nowhere. The false dawn of universal expansion came from
faulty data. “…it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an
expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of
the universe may require re-examination.” (Dr Edwin Hubble, 1947).
I searched on - hubble law redshift contradiction
Advanced searchAbout 7,370 results (0.47 seconds)
Enrico
spudnik
at highway speed, going to or from ... through green plastic?
> faulty data. “…it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an
> expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of
> the universe may require re-examination.” (Dr Edwin Hubble, 1947).
thus:
like I always say,
"global" warming is almost entirely a)
computerized simulacra, and b)
very selective reporting (and c)
the latter is based upon "practically nil" historical data
about the vast majority of glaciers e.g.).
thus:
that was a lot Moore math.
I've written to Dudley about one of the "proofs"
in his book, in the Fermatistes Chapter;
he replied quite cordially.
anyway, it was obvious from his write-up,
that he did not actually read the small "vanity press" book
that the dood put out, but just jumped
to the penintimate chapter & couldn't follow it ... but,
neither could I, and I read the whole thing, and
it's really a humorous book, and
the guy was a student of Prandtl at Gottingen. (Dudley seemed
to agree, that that was his own MO .-)
anyway, the dood thought that he'd found the proof
of Fermat; that is to say, his method. it was all,
quite elementary, using Ore's _Numbertheory and
Its History_, and only ommitted stuff that
was supposedly in a monograph on trig series
by Vinogradov (I usually lose the track,
when ever "big Oh" come over .-)
there was one other "proof" in _Cranks_,
that seemed somewhat plausible, two.
thus:
hey; what about the Coriolis force !?!
may be this just goes to show,
that being (say) Hungarian and trying to learn English
(as a second or Nth language), does not always
turn one into a genius. whether or not von Neumann (e.g)
tried to read Shakespeare, he did at least write
his own books in English ... which takes time!
of course, these two guys (Neinstein and MPC#) could
be perfectly competent at some other things.
> As you can see, it's important that I know more about the particular
> title you own. The ISBN is either in the frontmatter or is printed on
thus:
you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime")
with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase
it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense,
"visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and,
it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with.
as for the idea of using two quaternions
for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help,
since you can use the same quaternion coordination
for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis
that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos'
_Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ.,
for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-)
thus:
the second root of one half is just the reciprocal
of the second root of two -- often obfuscated as
the second root of two, divided by two -- but
the rest is indeed totally obscure or ridiculous.
since Fermat made no mistakes, at all,
including in withdrawing his assertion
about the Fermat primes (letter to Frenicle), all
-- as I've popsted in this item, plenty --
of the evidence suggests that the "miracle" was just
a key to his ne'er-revealed method, and
one of his very first proofs.
(I wonder, if Gauss was attracted to the problem
of constructbility, after reading of the primes.)
thus:
so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and
**** happened? > read more »
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
Androcles
"Enrico" <unger...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:870829fd-85b3-451d...@11g2000prv.googlegroups.com...
=============================================================================
This one looks interesting...
http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/Static.htm
it�s going nowhere. The false dawn of universal expansion came from
faulty data. ��it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an
expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of
the universe may require re-examination.� (Dr Edwin Hubble, 1947).
I searched on - hubble law redshift contradiction
Advanced searchAbout 7,370 results (0.47 seconds)
Enrico
=======================================
Nice find.
Archimedes Plutonium
Enrico wrote:
>
> This one looks interesting...
>
> http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/Static.htm
>
>
> Chapter Two: The Hubble Universe.
>
> Edwin Hubble was the first to realise it - there is no real evidence
> for expansion. It is unsupported by observation and actually
> contradicted by it. Edwin Hubble did not discover the Hubble Law, and
> spent the rest of his life trying to tell people that. The original
> data indicating expansion were found to be specious, abandoned, and
> never replaced. It came from nowhere and, observationally, it seems
> it’s going nowhere. The false dawn of universal expansion came from
> faulty data. “…it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an
> expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of
> the universe may require re-examination.” (Dr Edwin Hubble, 1947).
>
>
> I searched on - hubble law redshift contradiction
>
> Advanced searchAbout 7,370 results (0.47 seconds)
>
>
>
> Enrico
Thanks, I never knew the history of Edwin Hubble--
--- quoting from Wikipedia ---
Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result
concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made
assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained
this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model
where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift
"represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[7]
There were methodological problems with Hubble's survey technique that
showed a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. In particular the
technique did not account for changes in luminosity of galaxies due to
galaxy evolution.
--- end quoting ---
Funny how the discoverer of his Hubble Law never trusted it, yet all
the bigwigs of Big
Bang and the littlewigs of Big Bang placed their full confidence in a
Cosmic Space Expansion
with a Doppler redshift.
The problem of history is that we so easily confuse the train whistle
experience of
slow moving and the speed of sound, but that LIGHT is so vastly more
complex
and complicated and its speed is never really comparable to speed of
sound.
So when astronomy came to a Big Bang, it was under false pretenses and
illusions
by the speed of sound and a Doppler effect. With light, and the speed
of light,
and Special Relativity, that the concept of Space Expansion and
Doppler effect
are fake science.
I am rather surprized that Hubble himself recognized the weakness of
the Hubble
Law.
I am not surprized at all that the Big Bang was touted so much.
Science theories
are often like Fashion Shows and when you are the only fashion show in
town, you are
accepted. Shows and Science need competition in order to weed out the
fake one
and to improve science overall. For the past 60 years or more, the Big
Bang had
no competition. But now the Atom Totality is going to dispose of the
Big Bang theory.
Hubble and others discovered the Hubble Law, but I discovered
something more
important. I discovered a easy experiment that gives a redshift to a
oncoming
white light headlight. By using a fiberglass sheet I can duplicate
redshift of
white light and unlike the Doppler redshift, I get a redshift of white
light both coming
towards me, or white light moving away from me.
So here is an experiment that every High School student can prove that
the astronomers
and physicists are wrong about Hubble's Law, about the Big Bang and
wrong
about Space Expansion.
An Atom Totality is 3D Elliptic geometry. The Big Bang is only 2D
Elliptic geometry.
Physicists and astronomers have failed to tell anyone what their Big
Bang
3D Elliptic geometry is.
I have made some progress and inroads into what 3D Elliptic geometry
is. It is
sort of like the Luminet Poincare Dodecahedral Space with its 12
faces. Each of those
faces is like a lens and that the Observable Universe is inside this
Lens. So that
when light from a distant galaxy travels through this lens, it is
refracted and ends
up looking redshifted. In the experiment of the fiberglass sheet, the
white headlight
is refracted (also some scattering).
A Cosmic Refraction Redshift makes alot more sense for quasars, rather
than to
dream up some new fangled energy source for quasars. So quasars are
simply
white stars that are nearby, moving rapidly towards Earth and thus are
refraction-redshifted.
It maybe that the Cosmic Redshift is simply a Scattering redshift and
depends
not on distance but relative motion to Earth.
I am unsure of alot of things in this topic. Not sure if it is
refraction or scattering
or something else or a mix of those.
What I am sure of is that this experiment of a fiberglass can
duplicate the Cosmic
Redshift. And I am sure that the Big Bang is dead but not yet buried.
And I am
sure that quasars are nothing fancy but dull stars close to Earth with
a redshift
attributed to what the fiberglass attributes.
Now I have to check to see what the Luminite team of researchers found
for a
finite Cosmos of its diameter. If memory tells me it was in the order
of 10^30 meters.
And then I have to look to see if Jarret's third layer:
> --- quoting ---
>http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
>The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
> supercluster
is of the same order of magnitude of 10^30 meters.
If that third layer is 10^30 meters and matching that of Luminet's
Poincare Model, well that would not be a coincidence, but rather
a physical matching.
If they match, it means the ring in Jarrett's third layer is the
edge of the Cosmos and that all the other astro bodies such as
the Great Wall and Sloan Great Wall and the quasars are all
closer to Earth and sandwiched in between Earth and the 3rd
layer.
In other words, the Cosmic Mapping done by Jarrett and Juric
and others is a mapping of only three layers for everyone is
within those three layers.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
That should read "everything" not "everyone"
Archimedes Plutonium
billion light
years across with a Poincare Dodecahedral Space.
I was wondering if that matches the 3rd layer Ring of Jarrett's
mapping:
> http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
> The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
> supercluster
Apparently not as indicated by Wikipedia's redshift entry:
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The highest redshift known for a quasar (as of December 2007) is 6.43,
[2] which corresponds to a (comoving) distance of approximately 28
billion light-years from Earth.
--- end quoting ---
So today I am wondering if the 3rd layer of Jarrett's is the end of
DISTANCE
Calibration in Astronomy using only standard candles of luminosity and
not
using the "expansion redshift"
--- quoting Wikipedia on Nova ---
Novae as distance indicators
Novae have some promise for use as standard candles. For instance, the
distribution of their absolute magnitude is bimodal, with a main peak
at magnitude -8.8, and a lesser one at -7.5. Novae also have roughly
the same absolute magnitude 15 days after their peak (-5.5).
Comparisons of nova-based distance estimates to various nearby
galaxies and galaxy clusters with those done with Cepheid variable
stars have shown them to be of comparable accuracy.[6
--- quoting Wikipedia on 1a Supernova ---
Type Ia supernovae that have a very well-determined maximum absolute
magnitude as a function of the shape of their light curve and are
useful in determining extragalactic distances up to a few hundred Mpc.
[9] A notable exception is SN 2003fg, the "Champagne Supernova," a
type Ia supernova of unusual nature.
--- end quoting ---
So I am wondering today, if we dismissed all redshift distance
accounting in Astronomy
and relied only on well known physics of distance measure, whether the
edge of the
Universe is the 3rd layer as given by Jarrett with his "Ring".
Now it says that the 1a Supernova are good for a few hundred
megaparsecs. So I wonder
if the 3rd layer Ring of Jarrett's mapping is this few hundred
megaparsecs?
Let us make a commonsense, a rational inference. Does it make sense to
see pointlike
objects of quasars that are redshifted and alleged to be 28 billion
light years away, yet
still seeing those objects optically? Or is the commonsense rational
inference that the
redshift has nothing to do with distance and that these quasars are
not powered by
some enormous energy source, meaning that they are nearby faint and
dull stars.
It is easy to know which of those two choices Occam's Razor would
pick.
What I am saying is that, if you can optically see a quasar that is
alleged to be
28 billion light years away, then you have redshift theory all wrong.
So where is the optical limit of Cosmology? We can see Supernova out
to Jarrett's
3rd layer. Can we see Supernova out to 28 billion light years? We
should if we can
see faint red dull quasars out there. So why are we not seeing at
least a Supernova
explosion out in the Great Walls about one per day or in the quasar
belt? And I suspect
the answer is that these Great Walls and quasars are much closer to
Earth. And that
they are within Jarrett's 3rd layer.
The trouble with Hubble's Law, redshift expansion, is that they never
realized there is
a optic limit to seeing astro bodies. Because of their bogus and
erroneous interpretation
of redshift, they have us believe quasars are optically visible at
billions of light years
away, far beyond where optic visibility of astro bodies ceased.
It is commonsense, it is rational, that if I take my flashlight and
walk a distance from an
observer, that at some point the observer is never able to see the
flashlight. This principle
of Luminosity applies to astronomy. That at some distance, we simply
cannot observe
an object in space. But the Hubble Law and the redshift Big Bang
expansion ignore this
principle. Somehow they have been so propagandized as to believe that
a quasar at
28 billion light years is able to be observed.
The better idea is that in Jarrett's mapping of the Cosmos, there is a
limit of observation
of the optic and visible observation and I suspect that limit is the
RING seen in Jarrett's
third layer.
Now I have to reeducate myself on astronomy's distance candles.
I do not think anyone in astronomy has correlated the distances of
supernova with
the Doppler-Hubble redshifts and notices a glaring contradiction of
distances. The
many contradictions of distance in astronomy are routinely swept under
the rug
and ignored.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(heavy snipping)
> The Luminet team of researchers found a diameter of the Cosmos at 30
> billion light
> years across with a Poincare Dodecahedral Space.
>
> I was wondering if that matches the 3rd layer Ring of Jarrett's
> mapping:
>
> > http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
> > The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
> > supercluster
No, for that is roughly 200 million to 400 million light years
of coverage in that layer.
But I am suspicuous that redshift reckoning for that distance.
What I want and prefer is a survey that uses no redshift for
distance but uses purely the luminosity for distance.
And which starts with the principle that Supernova are the
brightest candles, other than say a immense gamma ray burst.
And that the brightest Supernova would not be seen on Earth
at some far distant threshold since physics dictates an attenuation
of the light. So what is this distance? And I reckon it is the 3rd
layer of Jarrett's survey where a alleged "RING" is visible. I suspect
this ring is the edge of the observable Cosmos.
I looked up some distances of Supernova:
SN1986J 30 million light years
SN2005gl Pisces 200 million light years
SN1993J 11 million light years
SN2003fg Bootes 4 billion light years
SN2005ap Coma Berenices 4.7 billion light years
Now already I am going to take issue with these billion light year
distances. Issue
because they were garnered not from luminosity measure but from
redshift. It is
the Doppler redshift of an Expanding Cosmos that is the villian in
these distance
estimates. As my fiberglass experiment shows that a redshift is caused
by
oncoming auto headlights.
So, I am guessing that if only pure luminosity distance measures are
used that
there would not be any billion light year distant supernova and that
by the
calculation of the diminuation of light, it simply cannot reach a
Earth observer
for distances beyond 200 to 400 million light years away.
So that the RING as noted by Jarrett with the Perseus-Pisces
Supercluster
and the Pavo-Indus Supercluster and the Norma Cluster are all within
about
200 to 250 million light years from Earth.
So what I am saying is that given the laws of physics that light
cannot survive
a trip that is beyond 250 million light years of the strongest light
source taken
to be Supernova or a humungus Cosmic Gamma Ray Burst. Which thus
implies
or means that everything we thought was beyond the RING is actually
inside or
less distant than the ring itself. And the only reason we thought
those objects were
further out than the ring was the erroneous and mistaken view of
Doppler redshift
of an expanding Cosmos.
Enrico
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
==================================================================
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
The ABC's of Distances
It is almost impossible to tell the distances of objects we see in the
sky. Almost, but not quite, and astronomers have developed a large
variety of techniques. Here I will describe 26 of them. I will ignore
the work that went into determining the astronomical unit: the scale
factor for the Solar System, and just consider distances outside of
the Solar System.
Enrico
Archimedes Plutonium
Enrico wrote:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
>
> The ABC's of Distances
> It is almost impossible to tell the distances of objects we see in the
> sky. Almost, but not quite, and astronomers have developed a large
> variety of techniques. Here I will describe 26 of them. I will ignore
> the work that went into determining the astronomical unit: the scale
> factor for the Solar System, and just consider distances outside of
> the Solar System.
>
>
> Enrico
Yes, thanks, Wright's website is a valuable information for distance,
and
I have visited it before.
I did not see a category of where you measure the size of an object
related
to the magnification of the telescope, and given several assumptions
and thus
tell us the distance. Example: if you see a elephant in Africa the
size of
a bee, then you know the elephant is approx X number of kilometers
away.
Likewise, if we can see a quasar as a faint red spot on the telescope,
means
the quasar cannot be billions of light years away but rather millions
of light
years at most.
Enrico, do you know of a website that discusses the maximum resolution
of the
Hubble Space Telescope in seeing a distant object such as a average
galaxy or
a supernova? It is funny how physicists trained in optics can tell you
the limit
of resolution of a light-microscope, but that noone in optics is
seeming to talk
about the upper limit of resolution of a astro body at a distance.
Is it that everyone in astronomer believes there is no upper limit to
seeing distant
objects? Do they think that infinity is the upper limit? Have they
ever heard of
loss of light intensity over distance and that every light source will
be diffused
if traveled far enough.
What is the upper limit of Hubble Space telescope? Is it 400 million
light years?
Perhaps far less than 400 million light years.
Does Wright have another website where he discusses the diminuation of
light as
it travels large distances? Space is almost a vaccuum but it also has
some
diminuation or scattering properties. And Space has alot of things "in
the way"
so that light from say the quasars have a good chance of encountering
objects
in the way.
It is easy to find where biology observing in light-microsopes comes
to the end of feasibility of
seeing. We cannot see viruses in light-microscopes because of
resolution and the
optics of light just are not capable of going that small.
But the astronomers seem to have shyed or shied away from thinking,
computing
and informing about where the telescopes cease to see astro bodies at
a far distance.
Now the best flashlights of a double AA batteries cannot be seen at a
distance of
10km in pure darkness. The dirt and other things in the air diminish
the light, but also
the luminosity or power intensity drops off as the inverse square of
distance.
So that biologists over the past 200 years have been rather good at
informing people
as to what a microscope of light with lens can actually see on the
slides and where
the limit of viewing is of tiny objects.
But the astronomers over the past 100 years have been rather derelict
in such duties
as knowing and figuring out the limits of any and all and the best
telescopes. Instead,
the astronomers seem to run on a notion that there is no upper limit
to viewing astro
bodies and that a star or galaxy or quasar can exist at infinity and
they would
see it in their Hubble Space telescope.
So, Enrico, what is a good website that talks in depth about the upper
limit of Hubble
Space Telescope? The physics of Optics probably would say the upper
limit of
Hubble Space Telescope is about 400 million light years for a
supernova and beyond
400 million light years, you just cannot see the supernova.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
the frequency of
having a Supernova in the Cosmos was. I found a figure of 1 supernova
in a average
galaxy every 50 years.
A rough estimate of the number of galaxies in the Cosmos is 10^11 and
the number
of stars on average in a galaxy is 10^11.
So that would mean that on average we should witness 10^11/50
supernova every
50 years, and on average witness10^11 / 50 / 360 or about 6 million
supernova
every day.
Now I went to look up about how many quasars are known to exist.
Wikipedia's
entry says there are more than 200,000 in the Sloan Digital Sky
Survey. So let us
say there are 300,000 quasars in existence.
Now if the Cosmos has 6,000,000 supernova going off every day and if
the
astronomers know of 300,000 quasars that exist.
And suppose the edge of the Cosmos is really that of 400 million light
years
distant and is the RING structure in Jarrett's mapping of galaxies in
the 3rd layer.
So now, let me entertain the idea that what the quasars really are,
are just
Supernova going off on the Cosmic horizon, the edge of the Cosmos, and
because
there are 6,000,000 of these supernova going off on that edge every
day, we
think they are something special of intense power and energy. The
redshift of the
quasars is due to the Refraction Shift of the experiment.
Now that may sound preposterous to think that the quasars are nothing
but
supernova on the Cosmic horizon. But has anyone noted that quasar
sightings
are rather fleeting? That the quasars seem to jump or move in place
like
Mexican jumping beans we played with as a child. Has anyone actually
seen
quasars that are "fixed in place"? Or do quasars have a tendency to be
fleeting
objects-- one day you see it, next day it is gone?
Also, the Great Wall and Sloan Great Wall are better explained not as
some
vast superstructure of galaxies, but more like the idea that the edge
of the
Cosmos has alot of light, similar to coming up to a distant city with
all the
scattering of light from the city.
Archimedes Plutonium
Edward L. Wright's website is a good website, even though it is
missing a chief ingredient
of distance measure, which I will get to shortly. And this feature is
missing in the whole
of astronomy. Why it is missing I have no idea, other than to say that
astronomers and
physicists have been very sloppy for the past 100 years of telescopes.
One would have
thought that the physicists and astronomers could have taken clues
from the biologists
with microscopes and have realized that various threshold distances
are to be obtained
from the mere existence of the instruments used to measure length in
biology as well
as distance in astronomy. Biologists know very well that they cannot
measure the length
of a virus in a light-microscope, but try telling the astronomers that
their seeing of
quasars and their speculation that they are 4 billion light years or
28 billion light years
away, try telling them that such is an impossibility due to just their
instruments involved.
So what Wright's distance measures is missing is perhaps the most
reliable and trustworthy
of all the distance measures, --- the actual telescope itself.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
starts off with Trigonometric Parallax
and it ends with
--- quoting Wright ---
Z. The Hubble Law
The Doppler shift gives the redshift of a distant object which is our
best indicator of its distance, but we need to know the Hubble
constant, Ho.
--- end quoting ---
So let me ask a few questions of Wright. Is the Hubble Space Telescope
our very best
telescope to the visible light region? If yes is the answer then the
next question is whether
this telescope can pick up a person standing on Pluto with a double AA
battery flashlight
that is pointed at the Hubble telescope? If the answer is yes, then
put the flashlight on
the nearest exoplanet and ask the same question. Ask the same question
until I find at
what distance is the Hubble telescope unable to see the flashlight?
Mind you, the Hubble
is the best of the telescopes and it has a distance upper limit. An
upper limit for a flashlight
as well as an upper limit for a Supernova. At some distance from
Earth, the Hubble telescope
cannot see a Supernova. I reckon that distance is 400 million light
years.
What that means, since the astronomy and physics communities believes
that Quasars are some fancy energy object and that they are billions
of light years away, yet the Hubble telescope and other telescopes can
resolve their image as "faint red spots".
So, yes, the quasars appear as objects in the telescopes, meaning that
the objects are
no more than 400 million light years away.
You see, the biologist knows that he cannot see a virus in a light
microscope because of the
physics involved with light and optics of a light microscope. But the
astronomer was too daft
to realize that the instruments of telescopes were the finest
measuring of distance tools here
on Earth. And that the Hubble, in the fact that it can "see quasar
objects" means that they
are of millions of light years or less, but never billions of light
years.
I do not know why the astronomers and physicists were so derelict of
their jobs of learning,
telling why a telescope is a distance instrument and why the
physicists never bothered
to find out the upper limit of distance by the individual specific
telescopes used.
So Mr. Wright should have started off with A in his ABC's of distance
by having the TELESCOPE instrument as a distance measure in itself.
And that the last category of
redshift is mostly a fantasy category of huge errors.
Enrico
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
=====================================================
Finding anything at all that addresses your question about
limitations on what a telescope can see (resolve) turned out
to be harder than I expected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
Read the section on Data Processing
Note assumptions made about Universal Expansion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope
Technical stuff, formulas.
Scroll down about 1/3 way to:
"Angular resolution
Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere
(atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope, the
angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the
diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary mirror,
or lens.) The Rayleigh criterion for the resolution limit αR (in
radians) is given by"
<Snipped math - not sure if it would display here>
"Essentially; the larger the aperture, the better the angular
resolution"
"It should be noted that the resolution is NOT given by the maximum
magnification (or "power") of a telescope. Telescopes marketed by
giving high values of the maximum power often deliver poor images."
Enrico
Archimedes Plutonium
Enrico wrote:
>
> Finding anything at all that addresses your question about
> limitations on what a telescope can see (resolve) turned out
> to be harder than I expected.
>
Yes, thanks for you help Enrico. I am not surprized at all that
astronomers never realized that the telescope and all the Physics
laws on Optics were never seen as their best and finest measure
of distance in the Cosmos.
I am guessing, roughly, that no telescope on Earth is able to see a
galaxy beyond 200 million light years away. And that the furthest
possible sighting of a supernova from Earth with our finest telescope
is 400 million light years away.
So my guess is that 400 million light years is the furthest distance
in
astronomy that we can "know about."
This would mean that the surveys by Jarrett and Juric et al, are
mappings
that are all confined to 400 million light years.
It also means that quasars are phony baloney, and that they are either
dull unnoteworthy stars nearby with a refraction-redshift or a
scattering
redshift or they are supernova at the edge of the telescope horizon.
So all the surveys and mappings of the Cosmos have to take place
within 400 million light years distance because our telescopes can
see these objects and if we can see them in the telescope, means
they are no further than 400 million light years.
> http://atomic-molecular-optical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/can_hubble_space_telescope_see_flag_on_the_moon
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
> Read the section on Data Processing
> Note assumptions made about Universal Expansion
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope
> Technical stuff, formulas.
> Scroll down about 1/3 way to:
>
> "Angular resolution
> Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere
> (atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope, the
> angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the
> diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary mirror,
> or lens.) The Rayleigh criterion for the resolution limit αR (in
> radians) is given by"
>
> <Snipped math - not sure if it would display here>
>
> "Essentially; the larger the aperture, the better the angular
> resolution"
>
> "It should be noted that the resolution is NOT given by the maximum
> magnification (or "power") of a telescope. Telescopes marketed by
> giving high values of the maximum power often deliver poor images."
>
>
> Enrico
Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or concept
in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
concept
or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something called
"coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed to
the
Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if I
had
a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able to
resolve
my flashlight on Pluto.
Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
this
concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a telescope
can
resolve a shining light.
So, Enrico, I am not surprized at all, that the Physics community in
conjunction
with the Astronomy community never sat down and worked out, first,
what the limit
of their best telescopes are. Whether any of them can see beyond 200
million light
years of a Supernova, or 400 million light years of a Supernova. For
there is a definite
upper limit of distance.
It does not surprize me that the Physics and Astronomy community have
assumed
their telescopes can see and peer to a infinite distance in Space. And
the Big Bang
theory accepts such a ridiculous assumption.
Now it maybe that radio telescopes can see further, but here again,
there is an upper
limit. And I am guessing that it is the RING seen in Jarrett's mapping
that tells me this
ring is the "edge of the observable horizon of the Cosmos". And that
RING is about
400 million light years away. And thus, everything beyond that RING,
is actually inside
the ring or closer to earth.
Archimedes Plutonium
Craig Markwardt
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enrico wrote:
>
> > Finding anything at all that addresses your question about
> > limitations on what a telescope can see (resolve) turned out
> > to be harder than I expected.
>
> Yes, thanks for you help Enrico. I am not surprized at all that
> astronomers never realized that the telescope and all the Physics
> laws on Optics were never seen as their best and finest measure
> of distance in the Cosmos.
It's just fruity to think that astronomical telescopes observe the sky
through fiberglass greenhouse panels. In fact, the telescope optical
systems use high quality materials, and are precision-calibrated using
known standards.
There are no known physical processes - other than Doppler shift or
cosmological expansion - which could shift the center wavelength of
all spectral lines emitted by an astrophysical source. Dust
absorption or scattering certainly does not. Note that your
"scattering" experiment is irrelevant because it involves a continuum
("white") emitter.
> I am guessing, roughly, that no telescope on Earth is able to see a
> galaxy beyond 200 million light years away. And that the furthest
> possible sighting of a supernova from Earth with our finest telescope
> is 400 million light years away.
Guessing is not relevant.
CM
Archimedes Plutonium
Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> It's just fruity to think that astronomical telescopes observe the sky
> through fiberglass greenhouse panels. In fact, the telescope optical
> systems use high quality materials, and are precision-calibrated using
> known standards.
Craig hasn't grown up yet, and it looks as though he is going to be
hatemongering for quite some time in my threads. He is already in my
killfile but I need to make my final words with him made public before
it is complete silence.
>
> There are no known physical processes - other than Doppler shift or
> cosmological expansion - which could shift the center wavelength of
You must have been horribly poor in physics to not know that a Prism
is a far more extensive redshifter, and easier redshifter than ever
was
a Doppler on speed or space.
A scientist just does not make such horrible mistakes as what you
make Craig. And the reason you make these horrible mistakes is that
you are more into hatemongering than into doing science.
> all spectral lines emitted by an astrophysical source. Dust
> absorption or scattering certainly does not. Note that your
> "scattering" experiment is irrelevant because it involves a continuum
> ("white") emitter.
>
Another feature of a hatemonger which is plain to see and observe in
most every hatemonger is that they never comprehend what the other
person is saying. They always twist and turn around every thought
of the other person.
How many times do I have to capitalize Refraction Redshift or put
refraction into the title. If I just mention the word "scattering"
just once,
then a hatemonger like Craig picks that up and says my Experiment is
scattering, when in truth, my experiment is a Refraction Redshift.
A real scientist, which Craig is not, would have replied to me in this
thread
by citing how much easier it is to obtain a redshift if Space was a
geometry
that had refraction. Would have cited how a Poincare Dodecahedral
Space is
conducive to refraction.
But a Poincare Dodecahedral Space is far over the head of Craig.
A real scientist would have pointed out how silly it is to believe in
a Doppler
redshift of Space and galaxies, when a prism of Space is so much more
easier in terms of an Occam's Razor.
> > I am guessing, roughly, that no telescope on Earth is able to see a
> > galaxy beyond 200 million light years away. And that the furthest
> > possible sighting of a supernova from Earth with our finest telescope
> > is 400 million light years away.
>
> Guessing is not relevant.
>
> CM
I am not worried about Craig being a stalking hatemonger of my threads
with his
continual lack of comprehension and spew of errors. But I truly am
concerned that
a person like Craig as a teacher in a classroom, for where his
hatemongering can
truly do damage to young impressionable students. The Internet and sci
newsgroups
postings by people in education and the teaching profession should be
an alarm signal
of persons in science education that are rather unfit for education,
in my opinion.
It does not bother me, in fact I glee over having a stalking
hatemonger like Craig, but
it does bother me to not say anything that Craig is unfit for science
education, in my
opinion.
And let me expand on that opinion of mine of science education. That I
saw way too
many students going into the teaching profession who are unfit to be
teachers, yet the
colleges and universities never pulled them aside and said, "you are
going to struggle
with this career choice". Some schools have guidance counselors to
elevate such
problems, but still a large number of unfit career choices are made.
The system graduates
unfit choices as a way of getting rid of the problem, but then the
students suffer and
the teacher suffers.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or concept
> in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
> concept
> or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something called
> "coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed to
> the
> Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if I
> had
> a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able to
> resolve
> my flashlight on Pluto.
>
> Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
> this
> concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a telescope
> can
> resolve a shining light.
>
It has been a very long time since I sat in a UC Optics classroom in
1970. And
never knowing that such an experience was going to come out so
fruitfull eventually.
So the question I raise is what is the maximum distance that the
Hubble Space
Telescope can see a ordinary galaxy. Maximum distance given the
physics of
how light travels and optics of the telescope. And it is a darn shame
that
noone in the astronomy community ever thought to ask such a question.
The biologists certainly asked the questions a long time ago about
the
smallest length their light-microscopes could attain. And that if a
biologist
proclaimed to see a virus in a light-microscope would have been
laughed
out of his profession.
But nowadays, it is commonplace for astronomers and physicists to
claim that
quasars and the Sloan Great Wall are far beyond 400 million light
years, yet the
Hubble Space Telescope sees them as red spots, yet none of these
scientists ever
worked out whether Hubble Space Telescope can see a quasar or Great
Wall
in the billions of light years.
The limit of a light microscope is that of bacteria, so where is the
limit of the
Hubble Space Telescope. Most astronomers probably have the notion
that
telescopes have no limit to observing distances. That they think the
Hubble
can see and peer into infinity distance.
To me, such notions and assumptions are repulsive.
So now, how to find out the limit of distance of the Hubble Space
Telescope?
How do we find out its limit.
Well a good way is to ask a question such as whether a flashlight
placed on
Pluto or Mars or Moon can be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope? Have
a gradation of flashlights on the Moon and see where the Hubble ceases
to
"see" the flashlight. Then we can extrapolate that luminosity of the
flashlight
and Moon distance to that of Supernova or regular galaxies as to what
the
Hubble Telescope upper limit of distance is.
Now I believe the prime reason there is a upper limit is the behaviour
of light itself,
in that it has a luminosity governed by inverse square of distance. If
my memory
serves me from 40 years ago in school studying Optics, this is called
candela.
And the reason that laser light can be seen so much further of a
distance is because
of the "coherent beam" that does not fall off at inverse square of
distance.
No galaxy , nor any supernova nor the quasars are laser lights, and so
they fall off
in luminosity by inverse square of distance.
So the question of using a telescope to tell us of the distance to a
galaxy or a star or
a quasar or a Sloan Great Wall, is that we can use standard Physics
ideas, laws and
principles of Optics to tell us how far a telescope can resolve a
regular normal astro
body. My guess is that the Hubble Space Telescope has a maximum
distance range
of 200 million light years for a normal regular single galaxy and any
such galaxies beyond
200 million light years is not detectable by Hubble. For a Supernova,
I am guessing
400 million light years distance the Hubble can still faintly see the
Supernova, but
beyond that distance is undetected.
Now why is this so very important? Well, obviously, since the quasars
and Great Walls
are alleged to be 28 billion and 4 billion light years away, yet
easily seen in the Hubble
Space Telescope as red spots, signifies that the redshift is all in
error. If Hubble
Telescope distance is only good to 200 to 400 million light years,
then the quasars
and Great Walls must be a smaller distance than 200 to 400 million
light years.
Funny, how it seems that a logical thinker in astronomer is as rare to
find as a
Supernova explosion is rare to find. Because, it really does not need
a rocketscientist
to figure out that the telescope itself is a distance measuring tool
and the most
accurate measuring tool of distance in all of astronomy. So shame on
the astronomy
community for never realizing this valuable tool. Part of the problem
is that so
many scientists spend most of their time on thinking about equations
of math
and physics, and little time on clear logic. And so you have a 100
years of time
wasted on Doppler redshift and no time spent on the telescope itself
as a distance
tool.
Craig Markwardt
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> > It's just fruity to think that astronomical telescopes observe the sky
> > through fiberglass greenhouse panels. In fact, the telescope optical
> > systems use high quality materials, and are precision-calibrated using
> > known standards.
>
I note your lack of response.
> > There are no known physical processes - other than Doppler shift or
> > cosmological expansion - which could shift the center wavelength of
>
> You must have been horribly poor in physics to not know that a Prism
> is a far more extensive redshifter, and easier redshifter than ever
> was
> a Doppler on speed or space.
Refractive dispersion by glass - a prism - is irrelevant. A prism
separates wavelengths by angle, but doesn't shift one wavelength to
another. In other words a prism disperses light into different
angles, but it does not change the wavelength of a spectral line.
Since redshifts are found by measuring the center wavelength of
spectral lines, your supposition of refraction is incorrect and
irrelevant.
... personal attack deleted ...
> > all spectral lines emitted by an astrophysical source. Dust
> > absorption or scattering certainly does not. Note that your
> > "scattering" experiment is irrelevant because it involves a continuum
> > ("white") emitter.
... personal attack deleted ...
> How many times do I have to capitalize Refraction Redshift or put
> refraction into the title. If I just mention the word "scattering"
> just once,
> then a hatemonger like Craig picks that up and says my Experiment is
> scattering, when in truth, my experiment is a Refraction Redshift.
As noted above, "scattering" and "refraction" are both irrelevant.
That is true regardless of how many times they are capitalized.
... personal attacks and irrelevant comments deleted ...
CM
Craig Markwardt
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the question I raise is what is the maximum distance that the
> Hubble Space
> Telescope can see a ordinary galaxy. Maximum distance given the
> physics of
> how light travels and optics of the telescope. And it is a darn shame
> that
> noone in the astronomy community ever thought to ask such a question.
It's fruity to think that telescope designers and observers do not
consider the limiting capabilities of the telescope. Of course they
do!
Even a cursory search of Google for "hst limiting magnitude" finds
pages like this:
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/documents/handbooks/cycle18/c05_imaging3.html
which shows an observational limiting magnitude of ~28 or better for
most modern HST instruments over a wide optical/IR wavelength range.
Considering M87 as an example, the *absolute* magnitude is about -22 -
this is the total magnitude of a galaxy as seen at 10 parsec
distance. Using the definition of astronomical distance modulus -
which uses the inverse-square law of intensity - the limiting distance
for an M87-like galaxy would be about 100 billion parsecs, or 300
billion light years.
Intrinsically larger and brighter galaxies than M87 could be seen to
further distances, and smaller/fainter galaxies to shorter distances.
CM
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
thought that I would
discover a new category of important issues. Recently I discovered
that the finest,
very best distance measuring tool in astronomy is not the Doppler
redshift which in
reality is a fake and bogus measure of distance in astronomy.
What I found is that the instrument of the telescope itself is the
finest tool to
measure distance. In a previous post where Mr. Wright's website at
UCLA was
referred to:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
Mr. Wright fails to mention the world's finest astronomy distance
measuring tool.
So I am going to devote an entire chapter to how the TELESCOPE is the
finest
and best measure of distance in astronomy. This chapter will also show
how the
Doppler redshift is bogus and fake science as related to astronomy.
Light is very
much different from sound waves. In sound waves we can have Doppler
shifts
with small or large speed. But light is very different from sound
waves and trying
to attach a Doppler shift to the speed of light, is, well, like saying
that Special
Relativity is not true.
For the past 60 years in astronomy, the subject has mostly been down a
deadend
street because it fixated upon Doppler redshift and now we have
astronomy filled
with bogus distances to galaxies and quasars.
Some 60 years ago, what should have happened in 1950, was that the
astronomy
community should have summoned a meeting where the centerpiece of the
meeting was
to calibrate the Telescope as the best and only reliable distance
measure. Now I realize
that 1950 was a time of a primitive understanding of astronomy, but I
also recognize that
by the 1950s and beyond that astronomy was filled with fakery of
Doppler redshift
as distance and which has caused the science of astronomy and
cosmology to decay
and lie decadent ever since 1950.
In this metaphorical meeting of 1950, what should have been done was
bring in the
best and brightest physicists of Optics to hammer out the analogous
Lower Limit
length in a Microscope with the Upper Limit of distance in the
Telescope.
We all know that a light-microscope cannot see a virus because it is
too small, but
it can see large forms of bacteria. In the same analogy to astronomy,
we know that
at some distance from Earth, the very best telescopes have an upper
limit to distance
as to seeing astro bodies.
In the old days, astronomers thought that the Great Walls and quasars
were billions
of light years away, for they used Doppler redshift on speed of
galaxies and speed of
expansion of Space.
But they never used the best measure of Cosmic distance of the
telescope itself.
So what this chapter is all about is to hammer out that distance
measure.
If one looks in Wikipedia for "light intensity" one finds a plethora
of various different
definitions.
I am going to define light intensity as merely the inverse square of
distance. So that
a light source of a flashlight beam at 3 light years distance is 1/9
as intense.
I am going to need to define resolution and magnification of the
telescope and what I
am going to do is define it in terms of a "laser light" versus a
regular light. We all
know that a laser light is confined to the outline of the light source
itself. So that if the
Sun were a laser light emitter, we would see it very distinctly as a
disc at a far distance,
and much further in distance than as a general emitter of light.
Now I need to look up the mathematics of laser light and its intensity
with distance.
But in the meantime, I ask these questions of the Hubble Space
Telescope HST:
(1) Given a flashlight in the total dark of Space, how far away can
this flashlight
be such that the HST can still resolve the image of the light source?
(2) That distance I am guessing is the distance at which the number of
photons
in the flashlight make a coherent beam. If the flashlight has 10^20
photons emitted
per second and where 10^10 of them are coherent to laser light, then
the HST
distance that can resolve the flashlight depends on this number of
coherent
laser photons.
(3) I then extrapolate up to stars, galaxies and quasars.
Example: The galaxies of the Sloan Great Wall are alleged to be a
billion light years
away. We can see those galaxies in HST images. The light intensity of
those
galaxies is 1 / 10^18 intensity. The light from a Perseus galaxy is
only a million
light years away and its intensity is 1 / 10^12 intensity. The number
of photons in
a galaxy that is "laser light coherent photons is about 10^12 photons.
Thus, the
HST can see only galaxies of a 1 million light year distance. And
since HST
sees the Sloan Great Wall and sees quasars as images, means that the
distance
to the Sloan and quasars is not billion light years but rather instead
only
million of light years distance.
Summary: what I am doing is using the Microscope optics to measure
length
and using that to measure distance for the Telescope in astronomy.
Both have
a limit of distance. All I need to do is define precisely the
resolution and magnification
ability of a telescope and I have used the "coherence of laser light"
to make that
definition. I use the inverse square of distance law for intensity.
Then I estimate
the number of coherent laser photons of a shining body such as a star,
galaxy or
quasar. What I end up with is the idea that the observable universe
through a telescope
is much smaller than what the astronomy community of the past said. I
come up with
a Cosmos that is measured in millions of light years and with an upper
limit of 400
million light years distance. The old aberrant astronomy community
thought that
they were seeing bodies out to the billions of light years away. I say
they were
ridiculously wrong and that they were so daft by not using the finest
and very
best of distance measuring in all of astronomy-- the telescope itself.
Enrico
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
========================================================
I found this while fishing for interstellar laser analogs, thought
you might get a laugh out of it.
In 2001, a group of summer students at the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory used the VLA to observe a brown dwarf,
even though they had been told by seasoned astronomers that brown
dwarfs are not observable at radio wavelengths.
Their discovery of a strong flare of radio emission from the object
surprised astronomers and the students' scientific paper on the
discovery was published in the prestigous scientific journal Nature.
The title is suggestive:
Brown Dwarfs: A New Class of Stellar Lighthouse
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/browndwarfbeams/
Enrico
Archimedes Plutonium
Enrico wrote:
>
> I found this while fishing for interstellar laser analogs, thought
> you might get a laugh out of it.
>
>
> In 2001, a group of summer students at the National Radio Astronomy
> Observatory used the VLA to observe a brown dwarf,
>
> even though they had been told by seasoned astronomers that brown
> dwarfs are not observable at radio wavelengths.
>
> Their discovery of a strong flare of radio emission from the object
> surprised astronomers and the students' scientific paper on the
> discovery was published in the prestigous scientific journal Nature.
>
>
>
> The title is suggestive:
> Brown Dwarfs: A New Class of Stellar Lighthouse
> http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/browndwarfbeams/
>
>
> Enrico
Nice to see students making a science discovery. And I thought that no
astro
body was a laser emitter.
But I am trying to string together a Methodology and definitions of a
telescope
as a measuring tool for distance. Some methodology and perhaps some
theory.
Enrico, did you see anywhere of a equation for the intensity of a
laser beam
whether it relates to an inverse square of distance?
First off I need to use the Microscope for analogy and the lower limit
of the microscope
for length measure is dependent on the wavelength. If the wavelength
is as large or
larger than the object to be seen then the lower limit is reached.
Now how do I form a basis or foundation for the Telescope for distance
given that the
wavelength for the Microscope? So it is not the wavelength that sets
the upper limit of
distance for a specific telescope such as the Hubble Space Telescope,
HST, but rather it is
the influx of enough photons to make out an image.
So for a Microscope the lower limit of length is the wavelength of
light. For a Telescope
the upper limit of distance is a given influx of photons of the
source.
Here is where I want to bring into the theory or methodology the laser
light. So that at some
distance from the Sun if we had the HST pointed at the Sun, we can see
the Sun provided
the Sun is having enough photons of laser-quality impacting the HST.
Now I pick on laser light because the source is well marked out and
because of the diffusion
of normal light with the intensity as inverse square of distance.
Let me call the intensity diffusion as the sphere of diffusion of
light and what is working against the telescope from seeing a image.
So at what distance from the Sun would HST
be unable to see the Sun because the photons from the Sun are all
diffused upon this
sphere of diffusion since it is an inverse square with distance. Is
the distance 100,000 light years?
Maybe a 1,000,000 light years at which HST no longer has the Sun with
an image? Let me work
with 100,000 light years and call it the limit of seeing the Sun by
HST. So at that distance
the HST looking at the Sun is not able to gather or collect enough
photons from the Sun
for they are diffused into this sphere of diffusion of the photons.
And here enters the laser photons. I am going to call an image in a
telescope as a laser image
in that there were enough coherent laser photons from the source at
which the image of the
source was seen by the telescope. If a source is not seen then there
were not enough laser
photons at that distance and that they had mostly diffused out.
So now, if we had a flashlight of regular light, the sphere of
diffusion would be at a small distance from the source, but if that
same flashlight were wholly laser, the source can be
seen for a much further distance. And so I want to find out a equation
of how many
coherent laser photons is emitted by a wide variety of light sources
such as the Sun,
Cepheid variables, Supernova etc.
So I have two things working against one another. I have the sphere of
diffusion of the
intensity of the light source and then I have the number of laser
photons emitted by the
source which provides a sharp image of the source.
So that the theory would go like this for the Sun seen by HST at
100,000 light years.
We still see the Sun at that distance by HST because there are the
minimun number
of the coherent laser like photons that can make an image of the Sun
at that distance.
But any distance further, and the Sun no longer has an image by HST.
So if the distance
of the minimum number of laser photons is 100,000 light years than at
110,000 light
years the HST would no longer be able to see the Sun for there are not
enough coherent
photons from the Sun impacting at that distance away.
Now I doubt that Microscope limits of viewing length has anything to
do with coherent
laser photons, for the issue of resolution of a bacteria is tyed up
with the wavelength.
Now the reason I am guessing that the upper limit of distance by the
HST is 400 million
light years is because in Jarrett's mapping of the 3rd layer, there
appears the P-P supercluster
and the P-I supercluster of a RING like structure, and although
Jarrett and others
say they are unsure of what this ring is. I take the Ring at face
value and say it is
intrinsic. And because it is a Ring, signifies the end of "seeing in
the telescope that
was used." Perhaps a newer, better telescope will push the Ring out
further in Space.
But it also means that everything thought to be further out than 400
million light years such
as the Great Walls and the quasars were actually shorter in distance
from Earth than the
Ring. Why is that? Because the telescope can see the quasars and Great
Walls.
So the Doppler redshift is erroneous distance measures.
Now I do not know if my above methodology is going to work. It sounds
reasonable
and logical. It asks of someone to figure out how many laser photons a
source emits
so that a telescope at a large distance can still see an image. Enough
coherent photons
over a distance allows an image.
Archimedes Plutonium
Enrico
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>
> - Show quoted text -
=============================================================
A couple of formulas here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
At the bottom of the page is a link to a calculator:
http://www.pseudonomen.com/lasers/calculators/
Here is someone asking almost exactly the same question
as you did earlier, plus some nontechnical information
about detection range of lasers re: the lunar retroreflector
experiment:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091206192437AAON4zA
Introduction to cosmic masers
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/masers/introduction.html
Google search string - laser beam intensity over distance
Gets About 1,200,000 results (0.32 seconds)
Manufacturor's data sheet:
http://www.coherent.com/downloads/UnderstandingLaserBeamParameters.pdf
Beyond this, the math starts getting heavy.
Enrico
Archimedes Plutonium
Enrico wrote:
>
> A couple of formulas here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
>
Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L
I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
being inverse square
I called it "diffusion" in my previous post, but I should have looked
up the terminology and called it "divergence"
Now I wonder what "physically" causes divergence? Wikipedia makes
no stab at explaining a cause.
Now I am straying a bit here by noting that the intensity can be
thought of
as divergence where perhaps these two concepts are the same
fundamentally.
And another issue that catches my eye is that intensity is inverse
square just
as Coulomb and gravity are inverse square. So can we say that the
reason or
cause for intensity or divergence of regular light is because it is
moving inside
an Atom Totality where the Space is charged and so the intensity of
light
would have to follow the same law or force as that of Coulomb and be
inverse
square? Whereas in a Big Bang theory, Space has no charge and thus the
intensity of light in a Big Bang should not follow a inverse square
but rather
follow what laser light follows-- a linear relationship with distance.
Now I am not understanding or knowing as to why a laser light, the
individual
photons seem to be linked or tied together so as to stay on course and
not
diverge as regular light with an inverse square? Sort of reminds me of
the
Bell Inequality of linked light.
Has any physicist, dare explained how it is that laser light seems to
stick together
as if the light waves are tied or connected and why they have
overcomed their tendency
to diverge as regular light diverges into a inverse square?
Optics is a very difficult subject for it allows alot of theory. I
suspect to this day, that
no physicist is able to fully picture how it is we see a bacteria in
the microscope or
how we see the outline of a star in the telescope. I do not mean the
eye functions,
for I mean only how the photograph of the bacteria or the star outline
is formed by
the interplay of matter and light. Most people would not even think
this is a major
problem of how light can outline a object, but then, most people have
no science
mind.
> At the bottom of the page is a link to a calculator:
> http://www.pseudonomen.com/lasers/calculators/
>
>
> Here is someone asking almost exactly the same question
> as you did earlier, plus some nontechnical information
> about detection range of lasers re: the lunar retroreflector
> experiment:
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091206192437AAON4zA
>
Yes, they corrected me on the diffusion, for it is divergence. But I
wonder
what is the physics explanation of what causes divergence? I think it
is due
to the fact that Space is charged as in an Atom Totality and that
causes
the intensity of light formula to end up being one and the same as the
Coulomb force of an inverse square with distance.
Now since the laser light divergence is linear and not inverse square,
reminds
me of the Weak Nuclear force of physics which is linear. If I remember
correctly
the Strong Nuclear force rules are more of a inverse cube rule, not
linear and
not inverse square.
So here, we may have a example of light behaviour that is traced to
the four
forces of physics, and that all these light behaviour concepts of
intensity, divergence,
refraction, diffraction, diffusion, and hundreds of others, are all
manifestations
of the four forces of physics, only, confined to the behaviour of
light.
So, if intensity is equivalent to divergence, would mean that
intensity is merely just
the talking of the Coulomb Force as light moves in space.
>
> Introduction to cosmic masers
> http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/masers/introduction.html
>
>
> Google search string - laser beam intensity over distance
> Gets About 1,200,000 results (0.32 seconds)
>
> Manufacturor's data sheet:
> http://www.coherent.com/downloads/UnderstandingLaserBeamParameters.pdf
>
> Beyond this, the math starts getting heavy.
>
>
> Enrico
So now, I can really make it very easy on myself about the Telescope
being the very
best distance tool of astronomy. I could make it utterly or absolutely
easy. In modern
circles of speech, we inflate the word "absolutely". On TV shows
interviews or news
broadcasts, the word "absolutely" is highly overused. Why not just say
"yes" rather
than say "absolutely" when talking about economics on a talk show.
But in this case, the words "absolutely easy" is appropriate.
If I were to conjecture that Space of the Cosmos is not a 100% clean
space, just as it
is not a 100% vacuum in space. So that there is muck or grime or dirt
or imperfections
throughout space and as we go further in distance we encounter these
imperfections.
Now these imperfections are actual atoms of hydrogen, or they can be
other simple
particles.
So that light from a star as it travels through Space, is diverged
because it constantly
runs into some of these atoms or particles.
Call it divergence due to grime or muck of Space.
And this grime and muck are not randomly situated in Space but uniform
in Space.
This would mean that all physical energy sources whether a flashlight
or a Supernova
if their light travels far enough through this muck and grime, that
eventually you achieve
such a distance that you can no longer see the flashlight nor the
Supernova.
So then when I guess that 400 million light years is the edge of the
Cosmos, I mean
that the most powerful Supernova light cannot survive after travelling
through
400 million light years of the background muck.
Now we have the Background Cosmic Microwave Radiation, and I am
calling for a
Cosmic Background of Muck and Grime spread uniformly throughtout the
Cosmos
as hydrogen atoms or other particles which would prevent the viewing
of a Supernova
beyond 400 million light years away.
Now the astronomers allege that
SN2003fg Bootes is 4 billion light years away
and
SN2005ap Coma Berenices is 4.7 billion light years away
But in their alleging they assume Space is empty, crystal clear and
containing no
muck and grime for light travelling through Space for a long time and
a long distance.
And come to think of it, I suspect noone believes Space is a vast
clean Space with
no atoms of hydrogen uniformly distributed through space to interfer
with long distant
travelling light waves.
Now the reason that all telescopes on Earth have a upper limit of
seeing distance
is because of the grime and muck in the air that no matter how large,
how precise
or anything else about the telescope, that the dirt in the air will
prevent you seeing
a supernova at a huge distance away from Earth.
So, how do I reconcile this Muck constraint with the alleged billion
light year away
Supernova reported? I reconcile it by saying that the Supernova
occurred but since
they were determined distance by Doppler redshift, that they got that
distance
all wrong. That the true distance of both those supernova in Bootes
and Coma
Berenices were at a distance between 200 million to 400 million light
years away.
Now having dirt in the air or Space is the easiest way for me to
determine an Upper
Limit of distance using the telescope as a distance tool. But there
are other
concepts that cause a limit to distance, such as the loss of intensity
over distance.
Archimedes Plutonium
Craig Markwardt
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enrico wrote:
>
> > A couple of formulas here:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
>
> Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L
>
> I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
> being inverse square
Huh? The formula above describes a constant beam opening angle. A
emitting source with constant opening angle still falls off in
intensity with the square of distance. I.e. *inverse square* still
applies. Since your conclusions are based on a faulty premise, the
conclusions are not relevant.
> Now I wonder what "physically" causes divergence? Wikipedia makes
> no stab at explaining a cause.
Classically, it's Huygen's principle. Formally, it's the behavior of
Maxwell's equations.
> If I were to conjecture that Space of the Cosmos is not a 100% clean
> space, just as it
> is not a 100% vacuum in space. So that there is muck or grime or dirt
> or imperfections
> throughout space and as we go further in distance we encounter these
> imperfections.
>
> Now these imperfections are actual atoms of hydrogen, or they can be
> other simple
> particles.
"Atoms" have known effects on propagating light. "Simple particles" -
such as dust - have known effects on propagating light. Neither of
them causes redshift of the center wavelengths of spectral lines.
In many cases, the redshift of an object is actually detected - or
limited - by observing the effects of intervening gas between a bright
source and us. The gas itself causes absorption at specific known
rest wavelengths. Measuring the redshift of those wavelengths allows
one to set a lower limit to the redshift of the source. So, contrary
to your claim, astronomers do indeed consider the effects of "atoms"
in space.
> This would mean that all physical energy sources whether a flashlight
> or a Supernova
> if their light travels far enough through this muck and grime, that
> eventually you achieve
> such a distance that you can no longer see the flashlight nor the
> Supernova.
"Tired light" has been ruled out for years. Ned Wright's page
discusses this.
CM
Archimedes Plutonium
Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> Refractive dispersion by glass - a prism - is irrelevant. A prism
> separates wavelengths by angle, but doesn't shift one wavelength to
> another. In other words a prism disperses light into different
> angles, but it does not change the wavelength of a spectral line.
> Since redshifts are found by measuring the center wavelength of
> spectral lines, your supposition of refraction is incorrect and
> irrelevant.
>
Someone called saying I should make better use of Craig than to
killfile his posts.
So I went back to look at his replies, and agree, so long as his posts
do not
distract my progress.
The above is not a correct answer to Craig's erroneous belief:
> There are no known physical processes - other than Doppler shift or
> cosmological expansion - which could shift the center wavelength of
> all spectral lines emitted by an astrophysical source. Dust
> absorption or scattering certainly does not. Note that your
> "scattering" experiment is irrelevant because it involves a continuum
> ("white") emitter.
Craig's fallacy is that he thinks a redshift is unique to a fast
moving object or fast
moving Space.
Trouble is that by Occam's Razor, a Space with a tiny bit of a
geometry as a
prism duplicates the redshift.
So Craig wants all the galaxies hurdling through Space at the speed of
light or
near the speed of light or even faster than light and he wants Space
itself to
be hurdling at these huge speeds.
Well, I can duplicate redshift using my Experiment with fiberglass.
And all I need is that Space is a very, very tiny "Prism shaped
structure" just tiny
enough that it shifts any slow moving object like a galaxy or a quasar
far away.
The error of Craig is that he forgets that in the Experiment the car
headlight redshift
is a moving white light. Craig thinks the car is stationary.
So Craig forgets that a prism with a moving white light SHIFTS the
enter wave set,
just like the Cosmic redshift noticed.
Can Craig admit to his pitiful errors? Of course not, he is too busy
hatemongering.
Say there Craig, who at NASA is your boss? Let me ask him whether he
thinks
the cosmic redshift is a unique physics phenomenon and that the Prism
can no
way replicate, and far easier replicate the redshift? Maybe I have all
of NASA to
straighten out on this score and not just Craig.
Archimedes Plutonium
Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> It's fruity to think that telescope designers and observers do not
> consider the limiting capabilities of the telescope. Of course they
> do!
>
Fruityer yet is that Craig thinks the redshift is unique to speedy
galaxies
and a speedy Space:
> There are no known physical processes - other than Doppler shift or
> cosmological expansion - which could shift the center wavelength of
> all spectral lines emitted by an astrophysical source. Dust
> absorption or scattering certainly does not. Note that your
> "scattering" experiment is irrelevant because it involves a continuum
> ("white") emitter.
When Craig is shown a tiny prism as Space itself can easily duplicate
the Cosmic redshift, and what annoys Craig is that the white light is
not stationary but moving in the prism.
Almost any and every scientist, not just the run of the mill sort, get
into
huge trouble and error when they place their beliefs that a phenomenon
is "Unique". Especially in biology when someone blurts out some
uniquness, then usually someone finds the exception quite fast.
So can Craig ever admit to his error?
> Even a cursory search of Google for "hst limiting magnitude" finds
> pages like this:
> http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/documents/handbooks/cycle18/c05_imaging3.html
> which shows an observational limiting magnitude of ~28 or better for
> most modern HST instruments over a wide optical/IR wavelength range.
>
> Considering M87 as an example, the *absolute* magnitude is about -22 -
> this is the total magnitude of a galaxy as seen at 10 parsec
> distance. Using the definition of astronomical distance modulus -
> which uses the inverse-square law of intensity - the limiting distance
> for an M87-like galaxy would be about 100 billion parsecs, or 300
> billion light years.
>
> Intrinsically larger and brighter galaxies than M87 could be seen to
> further distances, and smaller/fainter galaxies to shorter distances.
>
> CM
Okay, Craig, do you ever stop to think that what you are concluding
makes
commonsense? That the astronomy community concensus is a Universe
with age of less than 14 billion years old, but you seem to think the
reporting using the HST of a quasar at 28 billion light years or
something
at 300 billion light years is justifiable. How you reconcile the
unreconcilable?
Do you just say "irrelevant"? Should I call you the irrelevant
scientist?
Archimedes Plutonium
Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On May 10, 4:37 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Enrico wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of formulas here:
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
> >
> > Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L
> >
> > I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
> > being inverse square
>
> Huh? The formula above describes a constant beam opening angle. A
> emitting source with constant opening angle still falls off in
> intensity with the square of distance. I.e. *inverse square* still
> applies. Since your conclusions are based on a faulty premise, the
> conclusions are not relevant.
>
Do you know what "linear" means in mathematics as opposed to
inverse square? Probably not.
Again, do you ever stop to think about whether your thoughts are true
or
false with simple known experiments. The reason a laser beam is used
to reflect off a mirror on the Moon planted by the astronauts decades
ago
is because the laser beam is not a inverse square with distance.
Otherwise,
just use a white light flashlight for the roundtrip to the Moon.
> > Now I wonder what "physically" causes divergence? Wikipedia makes
> > no stab at explaining a cause.
>
> Classically, it's Huygen's principle. Formally, it's the behavior of
> Maxwell's equations.
>
And you do not know the Maxwell explanation, I take it.
I already started the explanation by saying that the Coulomb law is
inverse square. So intensity is inverse square and intensity is
equivalent to divergence of light. So to have a Universe
where the intensity of light is the same inverse square as the Coulomb
law, means that Space of the Universe has Charge, and is inside a
atom.
The Big Bang theory would not dictate that intensity must be identical
to Coulomb law for obvious reasons because it is senseless to have
Charge for the overall Cosmos in a Big Bang theory.
The Atom Totality theory dictates and demands that the
Optics of light inside an Atom Totality have intensity equivalent
to divergence and then identical to Coulomb. Demands it because
well, Space in the Atom Totality is charge itself. Space = Charge and
Charge = Space.
So, Craig, care to provide meat to your sentence? Care to provide what
you believe the Maxwell Equations explain how divergence of light
occurs?
> > If I were to conjecture that Space of the Cosmos is not a 100% clean
> > space, just as it
> > is not a 100% vacuum in space. So that there is muck or grime or dirt
> > or imperfections
> > throughout space and as we go further in distance we encounter these
> > imperfections.
> >
> > Now these imperfections are actual atoms of hydrogen, or they can be
> > other simple
> > particles.
>
> "Atoms" have known effects on propagating light. "Simple particles" -
> such as dust - have known effects on propagating light. Neither of
> them causes redshift of the center wavelengths of spectral lines.
>
Wanting to put false words into my mouth eh Craig. I never said that
the
Muck and Mire of Space has anything to do with redshift. I did say
that
the Muck and Mire place an upper limit on the distance of the
telescope
can see. You have to improve on your hatemongering to get one of them
past me.
> In many cases, the redshift of an object is actually detected - or
> limited - by observing the effects of intervening gas between a bright
> source and us. The gas itself causes absorption at specific known
> rest wavelengths. Measuring the redshift of those wavelengths allows
> one to set a lower limit to the redshift of the source. So, contrary
> to your claim, astronomers do indeed consider the effects of "atoms"
> in space.
>
> > This would mean that all physical energy sources whether a flashlight
> > or a Supernova
> > if their light travels far enough through this muck and grime, that
> > eventually you achieve
> > such a distance that you can no longer see the flashlight nor the
> > Supernova.
>
> "Tired light" has been ruled out for years. Ned Wright's page
> discusses this.
>
> CM
Again, trying to put false words into my mouth.
Only you mentioned "tired light", for I never mentioned it since I
know better.
So when are you going to admit your error that a prism far easier
duplicates
the Cosmic redshift and it needs no speedy galaxies nor does it need a
speedy-Space.
Why not just admit your grievious error.
Archimedes Plutonium
earlier post
I spoke of a Cosmic Muck and Mire and Grime of Space. Where the muck
and
mire is a uniform hydrogen atom per a given volume of Space. I do not
know what
that parameter is. Whether there exists at least 1 hydrogen atom per
cubic kilometer
of space or whether it is a cubic 2 kilometers of Space.
So if I were to find out what this measure is, I could thence say the
upper limit
of distance viewing in a telescope would be no matter how refined or
quality of
a telescope, it cannot see beyond a certain distance.
I believe that distance is going to be in the range of 200 to 400
million light years
away.
And that means that since the Hubble Space Telescope can see these
quasars and
the Great Walls in the billions of light years away, it means those
reports were in
error. In error because the HST sees them as images, yet the HST by
theory and
practice is not able to see beyond 200 to 400 million light years
away. It means that
the quasars and Great Walls are closer to us than what we originally
thought.
Now in this Methodology, one of the components to the upper limit is
this hydrogen
atom density in all of Space, but another component is going to be all
the larger
objects such as stars, planets, galaxies and whatever. If we point the
telescope
through the center if the Milky Way galaxy we are going to be blocked
a view
beyond the center. So the galaxies themselves become a component of
the
furthest distance a telescope can see. But even when we point into
space where
we feel there is hardly any matter or objects to block or diverge the
view, we are wrong
in that this Cosmic density of atoms of hydrogen or other elementary
particles is
going to make an upper limit to distance of the telescope.
So anyone with commonsense can agree with me so far, that no matter
what telescope
the distance it can see is dependant on the Cosmic Background of Muck
and Mire.
But not everyone is going to agree with me, that since we see the
Great Walls and the
quasars as a image from the HST, means they must be in the millions of
light years distance
and not the erroneous report that they are in the billions of light
years distance.
Enrico
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
============================================================
> The title of the post says much of what I am searching into. In an
> earlier post
> I spoke of a Cosmic Muck and Mire and Grime of Space. Where the muck
> and
> mire is a uniform hydrogen atom per a given volume of Space. I do not
> know what
> that parameter is. Whether there exists at least 1 hydrogen atom per
> cubic kilometer
> of space or whether it is a cubic 2 kilometers of Space.
>
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
Craig Markwardt
> > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Enrico wrote:
>
> > > > A couple of formulas here:
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
>
> > > Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L
>
> > > I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
> > > being inverse square
>
> > Huh? The formula above describes a constant beam opening angle. A
> > emitting source with constant opening angle still falls off in
> > intensity with the square of distance. I.e. *inverse square* still
> > applies. Since your conclusions are based on a faulty premise, the
> > conclusions are not relevant.
>
> Do you know what "linear" means in mathematics as opposed to
> inverse square? Probably not.
You are being cavalier about the phrase "linear." The equation
referenced by "Enrico" describes the *diameter* of a beam spot, as a
function of distance - not intensity [*]. If the diameter would grow
linearly with distance, then the *area* A of the beam spot must grow
quadratically. If a laser power P is distributed over the beam spot
area A, then the intensity (= P/A = Watts per square meter) would fall
quadratically with distance, which is basically inverse square law.
Thus you are in error.
[*] in any case, the equation is not linear since it contains a
arctangent function.
> The reason a laser beam is used
> to reflect off a mirror on the Moon planted by the astronauts decades
> ago
> is because the laser beam is not a inverse square with distance.
> Otherwise,
> just use a white light flashlight for the roundtrip to the Moon.
You are incorrect. Beam divergence can be described as a cone with a
given opening angle. The area of a cone increases as the square of
distance. The divergence for laser ranging is small - a few arcseconds
[1], but it's enough to cause significant inverse-square losses during
the trip to the moon (and back).
[1] - example laser divergence of McDonald observatory is up to 20
arcseconds.
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stations/sitelist/MDOL_sitelog.html#5.%20%20%20Laser%20System%20Information
... remainder deleted for brevity ...
CM
Craig Markwardt
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>
> > Refractive dispersion by glass - a prism - is irrelevant. A prism
> > separates wavelengths by angle, but doesn't shift one wavelength to
> > another. In other words a prism disperses light into different
> > angles, but it does not change the wavelength of a spectral line.
> > Since redshifts are found by measuring the center wavelength of
> > spectral lines, your supposition of refraction is incorrect and
> > irrelevant.
>
> The above is not a correct answer to Craig's erroneous belief:
I note the lack of response. A prism simply changes angle, and does
not change the wavelength of light that passes through it.
Since the observed effect of redshift is to measure a change in
*wavelength* of the centers of spectral lines, the effects of prisms
and redshift are quite distinct.
> So Craig wants all the galaxies hurdling through Space at the speed of
> light or
> near the speed of light or even faster than light and he wants Space
> itself to
> be hurdling at these huge speeds.
What I want is irrelevant. You made a claim about prisms which you
cannot substantiate.
> Well, I can duplicate redshift using my Experiment with fiberglass.
Until you measure a spectrum of the light, and can observe a change in
the center wavelengths of spectral lines - which is the very
definition of how redshift works - you have not "duplicated redshift."
...
CM