New Science

The 21 cm lines are not what I had in mind because there were observations observed in lines from some elements in the Sun. I thought about the proton flips in space that could result in shifting the electrons orbittal distance from the proton but never made that connection to the 21 cm lines. Anyway, this is besides the topic of discussion. It surprises me that they accept the CMBR as a BB remnant. I have refuted this in several different ways but this is another topic. NS Are you saying that I have not provided any evidence for this post? The 'glaring' ommision of 2 AMN's is very strong evidence that the description of the strong force is incorrect. Its description as a very strong gravitational force that is attractive only and with that tiniest of ranges does not convince me that it is real. The inner fusion in the stars is strictly 'Quantum' physics. NS

He was a math professor but his main accomplishments were in his home made telescopes and experiments with gravity. NS To All I have recovered the site that shows the different methods of measuring space distances for the Virgo Cluster of galaxies. See below: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cosmicd.html You wll notice as you scroll down to the different methods of distance candles, that the SN1a's have the largest error of all the others. NS

I quoted science when I said the large planetary satellites all do NOT have 'intrinsic' spin. My theory is that they have 'liquid' centers that give them their spherical shapes and results in a gravitional distortion of that shape that prevents intrinsic spin. So the electrons are not very dense particles and they must have spherical distortions by the coulomb force to prevent intrinsic spin. I understand that that current spin assigned to electron positions is not to be taken literally. NS

I will give you some maths regarding the BBT. The expansion of the space is additive. So the Hubble expansion of space is 75 kms/megsparsec/second. The velocity of light is 300,000 kms/s Divide 'c' by the Hubble constant and you get 4000 seconds of added expansion that equals 'c' So after 4000 seconds of expansion, the universe is expanding at more than 'c', so it would be invisible after 4000 seonds of expansion. The HDF's see more than 25 billion light years deep. that is more than 4000 seconds and there are still visible objects at that distance. I can provide more such ludicrous maths regarding the BBT. NS The Sch'r orbitals apply to chemistry more than to the light of the universe. In close proximity, the electrons do not remain in a stable orbital plane but keep changing their positions constantly. But in the gases of space and the Sun, they do maintain stable orbits except in the plasmas deeper in the Sun where they shift to OPEN orbital passages. So the Sch'r orbs do not apply t o the Universe radiations. NS

There were about 8 versions of 'distance candles' used to measure the distance to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies. The SN1a's had the largest error margin of them all at +/- 5 megaparsecs out of a distance of 16.7 megaparsecs. I will try to locate that reference later. NS I will post a reference for the error margins of SN1a's soon to show you how inacurate they are. White Dwarf stars have very large temperature ranges from about 3000K to as high as 100,000K Also, there are mass variations. So with such large variations in temperature and mass differences, how can their radiation patterns be so accurate to measure distance? It just does not seem logical. That reference above about psuedoscience is just opinions. The BBT should be classified as Psudo science since it is not real science but CosmoGONY . Remember, it was the opinions of the POWER faction that threatened Galileo with death and forced him to recant the truth. Galileo was Italys greatest scientist. NS

GR predicted a static universe that was saved by the BBT. Those tiny miniscule corrections can be 'spiritually' manipulated. This may surprise you but I do believe in a spirit and I've seen examples of this influence of the physical realm. Believe me, I do NOT lie. I wrote an article about this called the Universal Mind. So these teeny teeny distractions, I jusr ignore. NS With this answer, then you accept the EoS as the cause of the CRS? Nonsense. There are thousands of astronomers doing science and cosmology by observations. Besides, math does not show those pretty onjects in space. Ha ha. See this photo. http://www.quasars.org/ngc7603.htm NS

None. The Schroedinger Eq's did not explain the HA spectrum. It proved that Bohr;s model for the energy levels was correct. All the physics books explain the Bohr model. Isn't that enough for you? NS Yes. The physics books have the math for Bohr's model that I referred to. I use visualization because, like I said, pictures are worth a thousand words. NS You overlook the preliminary Slipher, Hubble and humason observations and all the NASA and other current observations to reveal the universe. Like I said, math is NOT pictures. NS

But the arm between the two galaxies has a lot more stars between them. the extended part has much less stars to be seen. Big difference! Sure. Dark matter would not contribute to expansion but rather to a contraction. Dark energy is just a tiny addition to the Hubble expansion and SN1a's are really the most unreliable for use as distance candles. So instead of using magnitudes, they use 'time dilation'. NS

You mean that string of scientists above is baseless and without merit? Those scientists relied on OBSERVATIONs of the planets to format their opinions. Keplers math followed to resolve the eccentricity of their movements. Again, here math plays a secondary role. I also rely on the Conservation Laws, proven experiments and credible observations. Of course, the BBT discards all that as irrelavent, Ha ha. NS You mean like Copernicuses falsification of the 'geocentric' theory? Or Einsteins falsification of his own 'static' universe that he tried to save with his cosmological constant? The fallaceous BBT saved it for him. SR did what? From what I remenber, it diivided gravity into two factions. Newtons based on the Sun and planets and Einsteins version based on 'elevator' gravity. This type of gravity is explained by Newtons 1st and 3rd Law of Motion that states that there is an 'equal and opposite reaction (inertial resistence) to all other actions (forces). Another example is the linear momentum of the orbitting bodies that resist Newtonian gravity. This is the action that resists collapse in a Flat Space universe. Einstein overlooked this in his static state universe. NS

I posted this thread to replace the erroneous BBT. I thought the article explains that. NS Did you read the article? Your question is answered in the article. Einsteins math was saved when the BBT was introduced. He proposed a static universe and realized that his version of a static universe would collapse. So he introduced a component to correct the problem. You should know the rest of this story. NS NS

doG Math is just a SUB science derived from experiments and observations. It is also just a language. Pictures are worth a thousand words as the saying goes. That is why I rely on VISUALIZATIONS based on the knowledge derived from the experiments and observations. NS

When the individual components are added up, they are portrayed to weigh MORE than the compacted heavier fused elements. However, these mass discrepancies are the result of the method of weighing the particles and fused elements. This is because these are INERTIAL masses as weighed by their trajectories through a FIXED magnetic field. So these particles are surrounded by there individual magnetic field patterns that creates an interaction with the FIXED field to cause these disdcrenencies. I am posting NEW SCIENCE as a free thinker. I will not be a programmed parrot of the establishment indoctrination. I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Planck and Bohr. Thank you for allowing this freedom. NS

Quit acting like a teacher. Can't you grasp the reality that photons are JUST a pulse of ONE? And what is a photon that has an energy level coincidental with its wavelength (pulse), A wavelength of red is 6.56^-7 meters. This would also define the width of the photon. So the different wavelength constitute the different colors. NS

Creation of Photons Photons, that are a form of light energy, are created when an electron returns to its original orbital state after being 'bumped' to a higher (outer orbit) state by another photon. It then returns to its original state to rediate a photon and this is called the 'emission' state . In this way, it acts as a relay for transmission of light from the central region of the stars to the outer regions of space, since it absorbs a photon before it emits one. So, how do these photons develop? Well, it is the 'magnetic field' component of the EM radiations that creates the photons. The electric component is 'omni-directional' in the sense that it radiates its force equally in all directions that reduces in strength according to the inverse square law, relative to the distance from the particle. So, it is not directional. It is also, a non-variable force that never changes its magnitude but remains constant. Its electric field acts as a 'carrier' of the photon pulses, so in this sense, it does not transmit any intelligence as the magnetic component does. The magnetic component is 'directional' and varies from zero to maximum, relative to the observer and the velocities of the electrons. Naturally, the electrons are always in constant motions, so a magnetic force will always be present. When the electrons make a transition back to their original energy level, these variations in velocity and curvature from a slower velocity to a higher one and from a larger orbit to a smaller one, creates the photon pulse. This type of transition creates a 'black body' type of pulse because of the variations in the electrons increasing velocity and reducing orbital curvature. In this case, the omni-directional electric field varies very little in strength relative to the surrounding space while the magnetic field undergoes a large change during these transitions. In the stars, the electrons trace out a SIGN wave pulse because in these plasmas, the trajectories of the electrons are OPEN orbital passages. The MF also radiates in 'one' direction only to an observer because of the changing electrons movement and direction relative to the observer. The magnetic component is zero relative to the observer when the electron is approaching or receding in the opposite direction away from the observer. The radiation from the MF is at maximum to the observer when the electron is moving laterally to the observer. So, these changes in the MF affect the surrounding electric field charged particles (EFCP) known as 'virtual charged particles'. Although these particles are called 'virtual', they are real because these surrounding fields are 'real'. This is proven because of their 'action at a distance'. The MF's are also real as everyone should know because of the magnets that are common to everyone’s knowledge. So, what happens to the EFCP that constitute and surround the electrons when an electron makes its transition and the MF influences these EFCP to become photons? The MF causes these EFCP to CLUMP or condense together to form a congregate of 'compressed particles' that transmit their momentum by pushing against the field particles in front of them. They then transmit this condensed momentum through the EF as a line of standing dominos will transmit its falls to the next dominoes in front of them. In other words, these field particles will just 'wobble' but remain in their positions rather than moving through the field as individual particles. Of course, this momentum will be transmitted at the 'velocity of light'. This is how I visualize the creation of light as a photon based on the Bohr Planetary Model of the HA.. Originally, light was presumed to be continuous waves but Planck's research and formula has changed it to a 'pulse' known as a quanta or the commonly known photon. However, in the ‘ground’ state, the HA radiates a continuous EF sign wave with a wavelength of about ‘one’ angstrom known as a ‘standing’ wave. Due to the uniform electron velocity around the proton, the MF also is constant in magnitude with a sign wave pattern. New Science

FLAT SPACE universe (Formerly the SSU) Because of the violations of the laws of physics and proven experimental data by the ‘big bang’ supporters, I decided to promote the FLAT SPACE universe that is not expanding or contracting and does not violate any laws or experimental data and also complies to the observational data. To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end. However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process. The total matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws. It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift. It portrays space as flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity. The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the photon pulse expanding. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute. The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is reached. Tne CMBR is that uniform temperature where the variation is only 7/100,000K. Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. This matter content then is a closed system. High energy photons can leave the universe. These losses are replaced by 'new' photons created by 'new' star creations. Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles. The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations. New Science

As I have said in defining the photon, once it is radiated, it has a fixed 'f' of one but its wavelength is expanding because of the intrinsic force causing the photon to expand on its journey through space. So it creates the illusion that space is expanding. I do not concern myself with the contiuous standing waves that exist when a HA is NOT energized by another photons bump of the electron. The breif transition of the electron returning to its original state is not continuous in these photon creations. So, photons come in different energy (wavelengths) levels as a breif pulse of 'one'. But the wavelength is expanding and therefore not fixed. I will post an article on the 'Creation of Photons' in the near future to clarify this scenerio. Regarding the math above, mass is not present in creating the photons but only as the carriers of the forces that do the creations. That definition is of a Joule is similar to the definition of a 'Newton' as a force. However, a Joule is defined as identical to the Coulomb charge. NS

Klaynos #62 C does not apply to the concept of photons. A photon is just a fraction of C. A photon does have a dimension (wavelenth) and an elepsed time of c / wavelength = 1 / f. But that does not mean it has a frequency other than one because a 'photon' is not a continuous wave.. I never said it wasn't. It can be used though to determine the elapsed time of a photon because photons do move at c velocity. The wavelength of one applies to the photons only. When a fission bomb explodes, their is both a mass increase and a lot of energy created. If this energy was a mass conversion, than the mass should have descreased, not increased. The energy actially was there in the form of potential energy that was contained by the strong force. So mass was not even involved in this transformation. As far as the HA is concerned, Bohr's, planetary model is correct because the S'r equations confirmed his energy levels. Besides, all the physics books contain his model. My posts are NOT imaginary creations. But I do use a lot of visualizations to give me my new interpretations of science. NS

So, I am discussing photons, not the old contiuous wave concept. What do you call the meter? It is a component of your J-S. Using your D A, how would you explain the reason for Einsteins use of C^2? Why use him for an answer? Who said it was? When I reduce a photon to a frequency of one, it still has its own identity with its wavelenght representing different energy levels. But they all still have a 'f' of ione. NS

DH If those 2 obects were separated as you claim, then to which object does that star bridge belong to? If it belongs to NGC 7603B, then how would you esplain a quasar with only one arm? And if it belonfs to the cpmpanion galaxy, then how do you explain a galaxy that has an arm that is 'cut' off at its 'elbow(?) that is not realistic. NS I always provide sources for my postings. Like the Laws of Conservation, the M-M Int. experiments, Arps RS Anomaly, Observations from NASA, S & T magazine articles and any other such sources. Now can you answer a couple of questions regarding the BBT like: What are the 'initial conditions' for its existense? What is driving the current expansion since it is NOT an explosion? Dark energy would be a wrong answer. No vague sources, please. NS

This is a matter of semantics. Electron spin is not intrinsic spin in a litteral sense like the planets. It is just used to allow two different posirions within a molecule IMO. NS Thanks for the correct posts. Scrolling down to the bottom of the ToE does bring up my GUT also. My URLs were blocked by the Modsrators. NS I know about the observed splitting from the solar observations that can be caused by the magnetic fields but am unaware of any local observed effects outside the Sun. Can you cite the effect that you based your post on? NS

Reaper That anstract you provided just provided their opinion that resulted in a non clear answer. These establishment scientists all swallow the BBT and so they will spend their time to refute any evidence to the contrary. When it comes to the BBT, they do not provide any answers like the 'initial conditions'? No answer for 'what drives the EoS since it is not an explosion? I can bring up a dozen questions that have no answers. If you would like to test yourself , let me know and I will post them. NS

The photons are NOT particles. Particles have mass. Photons do not have mass. That is what I said. Maybe I should have expressed it mathemathecally. See 1st question above. Because the photon has a physical dimension depending on which 'energy' level it was created in. And as I said on another reply' date=' photons are just one energy quanta (photon) pulses. Only their dimentional widths are variable. E'sF misleads the idea that mass is directly changed into energy. It also is using values that are not precise in their meanings like my idea of using single component values/quantities. deBroglie used the Bohr model to create his electron matter wave formula. He also created a 'light' formula. E = hv, v=frequecy. What you describe above is Einsteins c^2 component. c is a dimension quantity and a time of one second. Since my formula was devoted to reducing everything to just one value, then c^2 or Lambda^2 can be reduced to the single value by taking the square root of the value. I used Plancks quanta that is a single value and electron mass. So why should not I also reduce the photon to a single value of one photon? NS

This can apply to electrons within molecules and more complex elements. These formulas apply to isolated electron experiments. I am inclined to think that they do not apply to electrons within a HA only. NS

How is that contradictory? I solved for the wavelength as a single source. You might give a frequency by dividing the WL into 'c' but this is really not necessary because the photons are 'not' continuous waves. NS My formula is similat to Einsteins formula that everyone accepts. EF components use generic terms like mass (NO exact quantity), Energy (NEQ) and c (NEQ). Frequencies have different energies. I substitute 'exact' quantities for my components. h for E, electron mass for mass and Photon for c or light. E = m sub e x photon wavelenth^2. Can you understand that simple explanation? NS Photons have different wavelengths. All photons are not the same since they are created from different orbital levels. Their different wavelengths would cause different frequencies but as I said, this is irrelavent because photons are not continuous waves but just quanta pulses. NS Square root of, yes. Light is reduced to just ONE single component that is a photon. NS

Did you read the entire article? I provided two sources of evidence. One - Those simple FIELD patterns between the Magnetic poles and the Electric charges. Notice that between the poles and charges, there is a central bulge. This is due to the repulsion between the field lines and it is lateral to the lines that creates this expansion. Two - The ARP Redshift Anomaly is real. It is not a chance alignment. The best 2 examples are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210 in the southern hemisphere. See Sky and Tel April 1983, page 307. Most majot libraries should have a copy in their archives. See.................http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm These 2 different aomalies are connected by a bridge of stars that definately prove both objects at the same distance. The quasars have larger redshifts because of the difference in the readioation where the quasars radiate at higher temperatures. This proves that these temperatures are the facto for the different RS's. Subsequently, the expansion is intrinsic to the radiation itself . NS