Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
sunlight is redshifted Re: NOVA's Sun program-- light takes 1,000 years signifies Doppler redshift is fakery but Compton scattering is real Chapter 16 Compton scattering & Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #587 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 29, 2012, 2:45:18 PM4/29/12
to
Alright, looks like I can now continue with just the Atom Totality
book, for I have enough
material for the New Physics and New Chemistry book. I never would
have imagined that watching a NOVA tv show on the Sun would expose the
fakery of the Doppler redshift and expose the truth of the Compton
scattering effect. And then, for my book,
expose the logic that all I need is evidence that the galaxies on a
cosmic scale have
rotation. I need just one cosmic scale rotation and the Big Bang
theory is no more.
If you have physics derived from the Maxwell Equations, implies a
cosmic rotation, demands a cosmic rotation. Do we have enough
information on galaxies to show a
Cosmic Rotation? Well, we have the fact of the Ring in Juric and
Jarrett's mapping,
but neither Juric or Jarrett are accepting of that Ring as a cosmic
rotation. But, we
also have the fact that the quasars are spherically located in Space.
No Big Bang
theory can deliver a galactic sphere in the cosmos. The quasars, due
to Compton
scattering are far closer and nearby to the Milky Way, than what the
Doppler redshift
scientists believed in. In Compton scattering, the quasars are merely
the hottest brightest stars nearby to Earth and the fact of their
uniform spherical location, means
they are in rotation.
When I got the inspiration of Maxwell Equations being the axioms of
all of physics several months back, in this book I was doing the Tifft
quantized galaxy speeds of chapter 16. So let me drop the New Physics
book and focus on purely this book of
Atom Totality and pick up on chapter 16, for a Cosmic rotation favors
a quantization
but a local quantization depending on what region of space we focus
upon galaxies that
are participating in a Cosmic rotation. For example, if the astronomer
were to focus on bodies of the Saturn Ring close to the planet would
have quantization speed for other bodies nearby, but would have a
different quantization speed of Ring particles further out in that
Ring. So here we can compare quasar speeds for local quantization
speeds
but also those galaxies in Jarrett's 3rd layer.
Chapter 16 Compton scattering effect & Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math, sci.chem
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Apr 29 2012 5:23 am
Subject: Sunlight is redshifted Re: NOVA's Sun program-- light takes
1,000 years signifies Doppler redshift is fakery Chapt13.4007 #466 New
Physics #586 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Apr 28, 7:10 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
- Hide quoted text -
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I am going to anticipate what the chain of events would be once we
> discover that our
> own Sun has a huge Doppler redshift and caused not by speed of
> relative observer, but caused by the fact that photons take on average
> a 1000 years to emerge from the Sun and in that time spent is "tired
> light" or light scattered so often that it appears redshift once it
> emerges.
> What it would mean for Doppler redshift is that it is a fakery and
> only applicable to sound waves. What that means for much of astronomy
> is that redshift is no longer a measure of distance but a measure of
> how large and how hot a star is.
> Now that would be some major revision for Jarrett and Juric, Geller
> and Huchra, who are mapping the galaxies of the Cosmos.
> Now is there any indication in those mappings to date that the Doppler
> redshift was a fakery and only measures the size and brightness of
> stars and not that of distance?
> Well, yes, in two regards, one of them is this Ring that appears and
> the other is the fact that the brightest stars are in what we call
> quasars but that they are uniformly spread. The quasar uniform spread
> indicates that they are not far away but rather they are the brightest
> combined with largest, and closest to Earth.
> > > --- 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 ---
> If redshift is a measure of how long photons spend inside a large
> star, then we would have rings of galaxies in the mapping of galaxies.
> Would we have clusters and superclusters, since redshift is no longer
> a distance measure? I suspect we still would have clusters and
> superclusters.
> But rather than dive into the ramifications of a nonexistent Doppler
> redshift, let us wait
> for the report that the Sun has a large Doppler redshift due to light
> taking 1000 years to emerge.
Alright, I am on solid ground here, for there is indeed a large Solar
Doppler redshift, which
is thus contradictory and proves that Doppler redshift is not the
motion of a body relative
to an observer but rather is due to the scattering of light as it
tries to emerge out of the
star it was borne inside of. The sunlight takes 1,000 years of
scattering inside the Sun before
it emerges and is thus highly redshifted.
It was known actually by 1923 and discovered by Compton, calling it
the Compton scattering that photons
when interacting with electrons in matter alter their wavelength to
produce an effect we call redshift. The Compton redshift is not a
measure of distance of Sun to Earth but is a measure of the fact that
sunlight was
bottled up inside the Sun for a 1,000 years of light scattering. Now
of course Compton never knew that the light from a star is bottled up
inside that star for approximately a thousand years or more, but that
is no excuse for astronomers after Compton of 1923 to begin to
realize
that there is no Doppler redshift of light, but a Compton redshift of
light.
So I have want I expected, that the redshift is not a Doppler effect
and does not indicate distance of observed from observer. All it
indicates is that the observed is a star that if it has a large
redshift, then it is close by
and very bright star. That means quasars are the predominant close by
or near by bright stars in bright galaxies.
Now I need at least one fact of the Mapping of galaxies that
indicates
a cosmic spin or rotation. Since Maxwell Equations delivers all of
physics, then galaxies must be in a rotation or spin about an axis.
The Big Bang theory would never imply a cosmic spin or rotation, but
in physics with the Maxwell Equations as the
axioms of all of physics, demands a cosmic spin.
Do we get any sign of a Cosmic spin of galaxies? Looking at Juric and
Jarrett's mappings:
> > 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 ---
We notice a Ring. That is the sort of item we must have. But better
yet, we notice that the
quasars are uniformly spread in a sphere from Earth. So that if
quasar
redshift is merely the
scattering of light inside the quasar's stars, indicates that because
of the uniform spherical
location of quasars, that they are rotating, much like the surface of
the Earth is rotating
about an axis.
So how does that then, place the other galaxies if the quasars are
the
bright and nearby
galaxies? Well, the Solar System in large is a spherical system with
the Sun at its center
and with a dense ecliptic plane of planets. Would the Cosmic sky be a
larger version of the
Solar System? Where the quasars are the spherical bodies and the
clusters are the ecliptic
plane? The Maxwell Equations demand spherical spin or rotation and we
get that from that
Ring and from the quasars as a sphere.
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
book, for I have enough
material for the New Physics and New Chemistry book. I never would
have imagined that watching a NOVA tv show on the Sun would expose the
fakery of the Doppler redshift and expose the truth of the Compton
scattering effect. And then, for my book,
expose the logic that all I need is evidence that the galaxies on a
cosmic scale have
rotation. I need just one cosmic scale rotation and the Big Bang
theory is no more.
If you have physics derived from the Maxwell Equations, implies a
cosmic rotation, demands a cosmic rotation. Do we have enough
information on galaxies to show a
Cosmic Rotation? Well, we have the fact of the Ring in Juric and
Jarrett's mapping,
but neither Juric or Jarrett are accepting of that Ring as a cosmic
rotation. But, we
also have the fact that the quasars are spherically located in Space.
No Big Bang
theory can deliver a galactic sphere in the cosmos. The quasars, due
to Compton
scattering are far closer and nearby to the Milky Way, than what the
Doppler redshift
scientists believed in. In Compton scattering, the quasars are merely
the hottest brightest stars nearby to Earth and the fact of their
uniform spherical location, means
they are in rotation.
When I got the inspiration of Maxwell Equations being the axioms of
all of physics several months back, in this book I was doing the Tifft
quantized galaxy speeds of chapter 16. So let me drop the New Physics
book and focus on purely this book of
Atom Totality and pick up on chapter 16, for a Cosmic rotation favors
a quantization
but a local quantization depending on what region of space we focus
upon galaxies that
are participating in a Cosmic rotation. For example, if the astronomer
were to focus on bodies of the Saturn Ring close to the planet would
have quantization speed for other bodies nearby, but would have a
different quantization speed of Ring particles further out in that
Ring. So here we can compare quasar speeds for local quantization
speeds
but also those galaxies in Jarrett's 3rd layer.
Chapter 16 Compton scattering effect & Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.math, sci.chem
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Apr 29 2012 5:23 am
Subject: Sunlight is redshifted Re: NOVA's Sun program-- light takes
1,000 years signifies Doppler redshift is fakery Chapt13.4007 #466 New
Physics #586 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Apr 28, 7:10 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
- Hide quoted text -
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I am going to anticipate what the chain of events would be once we
> discover that our
> own Sun has a huge Doppler redshift and caused not by speed of
> relative observer, but caused by the fact that photons take on average
> a 1000 years to emerge from the Sun and in that time spent is "tired
> light" or light scattered so often that it appears redshift once it
> emerges.
> What it would mean for Doppler redshift is that it is a fakery and
> only applicable to sound waves. What that means for much of astronomy
> is that redshift is no longer a measure of distance but a measure of
> how large and how hot a star is.
> Now that would be some major revision for Jarrett and Juric, Geller
> and Huchra, who are mapping the galaxies of the Cosmos.
> Now is there any indication in those mappings to date that the Doppler
> redshift was a fakery and only measures the size and brightness of
> stars and not that of distance?
> Well, yes, in two regards, one of them is this Ring that appears and
> the other is the fact that the brightest stars are in what we call
> quasars but that they are uniformly spread. The quasar uniform spread
> indicates that they are not far away but rather they are the brightest
> combined with largest, and closest to Earth.
> > > --- 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 ---
> If redshift is a measure of how long photons spend inside a large
> star, then we would have rings of galaxies in the mapping of galaxies.
> Would we have clusters and superclusters, since redshift is no longer
> a distance measure? I suspect we still would have clusters and
> superclusters.
> But rather than dive into the ramifications of a nonexistent Doppler
> redshift, let us wait
> for the report that the Sun has a large Doppler redshift due to light
> taking 1000 years to emerge.
Alright, I am on solid ground here, for there is indeed a large Solar
Doppler redshift, which
is thus contradictory and proves that Doppler redshift is not the
motion of a body relative
to an observer but rather is due to the scattering of light as it
tries to emerge out of the
star it was borne inside of. The sunlight takes 1,000 years of
scattering inside the Sun before
it emerges and is thus highly redshifted.
It was known actually by 1923 and discovered by Compton, calling it
the Compton scattering that photons
when interacting with electrons in matter alter their wavelength to
produce an effect we call redshift. The Compton redshift is not a
measure of distance of Sun to Earth but is a measure of the fact that
sunlight was
bottled up inside the Sun for a 1,000 years of light scattering. Now
of course Compton never knew that the light from a star is bottled up
inside that star for approximately a thousand years or more, but that
is no excuse for astronomers after Compton of 1923 to begin to
realize
that there is no Doppler redshift of light, but a Compton redshift of
light.
So I have want I expected, that the redshift is not a Doppler effect
and does not indicate distance of observed from observer. All it
indicates is that the observed is a star that if it has a large
redshift, then it is close by
and very bright star. That means quasars are the predominant close by
or near by bright stars in bright galaxies.
Now I need at least one fact of the Mapping of galaxies that
indicates
a cosmic spin or rotation. Since Maxwell Equations delivers all of
physics, then galaxies must be in a rotation or spin about an axis.
The Big Bang theory would never imply a cosmic spin or rotation, but
in physics with the Maxwell Equations as the
axioms of all of physics, demands a cosmic spin.
Do we get any sign of a Cosmic spin of galaxies? Looking at Juric and
Jarrett's mappings:
> > 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 ---
We notice a Ring. That is the sort of item we must have. But better
yet, we notice that the
quasars are uniformly spread in a sphere from Earth. So that if
quasar
redshift is merely the
scattering of light inside the quasar's stars, indicates that because
of the uniform spherical
location of quasars, that they are rotating, much like the surface of
the Earth is rotating
about an axis.
So how does that then, place the other galaxies if the quasars are
the
bright and nearby
galaxies? Well, the Solar System in large is a spherical system with
the Sun at its center
and with a dense ecliptic plane of planets. Would the Cosmic sky be a
larger version of the
Solar System? Where the quasars are the spherical bodies and the
clusters are the ecliptic
plane? The Maxwell Equations demand spherical spin or rotation and we
get that from that
Ring and from the quasars as a sphere.
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
0 new messages