Jump to content

Plasma is the cause of redshift


EMField
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is plasma other than very hot energy full of motion? Sounds like primitive particles to me.

 

99% sounds possible.

 

Yes, plasma is the most basic form of matter before it becomes atoms and planets and stars. But plasma redshift calls into question expansion so it will be ignored. Even Hubble favored another explanation for redshift which was unavailable at that time.

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."
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Edwin_Hubble

 

And indeed it appears he was correct as plasma redshift due to electron density was then unrecognized and undiscovered.

Edited by EMField
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ehh still I hate statistics and when we haven't explored more than 50% of our own ocean where do we stand to talk about space?

 

I'm willing to bet plasma makes up for most of the universe but when it comes down to it isn't everything plasma? just plasma that gets cooled down eventually. Think of it like saying water is 99% ice. well its water no matter if its an ice, gas, or liquid.

 

kind of a crappy analogy but I think it gets my point across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is plasma other than very hot energy full of motion? Sounds like primitive particles to me.

 

99% sounds possible.

 

I think you need to revisit your definition of plasma. Not sure what you mean by either "very hot energy full of motion" or "primitive particles". Plasma is simply a group of atoms that have been so energetically excited that the electrons have been stripped away from the nucleus.

 

Or it could possibly be that plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift which would match the obsrvation that 99% of the universe is plasma.

http://www.sciencedi...030402608000089

Do you, or anyone else, have either a copy of this paper that isn't behind a paywall or other supporting evidence for your assertions that "plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift" or that "99% of the universe is plasma"?

 

Yes, plasma is the most basic form of matter before it becomes atoms and planets and stars. But plasma redshift calls into question expansion so it will be ignored. Even Hubble favored another explanation for redshift which was unavailable at that time.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/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."

And indeed it appears he was correct as plasma redshift due to electron density was then unrecognized and undiscovered.

The portion of the wikipedia article you quoted is regarding Hubble's attempt to relate redshift to the geometry of the universe, and makes no claims whatsoever about his views on plasma. The previous paragraph makes this clear. Without quote mining, the entire passage reads:

 

In the 1930s, Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature. These data seemed to indicate that the universe wasflat and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to Allan Sandage,

 

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for 99% of the universe being plasma, don't take my word for it, take NASA's:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html

But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.

 

It is an electrified gas, not a "hot" gas. Don't forget to mention the easiest way to strip electrons from an atom is electrical.

 

And as for your theories about plasma, NASA has this to say:

We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren't very good at that.

 

Because your models refuse to recognize that plasma is an electrified medium.

 

Hubble made no mention of plasma because plasma red-shift as of that time was a "hitherto unrecognized principle of nature." It is a plasma event and plasma red-shift had not been discovered yet. As I said, constantly disregarding discoveries since the space age. just as you disregarded Kristian Birkeland's discovery of Birkeland currents for over 42 years until satellites went into orbit and proved him correct.

 

http://en.wikipedia....stian_Birkeland

 

Legacy

Birkeland's theory of the aurora was eventually confirmed, a classic example of a fringe theory, ridiculed by scientists supporting the then mainstream, that has come to be accepted as a mainstream theory.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....rkeland_current

Auroral Birkeland currents carry about 100,000 amperes during quiet times and more than 1 million amperes during geomagnetically disturbed times.

 

Yet space is electrically neutral according to mainstream, go figure.

 

These same currents you found between Earth and Sun that you consistently once again ignore and attempt to attribute to other causes:

http://science.nasa....7/11dec_themis/

 

Just as it connects Jupiter and its moons:

http://hubblesite.or...leases/2000/38/

 

Just the reason they were surprised that the moon is NOT electrically neutral:

http://www.nasa.gov/...ic-moon_prt.htm

 

And the solar wind is not "blown off" it is accelerated and continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and you can look up CERN if you want to know how particles are accelerated.

 

"We've seen electron beams and ion fountains over the moon's day side," says Dr. Jasper Halekas, also of the University of California, Berkeley.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cathode_ray

http://science.nasa....7/ast09dec97_3/

Edited by EMField
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is this "you" that you are railing against? I asked a simple question. You've answered half of it, but I get the feeling I've stepped into an ongoing conversation and I'm missing the beginning. Is there another thread that I need to read where you lay out the case that "plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me show you how much they avoid mention of electricity in space: What are radio waves?

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Radio_waves

Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. Radio waves have frequencies from 300 GHz to as low as 3 kHz, and corresponding wavelengths from 1 millimeter to 100 kilometers. Like all other electromagnetic waves, they travel at the speed of light. Naturally occurring radio waves are made by lightning, or by astronomical objects.

 

So, lightning and astronomical objects emit it naturally.

Lightning is plasma as are all astronomical objects.

Plasma is an electrified gas.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Radio_frequency

Radio frequency (RF) is a rate of oscillation in the range of about 3 kHz to 300 GHz, which corresponds to the frequency of radio waves, and the alternating currents which carry radio signals.

 

But you will say I didn't finish that quote, that it can be mechanical:

RF usually refers to electrical rather than mechanical oscillations, although mechanical RF systems do exist

 

http://en.wikipedia....chanical_filter

A mechanical filter is a signal processing filter usually used in place of an electronic filter at radio frequencies. Its purpose is the same as that of a normal electronic filter: to pass a range of signal frequencies, but to block others. The filter acts on mechanical vibrations which are the analogue of the electrical signal. At the input and output of the filter, transducers convert the electrical signal into, and then back from, these mechanical vibrations.

 

So mechanical filters don't work without an electrical signal first.

 

So what is causing these radio signals from space again?

 

Who is this "you" that you are railing against? I asked a simple question. You've answered half of it, but I get the feeling I've stepped into an ongoing conversation and I'm missing the beginning. Is there another thread that I need to read where you lay out the case that "plasma electron density is responsible for most of the observed redshift"?

 

Not "you" you, but all those that refuse to accept the data for what it is, and instead prefer to hold onto a dying and outdated theory of red-shift, expansion and the Big Bang.

 

In other posts I've discussed the erroneous mass calculations that enable you to hang onto Dark Matter, but only as long as you don't count all that plasma:

 

Dust and plasma so thick in galaxies it blocks 50% of the light from edge on galaxies, and so thick in interstellar space it blocks 70% of edge on galaxies already half as bright.

http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html

 

Then add some more mass from all that plasma hidden in the light:

http://www.jpl.nasa....fm?feature=2287

 

The missing mass isn't missing, it is hidden in the dark and also hidden in the light. The red-shift isn't expansion, it is a plasma event, as is all the EM radiation emitted in space. There was no creation event, contrary to what the church has told you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Edited by EMField
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not "you" you, but all those that refuse to accept the data for what it is, and instead prefer to hold onto a dying and outdated theory of red-shift, expansion and the Big Bang.

 

In other posts I've discussed the erroneous mass calculations...

 

I'm rather new to this, but do you have an opinion on R.M. Santilli's papers on the subject of IsoRedShift?

 

http://www.santilli-...n.org/news.html

 

http://www.santilli-...hift-Letter.pdf

 

Private messaging me back would be fine if that is more appropriate. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is an electrified gas, not a "hot" gas. Don't forget to mention the easiest way to strip electrons from an atom is electrical."

Bollocks.

For millennia the only way to generate a plasma was to light a fire.

(Granted that thy didn't know they were doing that).

 

It's a fairly trivial experiment to demonstrate that a candle flame conducts electricity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is an electrified gas, not a "hot" gas. Don't forget to mention the easiest way to strip electrons from an atom is electrical."

Bollocks.

For millennia the only way to generate a plasma was to light a fire.

(Granted that thy didn't know they were doing that).

 

It's a fairly trivial experiment to demonstrate that a candle flame conducts electricity.

 

 

And heat is nothing more than EM radiation given off by excited atoms. So learn what makes the world work please, and stop disiminating false data.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_electrons_removed_from_atoms_to_form_ions_in_a_mass_spectrometer

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120329055938AA1FBiC

 

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/hollow_atoms_lcl_pulses_make_electrons_strip

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy

 

The ionization energy of a chemical species, i.e. an atom or molecule, is the energy required to remove electrons from gaseous atoms or ions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how this is supposed to rebut what John Cuthber posted. Fire is relatively easy to make, especially as compared to the electronics in a spectrometer or discharge tube. Fire has that beat by several thousand years in the invention/discovery timeline. So how in the world is that "false data"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the false data is this "heat is nothing more than EM radiation given off by excited atoms."

Heat is more generally considered to be the kinetic energy carried by the atoms than the EM radiation from them.

 

Perhaps we should stop this thread disseminating any more such false data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heat is the TRANSFER OF energy:

http://hyperphysics....hermo/heat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

 

The more energy a particle has the more radiation it emits. Particles do not possess heat, it only occurs when energy is transfered and radiated off, from hotter to colder, i.e., more energetic to less energetic.

 

And here is your space-time:

http://en.wikipedia....omagnetic_field

 

The universe is electrical people, and opperates on electrical principles. As soon as you realize this science can advance again. E=mc^2! And why his paper was entitled "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies". You have just let them twist it without thinking on your own, and now leave the electro out of electromagnetic.

 

Plasma, an electrified medium comprising 99% of the universe. The electrical force, 10^39 powers stronger than gravity. And there is your red-shift, your flat rotation curves, your ion plumes, your Dark Matter and Dark Energy. And this is the center of our galaxy, a plasma tourus:

 

 

post-77655-0-83945300-1347317523_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rather new to this, but do you have an opinion on R.M. Santilli's papers on the subject of IsoRedShift?

 

http://www.santilli-...n.org/news.html

 

http://www.santilli-...hift-Letter.pdf

 

Private messaging me back would be fine if that is more appropriate. Thanks!

 

 

He has some interesting ideas, I read his paper quite awhile ago, will reread them and get back to you. Unlike others I actually READ stuff, not just repeat what everyone else has told them is correct. But as I recall he agrees with Arp on red-shift interpretation of qusars being from what Arp described as inherent nature of the qusars, and recent evidence seems to indicate plasma electron density is the major cause. Makes sense to me as a recently ejected quasar would have a higher electron density. Z-Pinches draw in and confine the plasma until its density becomes more than the current can sustain and then ejects the excess.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pinch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

 

What also just happens to be going on inside the center of the sun and not a nuclear furnus. The nuclear reactions are only occuring on the surface due to arcing from the corona which explains the low thermal turbulance from the interior and the corona's multimillion degree heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first link says "Heat may be defined as energy in transit "

Wiki says "Heat is energy transferred from one system to another by thermal interaction"

That's not the same as "Heat is the TRANSFER OF energy:"

 

 

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node39.html

 

http://en.wikipedia....odynamic_system

Overview

 

Thermodynamics describes the physics of matter using the concept of the thermodynamic system, a region of the universe that is under study. All quantities, such as pressure or mechanical work, in an equation refer to the system unless labeled otherwise. As thermodynamics is fundamentally concerned with the flow and balance of energy and matter, systems are distinguished depending on the kinds of interaction they undergo and the types of energy they exchange with the surrounding environment.

 

There is nothing but the transfer of energy, stop deluding yourself, the universe is electrical.

Edited by EMField
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The more energy a particle has the more radiation it emits."

There's a lot more to it than that.

The excess energy of a uranium nucleus is a lot higher than the excess energy of, to pick an example, the excited singlet state of oxygen.

But one lasts for billions of years and the other doesn't.

 

So, in a typical week, which one emits more radiation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has some interesting ideas, I read his paper quite awhile ago, will reread them and get back to you. Unlike others I actually READ stuff, not just repeat what everyone else has told them is correct. But as I recall he agrees with Arp on red-shift interpretation of qusars being from what Arp described as inherent nature of the qusars, and recent evidence seems to indicate plasma electron density is the major cause. Makes sense to me as a recently ejected quasar would have a higher electron density. Z-Pinches draw in and confine the plasma until its density becomes more than the current can sustain and then ejects the excess.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Pinch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

 

What also just happens to be going on inside the center of the sun and not a nuclear furnus. The nuclear reactions are only occuring on the surface due to arcing from the corona which explains the low thermal turbulance from the interior and the corona's multimillion degree heat.

 

EMField,

 

Thanks for reading the papers.

 

From what I can understand, Santilli has provided a geometric representation of the large differences between the redshifts of galaxies and their associated quasars

 

It appears to essentially be based on the difference of the medium inside the galaxy and the quasar.

 

Despite my doubts, the physical idea is intriguing because light loses energy to the medium.

 

Also recall that nature emits a variety of interpretations often being complementary rather than contradictory to each other.

 

Although I am not an expert in your interpretation of Arps galaxies-quasars systems, I believe that the Santilli Iso-Minkowskian representation does indeed admit your view as a particular case.

 

It is evident that there is a difference of the electron density in the interior of a galaxy and in the chromosphere of the quasar.

 

Such a large difference in electron density implies a large difference in cosmological redshift.

 

To my knowledge the first quantitative geometric representation of the large difference of the cosmological redshift of quasars and their associated galaxies was achieved by Santilli in 1991.

 

R. M. Santilli, Isotopic Generalizations of Galileo and Einstein Relativities, Vol.I and II "Mathematical Foundations" (1991), Ukraine Academy of Scieces, Kiev

 

Volume 1 is dedicated to iso-mathematics and iso-geometries.

 

Volume 2 is dedicated to various predictions that have now been evidently confirmed by independent measurements.

 

 

See:

 

G. West and G. Amato, "Experimental Conformation of Santilli's IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift," Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, (2012) http://www.santilli-...ion-IRS-IBS.pdf

 

 

 

 

I appreciate ANY feedback!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jdizz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As i see it, light behaves in certain ways, as the Double Slit experiement shows,

So when light comes into contact with dark matter, it is both a wave and a particle,

The wave is bent around the dark matter (quark gluon plasma in folded space/time), which we see as gravitational lensing, but the particle will go through the dark matter, but will also leave our frame of reference, follow the particle through dark matter and its speed would not change, staying at c, but only relative to the the space it travels through, it would eventually pass through dark matter long after the wave as gone around.

We would see this first as a red or blue shift as it slowly emerges (from our perspective), Once it leaves dark matter it once again becomes a wave and a particle and continues on it way, Never knowing it had passed through any medium, where as the wave had passed around the dark matter thousands, millions, or billions of years before, depending upon the mass of the dark matter.

 

The particle is never scattered, due the fact D/M Is folded space/time,that from our space/time perspective keeps the photon particle in a tight narrow beam.

where as the wave is is distorted by gravitational lensing.

And if 80-90% of universe is dark/matter there is alot of bending going on, so we should only see distorted images, which we do not, that is because of the particle that travels through D/M (quark gluon PLASMA).

Edited by sunshaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.