Jdizz

Sorry, what? You said: Here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71879-apparent-lack-of-expansion-of-the-universe/ I thought this thread where redshift was previously discussed by myself and others would be appropriate.

Sorry to derail, I was told to post here instead of creating a new thread. I would immensely appreciate it if fellow colleagues can examine a decade or so of studies by R.M. Santilli (See his CV: http://www.world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv ) establishing that the redness of the sun at the horizon is due to an apparent new mechanism for direct sunlight losing energy to a cold medium (or gaining energy in the case of a hot medium.) I feel that Prof. Santilli is correct with his mechanisms and am looking for additional comments to point out any holes. More specifically, to my attentive understanding, part of sunlight is lost due to scattering resulting in the colors of Earth's atmosphere that are beautifully represented by Rayleigh scattering and others. Santilli's new mechanism called IsoRedShift (IRS) deals with the remaining part of direct sunlight that has not scattered but reaches us along a straight line. The numerous measurements which have been conducted on two continents established the apparent existence of an IRS for the entire spectrum of direct sunlight from the zenith to the horizon of about 100nm. In particular, the blue light at the zenith completely disappears at the horizon and the red light is shifted into the infrared frequency not existing at the zenith. In view of these numerous measurements now available for both sunset and sunrise, it appears that all of the above is an experimental reality. I am soliciting comments by qualified colleagues following the studies of scientific literature, on Santilli's consequential reduction of no expansion of the universe because the IRS of the entire spectrum of sunlight at the horizon is virtually identical to the cosmological redshift of far away galaxies and the former occurs without any relative motion. Additionally and most seriously, Santilli has apparently proved the dismissal by Hubble, Zwicky, and De Broglie, of the expansion of the universe because its "acceleration" implies a return to the middle ages with Earth mandated at the center of the universe. Hubble's law established the proportionality of the cosmological redshift with the distance for all possible radial direction from Earth. Please inspect Santilli's diagram establishing the inconsistency of the conjecture of the expansion of the universe because the relative acceleration between galaxies solely occurs for Earth and does not occur for other observers throughout the universe. In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G. Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane. In view of this clear inconsistency, Santilli's diagram ends one century of controversies by disproving the expansion of the universe and related conjectures, but confirms the original conception by Hubble and, therefore, its interpretation via Santilli IRS, see the comprehensive experimental verifications in the paper http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

I would immensely appreciate it if fellow colleauges can examine a decade or so of studies by R.M. Santilli (See his CV: http://www.world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv) establishing that the redness of the sun at the horizon is due to an apparent new mechanism for direct sunlight losing energy to a cold medium (or gaining energy in the case of a hot medium.) I feel that Prof. Santilli is correct with his mechanisms and am looking for additional comments to point out any holes. More specifically, to my attentive understanding, part of sunlight is lost due to scattering resulting in the colors of Earth's atmosphere that are beautifully represented by Rayleigh scattering and others. Santilli's new mechanism called IsoRedShift (IRS) deals with the remaining part of direct sunlight that has not scattered but reaches us along a straight line. The numerous measurements which have been conducted on two continents established the apparent existence of an IRS for the entire spectrum of direct sunlight from the zenith to the horizon of about 100nm. In particular, the blue light at the zenith completely disappears at the horizon and the red light is shifted into the infrared frequency not existing at the zenith. In view of these numerous measurements now available for both sunset and sunrise, it appears that all of the above is an experimental reality. I am soliciting comments by qualified colleagues following the studies of scientific literature, on Santilli's consequential reduction of no expansion of the universe because the IRS of the entire spectrum of sunlight at the horizon is virtually identical to the cosmological redshift of far away galaxies and the former occurs without any relative motion. Additionally and most seriously, Santilli has apparently proved the dismissal by Hubble, Zwicky, and De Broglie, of the expansion of the universe because its "acceleration" implies a return to the middle ages with Earth mandated at the center of the universe. Hubble's law established the proportionality of the cosmological redshift with the distance for all possible radial direction from Earth. Please inspect Santilli's diagram establishing the inconsistency of the conjecture of the expansion of the universe because the relative acceleration between galaxies solely occurs for Earth and does not occur for other observers throughout the universe. In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G. Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane. In view of this clear inconsistency, Santilli's diagram ends one century of controversies by disproving the expansion of the universe and related conjectures, but confirms the original conception by Hubble and, therefore, its interpretation via Santilli IRS, see the comprehensive experimental verifications in the paper http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

Check out this pdf: http://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_6N6Q10PWKhVkdLTlZUYjd3Vj Earth would be at the center of the universe due to the ACCELERATION of the expansion since it is combined with Hubble's law according to which the cosmological redshift of galaxies is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all radial directions.

Thank you for that summary mordecai, I will attempt to explain this with a drawing. For the serious visitor of this post, that I am sure is the silent majority, I would like again, reproduce the powerpoint summary of lecture's delivered by R.M.Santilli at the 2012 seminal course on the island of Kos, Greece, that I personally attended. The scientific evidence is crushing for the Doppler interpretation of Hubble's law that would imply Earth at the center of the universe, I beg the moderator for our own dignity as American scientists, vis a vis, in face of the world, to trash comments that lack serious technical content, generally proffered by trolls with sinister minds that will derail scientific evidence for personal gains. 1. Assume any desired geometry, including spherical geometries, provided they have a local Euclidean geometry in the tangent plane to conform with Hubble's law; 2. Assume that Earth is at position E of the figure and a far away galaxy is at position G; 3. Consider two sets of circles as in the figure with radii R_1, R_2 = 2 R_1 each set concentric with E and G in such a way that the larger circles intersects E and G as shown; 4. Consider two galaxies, one on circle R_1, and the other on circle R_2 from Earth with related cosmological redshifts z_1 and z_2. 5. Confirm that, for the case of an accelerated expansion (that is, from Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth thus implying an acceleration due to the increase of the speed with the distance), when measured from Earth the two redshifts z_1 and z_2 are given from Hubble's law z_2 = 2 z_1, but when measured with respect to Galaxy G, they are the same, z-1 = z_2 because the related galaxies are located on the same circle around the Galaxy G, thus having the same distance from G and, consequently, having the same redshift with respect to G, again, from Hubble's laws. CONCLUSIONS: According to Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth in all directions in space. As a consequence, the cosmological redshifts measured from Earth are solely and specifically valid for Earth and cannot possibly be the same for other regions of the universe. Hence, the current astrophysical measurements of cosmological redshifts, when interpreted as being due to the Doppler's effect (motion of galaxies away from Earth), necessarily imply Earth at the center of the universe. The sole known way to avoid a return to the Middle Ages is the dismissal of the expansion itself, let alone the dismissal of the acceleration of the expansion. In turn, the only way to achieve this result is Zwicky's idea of Tired Light (light losing energy to intergalactic gases), not realized according to the original scattering origin (that would imply galaxies to be essentially invisible to us), but according to the mechanism of IsoRedShift which has been experimentally verified on Earth.

The quotation of wikipedia should be instant disqualification because of its noted bias against anything that surpasses Einstein. What wikipedia intentionally misses is Einstein's law according to which the origin of the gravitational field is energy. Therefore, in the event that the universe was 75% filled up with dark energy, the most dominant prediction by Einsteins field equations is that the universe should contract due to gravitational attraction caused by dark energy. The adulteration of Einstein's field equations in the dream of achieving an expansion against this dominant contraction is a sheer manipulation of scientific facts. In any case ignoring all of the above, the supporters of the ultra far fetched conjecture of dark energy intentionally ignore the real important physical issue, namely, an enormous amount of energy is needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to the ultra far fetched extreme that galaxies at the edge of the known universe are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light since v/c must be bigger than one to represent their cosmological redshifts. Under the acceptance of such preposterous and extremely far fetched conjectures, while dismissing IRS measurements on Earth, for the lack of the expansion of the universe sadly confirms that physics is on its death bed of truly rotten crack-pottery.

As spyman said, no need to apologize. Also know that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Feynman

I would like to thank the moderator for a very sound and scientifically ethical request. In fact it is the very reason why I only work with clear and repeated experimental measurements. Additionally on the same grounds of scientific ethics, allow me to recommend that in the future the moderators trash comments that criticize new measurements without first conducting counter measurements, particularly when verified in various countries by multiple serious scientists. BTW, dark energy is a hypothetical conjecture.

The expansion of the universe is a hypothetical view implying a return to the middle ages with Earth at the center of the universe because the hypothetical expansion and the hypothetical acceleration of the expansion are the same for the same distance in all radial directions from Earth. Additionally, R.M. Santilli has established experimentally, the lack of expansion via spectrographic measurements according to which the redness of the sun itself at sunset experiences a redshift without any relative motion. In other words, redness of direct sunlight, (that without scattering) and not the redness of the atmosphere (which is indeed due to scattering) constitutes visual, let alone experimental evidence that the universe is not expanding. For measurements conducted on two continents, see this powerpoint: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt

As I said, that was a prediction of mine. I do not know yet, as I do not know the law of the dependence of the IRS on the pressure. Besides, Venus' atmosphere is very hot and when viewing from the surface we may have an IsoBlueShift (IBS.) The only conclusion at this moment is that we do not know and can not apply the measurements from earth to venus.

No. The IsoRedShift (IRS) is proportional to the distance of direct sunlight traveling in air at one atmosphere or alternatively proportional to the increase of the pressure for a fixed travel. Therefore, in a planetary gas at 10 atmosphere, the prediction is that the sun can not be seen at all and the sky is black. In fact for our atmosphere blue light shifts 100nm all the way into red light and red-light shifts 100nm all the way into the infrared. I have not done the calculations but at 10 times the pressure, I would venture sunlight could be transmuted into radiowaves. As an interesting point, note the prediction in the papers in the field that sunset and sunrise are dominated by blue light rather than red light under the condition that the atmosphere is sufficiently hot. In fact, measurements on monochromatic laser light show very clearly the increase of the frequency when traversing a gas hotter than 140 F. See: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt You are raising very interesting points that can indeed be confirmed by measurements on earth passing throughout a tube containing various gases at different pressures. (I have been told that the Santilli Foundation is offering a grant for the conduction of these measurements, but I'm not sure if they are available.) One point appears to be certain, namely that the entire spectrum of sunlight loses energy to the gaseous medium when at temperatures below 70F. It is expected that this loss of energy is different for different gases. Therefore the sun could indeed be green in a methane atmosphere in the event the IRS in a methane gas is half the IRS in our atmosphere. You are of course correct because we all have observed an increase of redness over cities compared to open grounds. This is due to inelastic scattering of sunlight with atmospheric particulates. By recalling that elastic scattering causes no frequency shift, your observation is confirmed by the fact that the red color of the area surrounding the sun at sunset is much more red than the direct sunlight. Therefore your comments refers to the color of the atmosphere and not to the color of direct sunlight at sunset which remains unaffected by particulates according to available repeated measurements See: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt Your views are correct to my knowledge with the clarification that Rayleigh, Mie, and other scattering theories deal specifically with the color of our atmosphere and they are inapplicable to direct sunlight. In fact, in the absence of scattering, our sky would be black day and night - which is not case. By contrast, no credible scattering can be proffered for direct sunlight that is reaching us on a straight line. A colleague recently sent me a paper clarifying the above point with great clarity. http://www.scientifi...sms-Gandzha.pdf

Zwicky proposed the hypothesis that light loses energy to intergalactic gases based on the mechanism of scattering. Such a scattering origin was correctly dismissed because it would have prevented a clear view of the galaxies because scattering does not cause a redshift and other correct reasons which led to the expansion of the universe as the only plausible alternative at that time. The reason I initiated this post is because I would appreciate technical comments, not on tired light which I know well, but on the new mechanism for light losing energy to a gaseous medium recently identified by various experimentalists. See a summary here: http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt (80mb) As you can see spectroscopic measurements conducted on two continents establishes that the entire spectrum of "direct" sunlight shifts for about 100nm in the transition from the zenith to the horizon without any relative motion between the earth, the medium, and the observer. This new event is called IsoRedShift (IRS) due to the new mathematics used for its derivation called Isomathematics. The points on which I would appreciate comments is the redshift without relative motion as it may be evidence on the lack of expansion of the universe. It is my opinion that cosmological theories have recently gone astray for too many hyperbolic conjectures. Note that the IRS refers solely to direct sunlight. It is evident that some of the sunlight scatters in Earth's atmosphere creating the colors of our atmosphere, but a portion of this sunlight reaches us on a direct line. This seems to be very similar to astrophysical measurements in which we have the cosmological redshift for the frequency combined with measurements of the intensity (luminosity) of galaxies. I appreciate your mentioning of the extinction theory which in a scientific democracy should be considered jointly with others. However, I have to emphatically stress that this extinction theory is purely conjectural with no possibility whatsoever of experimental verifications on Earth while by comparison, the lack of expansion of the universe based on the IRS mechanism is totally established via repeatable experiments on Earth. Sorry, but I prefer to follow Galileo's teaching which solely suggests cosmological theories after that they have been established by experiments based on Earth. I'm sorry despite my best intention I did not understand your post because the effect that you refer to is purely gravitational and has no serious connection with dark matter and all that. You should also know that the conjecture of dark matter is considered nowadays pure science fiction and not serious science for several reasons. If a galaxy is permeated by dark matter, that galaxy should contract because mandated by Newton's gravitation, galaxies do not contract. Therefore dark matter can not permeate throughout the universe. Second, if dark matter is uniformly distributed, it will cause no effect whatsoever on the dynamics of individual stars. Next, to reach any anomalous behavior, of a peripheral galactic star, dark matter should be inhomogeneously distributed around that star, but then nearby stars would be completely outside of measurements. Should I list a few links? Science fiction is often more plausible than the extremely far fetched conjectures of dark matter, dark energy, and all that. In fact, science fiction usually provides at least a hypothetical interpretation of a phenomenon while dark matter/energy provide no serious representations of the very data for which they were proposed thus being beyond the level of science fiction.

Based on this: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/particle-physicists-confirm-arrow-of-time-for-b-mesons.html Does this mean that the symmetry hypothesis that Prof. Weinberg references is starting to appear incorrect?

I am looking for feedback from users who might know more or be able to repeat these experiments. These experiments basically show that light loses or gains energy to a medium. I think we all note the atmosphere warming during the day. Stretched out to a cosmological scale, as light travels it loses or gains energy to the intergalactic medium, and becomes red or blue shifted because of this. These measurements were repeated with our sun and monochromatic laser light without relative motion. R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-...isoredshift.pdf Re: Could dark matter be nothing? If it appears that the universe is not expanding, then the whole dark energy conjecture is not necessary, right???

Bumping