I hear you Kal, we could all be talking hot air , but one will never find answers if one never questions. I think the EU is on the right track, just alot of old dogma still hanging around in the wings. Of course one must work within a framework until such time as one can show a better course.
I understand their stance on the power, for now it is easier to get EU theory accepted if one just posits power from whatever source, said source to be figured out later.
As for light, a complicated subject, debated in scientific circles to this day as to what it really is. Behaves like a wave traveling through matter, yet seemingly requiring none to propagate like a particle. Perhaps nothing more than a slew of particles that makes it own wave as it travels. Whatever light is it is generating energy as it travels. A focused beam of light can be seen at any angle, so whatever is the cause, it is emitted at all angles even when composed of a focused beam.
The big ticket item is gravity though. Not visible or detectable except as a force and emitted from all things or as I tend to think, merely the electrical connection between objects at a frequency we can not yet detect. A dipole interaction at the basest level in a dielectric aether that simply requires alignment of axis to transfer energy instead of particulate transfer. Hence all equations use an instantaneous propagation value even though that too is incorrect I believe, but valid enough for the distances we are able to measure. Personally I fail to see how anyone that thinks the atom is controlled electrically can equate gravity to any other process, to this day why I believe the macro and micro have never been found compatible. One theory uses electrical forces, one theory excludes it, and the two shall never meet.
Like you virtual particles bug the heck out of me. Convienently applied properties of matter when needed, and suddenly virtual with no substance when that is needed. A fudge basically. In order to carry data one must have a means of transport. The thing is our brains do it quite well without a single photon moving anywhere, merely what we call electricity. As if we even have a clue as to what that word itself means. We grope in the dark as best we can, trying to explain the elephant by the feel of its trunk.
Oh hey Nick, SJW has a point about galactic distance issues [based on Cepheids] having an affect on the question of AAAD. Despite what many of us accept as the scalability [what I have in the past called "scalelessness"] of plasma effects or fractality of EU geometry, a much smaller universe does present a better frame to the minds of those struggling with the possibility of AAAD. Some folks are still stuck in the standard paradigm that actions at an atomic scale cannot be applied to the supra galactic scale and vice versa. For example, the idea of "charge" for some is only acceptable for atomic/electronic applications and no further, whereas I see a continuum of applicability between subatomic forces, van der Waals, molecular level "gravitation" [the Casimir effect], electric "voltage" potential, and macro level "gravitation" — AAAD at any level [eg. acceptance of the non-contact between electrons and protons] opens the eyes to understand the possibility of AAAD at any other level. Astronomical distances present a challenge for AAAD which requires this scalability paradigm shift.
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I posted this in the EM universe thread too, but it deserves equal mention here.
Negative Kelvin temperature in atoms? Just holy moly to that.
This gives us a general cause to two main effects that have significant meanings for cosmologies. 1. Casimir Effect- that energy that is observed in the vacuum.
2. The one that is relevant for distance, and a staple in the Standard Model, a cause of the Wolf Shift, or what I like calling the Hubble Illusion. Until today I haven't had a viable source for the cause, but now this frankenstein idea just revived.
It's becoming my opinion, now, that vacuum could be just "dead" photons and electrons which are acting in this negative kelvin state.
sjw40364
Re: Action at a Distance = Fiction?
webolife wrote: Oh hey Nick, SJW has a point about galactic distance issues [based on Cepheids] having an affect on the question of AAAD. Despite what many of us accept as the scalability [what I have in the past called "scalelessness"] of plasma effects or fractality of EU geometry, a much smaller universe does present a better frame to the minds of those struggling with the possibility of AAAD. Some folks are still stuck in the standard paradigm that actions at an atomic scale cannot be applied to the supra galactic scale and vice versa. For example, the idea of "charge" for some is only acceptable for atomic/electronic applications and no further, whereas I see a continuum of applicability between subatomic forces, van der Waals, molecular level "gravitation" [the Casimir effect], electric "voltage" potential, and macro level "gravitation" — AAAD at any level [eg. acceptance of the non-contact between electrons and protons] opens the eyes to understand the possibility of AAAD at any other level. Astronomical distances present a challenge for AAAD which requires this scalability paradigm shift.
Scalability of plasma events is not questioned, at least by me. But then I am not claiming that the center of our galaxy is unique among every single galaxy center we observe, shining in every spectrum, inluding visible, yet ours is so, shall we say, lacking. I do not base this belief on claimed variable stars we believe we know the distance to, yet the very aspect of variable stars is being called into question. http://www.space.com/7637-mystery-chang ... epens.html The whole Cepheid Variable reliablility has just been dashed, no explanations exist any longer for the claimed reason they relied on for years to use them as yardsticks of distance measurement. Most have stacked periods, their own internal rythym, and the rythum of the star they belong to (read galactic center). Does anyone here object to the idea that as the sun expends more power, the planets orbiting it also recieve more power and reflect more or less light depending on the stars output? One is reflectence variation due to orbit, the other due to power output from the galactic center, the star. Just how much fairy dust must they apply to balance things out before people realize what you see in every single photograph of galaxies is not what you are being told they are? How many great spirals of plasma and dust lit only by a central source does one need to see?There is no AAAD because the distance you can actually see is mere lightyeras, not millions. So much dust that other articles have shown that 75% of all edge on galaxies are hidden by this dust in space, yet you accept we can actually see billions? So much dust in galaxies themselves that they estimate it hides 50% of all light emitted, yet we can see billions? The data is there, it just requires one to look.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Like the Wolf Effect Kal, been thinking that isn't every light source that reaches us from distant points head on? A reason most are redsifted along with the density of the ISM adding to the quantization effect.
Gonna have to read the negative temperature article a couple times , but I guess it all depends where you start and stop your temperature scale. Sometimes we dismiss things because they sound impossible, and sometimes because they are. And sometimes the impossible isn't quite so.
For thousands of years with star gazers that created calendars more acurate than ours it was thought we were the center. Then one man during a 40 minute debate changed cosmology as we know it today. And every single assumption he based it upon has been proven false. The fingers of god plots show we are indeed close to the center of an EMF disturbance in a 360 degree sphere.
Our milky-way unique among all other galaxies which shine in almost all frequncies even visible, yet ours barely outshines the moon. We know of only one source that matches all other galactic cenetrs and it is 1 AU away. I agree there are billions of stars, just gaze upon deep field images to star systems without number. But our sun is definitely not a star circling a galactic core, it is the galactic core. IMO
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
The Fingers of God calculation of galaxies and quasars is surely an illusion based on incorrect assumptions about redshift equivalence to distance and velocity, which are false assumptions. The redshift is due to ionization, not distance or velocity, as Thornhill, Mathis and others have explained.
sjw40364
Re: records of changes in star brightness
Just one Question, then I am done. So it is ok to think those all are stars based upon nothing but assumption and speculation which is assumed to be fact, but nothing else can be considered because you have an image of one of these single stars that are claimed to be background stars and are without a doubt positive you are correct? Please, show me this image of one of these stars within the milky-way that is claimed to be a background star. Certainly if we can image galaxies 14 billion light years away I know we have a clear image of any other star similar to our sun in close up? Or are you basing this belief merely upon preconcieved ideas formulated 1000's of years ago? Back when even Venus was a star and every point of light was. Not that science could ever be wrong, after all, the Earth was never believed to be the center of the universe, or flat, so we can believe everything we are told, no need to think for oneself, they can't be wrong.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Lloyd wrote: The Fingers of God calculation of galaxies and quasars is surely an illusion based on incorrect assumptions about redshift equivalence to distance and velocity, which are false assumptions. The redshift is due to ionization, not distance or velocity, as Thornhill, Mathis and others have explained.
And I agree, but all light is quantized equally in all directions because we are the center of an EM disturbance, not on its edge. As for quasars the only clear picture I have seen of one shows a galaxy just like any other, no difference except one is active, i.e. a new star forming planets. I happen to agree with Kal that the light you see is reflected light, not emitted light, this is why it is redshifted. Ask those scientists what the redshift value of the galactic core is compared to the entire galaxy.
Certainly if we can image a galaxy 14 billon lightyears away, an image of a star within our own galaxy should not be that hard to achieve, but I'll be danged if I can't find a single solitary one that doesn't look like any other planet reflecting light. Not asking much, just something proving one theory or the other. From all observations I have seen, all galaxies only shine from one light source, that at the center. Somehow, a few million ALWAYS outshine the billions combined in the arms. Just one photo of a galaxy lit from another source not its center? Discounting binary galaxies which have light from both centers, but still only the center sources.
Personally I think they are about as confused as when we thought the Earth was flat, and about as correct as to the true makeup of the universe. I do not believe more than a few stars at most could ever exist within each others heliosphere, why galactic centers in infrared only show at most two or three sources, not millions, and am willing to bet if more than two then the others merely large planets. I am not willing to accept that the center of galaxies are impossible point sources, yet shine like a sun. I am not willing to accept that the following images are from millions of suns. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Jets http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000706.html http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-conten ... 87-jet.jpg There are millions of stars circling those cores, why isnt that jet affecting their orbits???
Vasa
The super-massive black hole spits the jets around the stars, obviously.
SJW said: And I agree [redshift is due to ionization, not distance or velocity], but all light is quantized equally in all directions because we are the center of an EM disturbance, not on its edge. - As for quasars the only clear picture I have seen of one shows a galaxy just like any other, no difference except one is active, i.e. a new star forming planets. I happen to agree with Kal that the light you see is reflected light, not emitted light, this is why it is redshifted. Ask those scientists what the redshift value of the galactic core is compared to the entire galaxy.
Where do you get that redhifted light is reflected light? If that were the case, and if Katirai's theory is right, then most light from space would be redshifted. But only some of the galaxies and all quasars have redshifted light. If you'd look at the TPOD on the Fingers of God map of galaxies and quasars at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-g~, you can see that conventional distance measurements cause the arrangements of redshifted objects in groups or clusters to be highly distorted into elongated elliptical shapes pointing toward Earth. Katirai claimed that other galaxies are star systems like the Milky Way (= the solar system?), not that the Milky Way is the center of the universe. So your idea doesn't fit with Katirai's either. More from Katirai http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008 If anyone disagrees with any of the following statements by Katirai, feel free to say which ones and why. _{Galactic Center Centrifugal Force} _"If we assume that the centre of a galaxy is made of millions of stars, then that centre must also be spinning on an axis. _"If so, then what force arranges and keeps all these stars together in a sphere and makes them orbit? Why has the spin of the centre not rearranged the stars into a flat plane? Why is the shape of the centre of a galaxy spherical and not flat?
_{Short Galactic Rotation Time} _"the galaxies as a whole must be rotating, and the rotation must be detectable. _"Was such rotation ever discovered? The answer is yes. _"In 1899, a Welsh astronomer, Isaac Roberts, discovered that the Andromeda galaxy was rotating. _"The detection of the rotation of the galaxy within a relatively short period of time proves that the galaxy is relatively small. _"If the galaxy were as huge as some have claimed, it would take hundreds of millions of years to make one rotation and it would be impossible for the photographs to show its rotation in such a relatively short period of time. _"Later, the reputable astronomer, Adrian van Maanen also announced that he detected the rotation of several galaxies and confirmed Roberts' findings. _"Enter Joel Stebbins, who had studied the spectroscopic data on several spirals (including Andromeda), and came to the same conclusion that they were indeed rotating. _"In 1909, an English astronomer, William Huggins, announced that his studies showed that the Andromeda nebula was a planetary system, similar to our solar system.
_{Galactic Stellar Wind} _"The velocity of the solar wind near the earth has been measured and found to be about 500 km/sec. _"We also find that the spiral configuration of the solar wind is exactly similar to that of the spiral galaxies. _"Using NASA's Hubble telescope in 1994, Dr. _"Holland Ford measured the rotation of the gas near the centre of the galaxy M87, located in the constellation of Virgo. _"By measuring the red and blue shift "Doppler effect", of the moving gas, he found that the gas circled the centre with a velocity of 500 km/sec, similar to our sun in early 2003. _"In that same year, some observers announced that they had detected a high-speed wind created by the spin of the nucleus of galaxies. _"the centre is made of one star and the wind is created by the star's spin. _"Just as the sun's spin creates solar wind, similarly, the spin of a star at the centre of a galaxy also creates wind, both at 500 km/sec.
_{Galactic Evolution} _"The author believes that by looking at a very large number of galaxies in different stages of their development, we can learn how they develop or decay. _"Having looked at photos of many systems, including galaxies, the author was unable to find even one example of a rotating cloud that could be assumed to be in an early stage of galaxy formation. _"On the other hand, numerous photographs show that stars are in different stages of creating planetary systems that erroneously have been called galaxies. _"For example, some photos show a star giving off clouds of gas and dust into surrounding space. _"In others, showing a later stage, the newly-released clouds form a ring around the star. _"Then, other photos show clouds condensing, creating planets. _"Still others show planets and clouds circling the star, while in other photographs, we see that the planets and clouds are not circling the star. _"The reason that the planets and the clouds circle the star is because the star itself is spinning. _"Some photos show that during eruption, stars begin spinning. _"A spinning star causes its clouds and planets to revolve around itself and may have a large number of planets circling it. _"Finally, there are photographs that show a spinning star continually giving off clouds of dust and gas, circling the star in a spiral formation. _"Within these clouds of matter, planets are being formed. _"Many astronomers believe that when stars erupt, they are dying. _"On the contrary, the images presented here indicate that an erupting star is not dying, but rather, is beginning to create its planetary system. _"Eruption is a beginning, not an end. _"The eruptions on our earth release large amounts of dust and volcanic minerals into our atmosphere. _"As such, a very large and hot body, a million times larger than the Earth, such as a star, must naturally have such great eruptions to release enormous masses of clouds into its surrounding space. _"As the star gives off a layer of its outer shell, it may display a spectacular brightness that astronomers call a supernova. _"However, the following image shows a star that was not spinning, and for this reason, its gravitational force was able to pull the newly formed planets back to itself. _"As the planets are sucked into its center, further eruption makes the star begin to spin in different directions. _"This spin causes the newly released clouds of matter to circle the stars in the same direction as the star. _"Astronomers call these stars planetary nebula.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Lloyd wrote: Galaxy Images SJW, how many galaxies have you studied? And of those what percent showed a central light source? Did you look for any that seem not to have a central light source? I was looking at images of the Magellanic Clouds, which are said to be the nearest galaxies to our own and I didn't see a clear center in either one. Here's a pretty good image of one: http://www.abc.net.au/science/starhunt/images/slideshow/Mag~. Here's a link for other images of the Magellanic Clouds: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mage ... 0gHhp4G4Dg . And here's a link for images of galaxies: https://www.google.com/search?q=galaxy& ... 2gXm4oGwDQ . Fingers of God Pattern
SJW said: And I agree [redshift is due to ionization, not distance or velocity], but all light is quantized equally in all directions because we are the center of an EM disturbance, not on its edge. - As for quasars the only clear picture I have seen of one shows a galaxy just like any other, no difference except one is active, i.e. a new star forming planets. I happen to agree with Kal that the light you see is reflected light, not emitted light, this is why it is redshifted. Ask those scientists what the redshift value of the galactic core is compared to the entire galaxy.
Where do you get that redhifted light is reflected light? If that were the case, and if Katirai's theory is right, then most light from space would be redshifted. But only some of the galaxies and all quasars have redshifted light. If you'd look at the TPOD on the Fingers of God map of galaxies and quasars at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-g~, you can see that conventional distance measurements cause the arrangements of redshifted objects in groups or clusters to be highly distorted into elongated elliptical shapes pointing toward Earth. Katirai claimed that other galaxies are star systems like the Milky Way (= the solar system?), not that the Milky Way is the center of the universe. So your idea doesn't fit with Katirai's either. More from Katirai http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008 If anyone disagrees with any of the following statements by Katirai, feel free to say which ones and why.
Because the clouds are not galaxies with a formed star, merely just what the name says, clouds. They are reflecting light and in rare instances have a star formed that is emitting light and a galaxy will one day emerge.
Almost all galaxies are red shifted because of the Hubble expansion of the universe. Only a handful of the most nearby galaxies are blue-shifted.
They interpret it as expansion, but then again they interpret the center of galaxies to be black holes surrounded by millions of suns which it is feeding upon. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2005/13/ The quasar on the left is forming its planetary system, the quasar on the right has already formed most of its planetary system and will one day settle down and be less active. Most light is red shifted but a handful of galaxies close to us, so what were you saying about if his theory was correct?
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Oh, forgot to answer your question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect But since it does not meet their theory, of course it gets just a brief passage, even though all the conditions are met.
For two sources interacting while separated by a vacuum, the Wolf effect cannot produce shifts greater than the linewidth of the source spectral line, since it is a position-dependent change in the distribution of the source spectrum, not a method by which new frequencies may be generated. However, when interacting with a medium, in combination with effects such as Brillouin scattering it may produce distorted shifts greater than the linewidth of the source.
And as we know, all galaxies are surrounded by clouds of plasma and dust (a medium) as well as interstellar space. Everywhere actually: http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/personalhomes/ ... ce.com.pdf All conditions met, but they need expansion to support their Big Bang, which supports the Churches view of Creation. Hence a priests theory, including the expansion attributed to Hubble because his name attaches significance to it. Even though Hubble himself always maintained that their might be another explanation other than expansion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
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.
EU says electron density, and I agree, the electron density of source and the medium through which it travels, hence quantization. IMO Notice the Wolf Effect is a fully confirmed laboratory proved effect, yet its results are put under the theoretical section.
It was first predicted by Emil Wolf in 1987 and subsequently confirmed in the laboratory in acoustic sources by Mark F. Bocko, David H. Douglass, and Robert S. Knox, and a year later in optic sources by Dean Faklis and George Morris in 1988.
Non-redshifted Galaxies SJW, your link to info on red-shifted galaxies at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 has a link to galaxies that are blue-shifted at http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph ... er=30000.0 and the list of them is rather long. It looks like there are over 8,000 galaxies between magnitude 17 and 23 that are blue-shifted, not red-shifted. Maybe the same NASA site can be used to find the number of known red-shifted galaxies. I don't have time to check right now.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Lloyd wrote: Non-redshifted Galaxies SJW, your link to info on red-shifted galaxies at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 has a link to galaxies that are blue-shifted at http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph ... er=30000.0 and the list of them is rather long. It looks like there are over 8,000 galaxies between magnitude 17 and 23 that are blue-shifted, not red-shifted. Maybe the same NASA site can be used to find the number of known red-shifted galaxies. I don't have time to check right now.
Alot of the objects are thought to be stars, clouds of plasma, quasars (not counted as galaxies by mainstream), etc. There are around 100 or so galaxies on the list. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75
There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit about each other. Most are also dwarf galaxies which you've probably never heard of, although the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, is in there.
So 8,000 objects compared to the untold and uncoutable number of objects we observe in the sky, quite a small percentage I would say. Of course that answer was in 2002, so I expect a few more have been added since then. I have no explanation as to why they are blue shifted except I believe it is because they are part of our local group and therefore share a resonance among them due to their interconnection, and the ISM medium is thinner due to their proximity. After all, the EU insists there are no isolated islands in space to which I agree wholeheartedly. In an EU universe everything is connected electrically. Personally I have no problem with the EU stance, except they are merely taking the cosmology that exists and applying electrical principles to it. My problem is that the cosmology that exists is divorced from reality and does not even match the observations. Too many fudges have gone into it over the years to try to make it fit observations, but every one requires a more fantastical event than the previous to make a distorted cosmology fit observations. Black holes used to suck everything in including light, now they spit out great jets, shine like the sun, the event horizon, and generally have no more a relation to what was originally termed a singularity in Swartzchilds original paper. Of course his paper forbids any other mass existing in the universe alongside the BH, but they dont mind using Hilbert's corrupt version and attaching Swartzchild's name to it as they did with Hubble and expansion.
, but one will never find answers if one never questions. I think the EU is on the right track, just alot of old dogma still hanging around in the wings. Of course one must work within a framework until such time as one can show a better course.
