PDA

View Full Version : The Universe is Otherwise - part 3

paul schroeder
2007-Nov-17, 06:25 PM
The Universe is Otherwise
Part 3 – Angular Motion, Mass Creation, and Planets

Note: Comparisons to LeSage, which partly relate to this section, were added to part 2.

Preliminary Spin and Angular Motion Considerations

The blocking and absorbing of paeps passing through massive bodies is due to both the external spinning of the mass as well as the spin of internal constituents of the mass. I propose that the amount of spin contained within a mass in turn defines density and thus the total gravitational mass of the body. The more spin of mass, the more probability of encountering and blocking moving paeps.

The rotation of masses influences the path that the paeps follow upon exiting bodies. Stand outside and imagine you launch a particle straight up. After rising for 15 minutes, what is the relation of the particle to you? Problem, was straight up relative to your original position or to your new position, as your position has rotated relative to space? Astrodynamics is mostly devoted to dealing with such issues for man’s space travels. Consider things launched from a rotating body. They retain the angular motion, caused by the motion of the bodies surface, the body’s spin. Launches travel in angular, rather than straight up paths. The angular paths are ultimately bent further due to gravity. Newtonian gravitation is a straight line attraction and does not allow for angular momentum.

Relate this initial angular motion to paep streams. The resulting paep path is affected by the angular motion of the planet’s surface. Once their path has become bent, the paeps are also affected by the downward force of gravity. An example of this angular effect occurs during satellite launches. Additionally there are the space probes which have curved paths. The path’s bending can extend across the solar system as the probes achieve elliptical orbits, for example when launched toward other planets. Locally, satellites are launched into orbit travel in the direction of Earth's rotation. Anything going up and departing a rotating body can be considered to have been launched. So, my 'penetrating paeps' pass through, subsequently depart, and, in doing so they acquire angular momentum. They are essentially launched upon exit.

I originally questioned whether the movement of earth’s surface imparted a strictly rectilinear angular motion at a set angle, or if there is there a second attribute based on earth’s curvature also imparted as angular momentum. I have concluded that the curvature portion of launch paths is strictly is due to gravity. So gravity effects upon paeps is the reason I differ with LeASage’s idea that angular launching becomes linear in the direction of the initial angle.

How does all this relate to paeps? By inclusion of some angularly moving paeps as a component of the paep streams arriving at a particular point there becomes an imbalance that nature tries to even out. Due to this local imbalance, these angularly moving paeps are affected exactly like mass particles are. If there wasn’t this imbalance the point would be in ‘the void of space’ where paeps impact a point from all directions equally and have no net effect upon each other, just like photons. In a space near a mass, there are different net effects on an angular paep stream. There is a downward push by more paeps from above than from below. Likewise, there is the tidal action where more paeps, those in the bent stream, come from one direction than another. Paeps traveling at some sideways angle to the surface of a mass are the paeps launched by the mass and traveling angularly. These paeps are also pushed downward as a projectile mass would be. Thus they travel in the curved path discussed above. Since they move so fast, the curvature is very limited and does not pull them back to the surface, but will cause the slight bending of the path.

There are two primary consequences of the bent streams of paeps. They are the creation of mass and the application of motion to orbitals.

paul schroeder
2007-Nov-17, 06:27 PM
The Making of Planets

The sun exhibits equatorial counterclockwise rotation which happens to be faster than the revolution of its planets. I propose then that the path of the paeps coming from the sun toward Earth bends. The bending would be toward the left when viewed from north of the ecliptic. Starting before there was a planet earth, the bending paeps have created sufficient disturbance in earth's region to overcome the balance where otherwise the paeps flow equally from all sides. This disturbance means the paep streams actually impact each other creating turbulence. The resultant turbulence may be seen as a spinning of a paep collection and furthermore as the initial formation of mass specifically because of the existence of spin.

Am I proposing mass being created from nothing? No! It is important to reflect upon a formula, such as Einstein's E=MC 2. mass energy conversion, and to realize that it works both ways. The aforementioned bent paep turbulence will lead to ultimately addressing energy to mass conversion. It is continuous, and because of the’c’2 component, it is a very gradual process. It takes a lot of energy to form a small amount of mass.

As the disturbance continues over time, more turbulence may increase local rotation and thus increase our recognition of the characteristics of mass as displayed either by a point/particle or by an entire region.

Once paeps have formed mass, the subsequent paeps with solar bending create an unbalanced pressure to act upon that mass. Imagine that somehow the mass is now a planet. A diminished paep stream impacts the planet from the side facing the sun. Meanwhile, undiminished paeps strike the planet from opposite the sun, so there is some net push toward the sun, as in current attraction theory. On this point pushing and attraction gravity are equal. But, there is more.

The bending stream coming from the sun also causes extra paeps to impact the right side of the planet(the side at the rear of its revolution motion), causing an overall push to the left. This push enhances or causes the planetary orbits. A third effect to consider is how the paep streams pass relative to the planet center. Analyzing these three unbalanced actions helps to understand the existence of a push toward the sun, a second push causing orbit, and a third push causing rotation.

What follows is a simplistic attempt to picture these unbalanced gravitational pressures on earth. Consider earth's equator to be a clock face with 6 o'clock pointing directly toward the sun and thus 12 o'clock points directly away from the sun. Consider also the sun to be represented as a clock face as viewed from above with 12 o’clock facing toward earth. Now imagine external paep streams striking earth at all 12 of the hour marks. As a first approximation, all points will incur a normal and similar pressure except the 6 o'clock point. The paep stream striking the 6 o’clock point has passed through the sun and comes from the sun's 12 o'clock point. Let's say that the stream striking at 6 o'clock has half the normal pressure due to its passage through the sun. Just as in the normal attraction theory where gravitation is a net attraction of the earth directly toward the sun, the lessened paep pressure provides the same net ‘pull’.

The theory builds further as we consider angular variations that yield revolution and rotation. The line mentioned as striking earth at 6 o'clock passed through the sun's equator at 12 o'clock and acquired some of the sun's rotation. The resultant bending shifts the impact to the left of 6 o’clock. The rotation may even bend that stream enough that it misses earth entirely. However, the compensation for one stream missing earth is that the next stream over will impact in its place. So, though very much exaggerated, consider the stream leaving the sun at 1 o'clock as bending sufficiently to strike earth. Say it comes in slightly to the right of 6 o'clock. Assume it arrives at 5 o'clock for our example. So, now the net pressures on earth still cause attraction between the sun and earth, with even a slightly greater 'pull'. More importantly, there is now a total of 1.5 times the pressure at 5 o'clock. All the other hour points receive one pressure except 6 o'clock which receives zero. There is now more net push from right than from the left. The planet must move toward the left. The result is the planetary revolution.

For the third level of consideration, the exact angle at which the angular stream strikes and passes through earth is important. It could pass just slightly left or right of earth's center. The fact that earth is moving to the left increases the likelihood that the stream would pass to the right of center. By doing so, the right side gets more push away from the sun than does the left side. Consequently the planet rotates counterclockwise. Clearly a detailed analysis becomes complex. Most planets display this counterclockwise rotation. But an opposite effect is possible if the stream passes left of center. For a simple example, the 6 o'clock stream could bend less and strike the planet at 7 o'clock passing left of center. The resulting possible reverse rotation suggests the cause of the rotation of Venus.

By considering angular effects our view of space gains an expanded perspective in which the actions of gravity control all of the solar system and motions. This is an expansion of the Newton’s theory of gravitational retention of orbital radii/distances when offsetting their motions. The mechanics of my theory can be applied to any central body and its orbital(s), including planets and moons or nuclei and electrons.

It is much more satisfying to have revolution and rotation defined as a natural consequence of gravitation than to have some explanation for these spins that is a product of necessity. The latter explanation has some swirling gas cloud existing for no reason and congealing to form planets and imparting its swirl to its formed planets. Even then, the resulting spins can't be designed to coincide with the original swirl.

To strengthen the perspective why planets rotate, focus on the idea of net force. I addressed net force earlier in describing how the downward push of gravity is the net of what pushes down vs what pushes up. Now for the region in space where the bending flow of paeps meets rectilinear streams from all other directions, there is a small net push in the direction of the bending. That can be converted to a line of force/pressure for further analysis. That line of net pressure is perpendicular to the main flow line of the bent gravitational stream which is the straight line from the sun to here. That line of pressure is what drives the planets in their orbit and it also provides their rotation.

Another point of interest is the location of orbitals within the solar system. Consider a paep stream passing upward from the south pole to the north pole of the sun. Its path will not be bent as it incurs no rotational pressure from the side. It was not influenced by the spinning of the sun. A stream flowing through the sun at a 45O angle to the equatorial spin plane will bend, but less, maybe about half as much as the paep stream passing through near the suns equator. The solar system is usually pictured as a two dimensional series of orbits laying on the ecliptic plane (extension of the sun’s equator). The planetary orbits are mostly near that plane. No planetary orbits circle the sun nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. I propose a direct connection between planets lying near the ecliptic plane with solar rotation as its cause. In a similar vein, considering the earth as a central body, the moon's path doesn't reach 30O of inclination from earth's equatorial plane. The bottom line is, the more bending of the paep stream due to central body spin, the more likely there will be a turbulence of paeps at some distance. This turbulence is the activity by which orbitals will form. Therefore, there is a cause and effect relationship between the major body spin and the path of orbitals. My overall perspective says that the major body spin causes and continues the disturbance that governs the orbit of orbitals. Actually the more rapid the central spin, the more orbitals that will exist.

As mankind advances in our detailed understanding of nature, we find progressively more detailed answers. To solve the problem of permanence of our orbits we now accept Newton's second law which relies on an absence of a contradictory force. On earth Newton provided the concept of friction to offset motions and serve as a frequent contradictory force. In order to continue accepting his second law as the solution to permanence of orbits, we must assume that there are absolutely no particles or sources of friction within planetary orbit paths. The paths of the planets are thus implied to be total voids. Yet we have meteorites, comet remains, light and other radiation passing by, plus electromagnetic winds. Newton’s law is insufficient, especially given our search for most detailed and specific answers in physics. The role of continuous creation and a continuing impetus applied to the planets denote active events rather than passive non-events.

captain swoop
2007-Nov-17, 09:12 PM
Don't you think you should stick to one thread at a time?

Thanatos
2007-Nov-19, 07:31 AM
An interesting approach - logic without math. Your assertions are outrageous and unsupported, paul schroeder.

paul schroeder
2007-Nov-26, 03:59 PM
Perhaps it works better to submit parts together under one thread, so here is part 4.

The Universe is Otherwise – Part 4 - Equilibrium on Earth and Energy to Mass

Earth's Equilibrium

With earth in motion why are we not thrown off? Why don=t we go straight while the surface follows its curving path? This issue persisted through the time of Kepler and was solved by >designating a force of gravity. Solar attraction gravity and the linear motion of planets are perpendicular to each other and focus on the planets center. Without planetary rotation, other parts experiencing different gravitation might not remain. The stronger the perpendicular gravitational force offsetting motion the more it will provide a form of equilibrium, but it is never full lateral equilibrium. Things higher up on earth rotate more rapidly yet retain the same angular motion, why? The Newtonian physical force extending up from the surface is gravity and it acts linearly to earth=s center and thus provides no lateral motive or support.

The famous experiment by Michelson and Morley tested whether light beams interfered with each others wave status after having traveled different directions on earth. Motions of earth relative to the outside should have distorted them. This is a similar question applied to light as the one I posed above. Why don=t we tend to lean due to the influence of rotation? Why does light retain its frequency, not interfering with a portion of its beam that briefly traveled in the perpendicular direction relative to the primary beam? They both traveled in different directions relative to earth=s motion. Since everything is mostly in lateral balance, focusing the M M results only on light seems an oversight.

Except for wind there exists a lateral equilibrium on earth and its atmosphere from all sides at any particular elevation. What is the story about wind/air flows? On average wind tends to blow in the same direction as earth=s rotation and does so, on average, faster than earth=s surface. Consider as examples west to east air flows and jet streams. The cause of planetary rotation is unclear and, per Newton, planets rotate now because they always did and nothing offsets their rotation. Then why does the air above also rotate and why does it do so faster than the ground?

There is a Coriolis force that explains many of the features of air currents supposedly including jet streams. The equator is a longer circle of rotation than are other latitudes. So air traveling with the equator transferring to smaller latitude circles moves faster then the ground does at this new latitude and vice versa, air transferring from the latitude toward the equator moves slower than the ground at the equator. We might get our jet streams if they seemed to build up and moved north and south from the equator but our northern jet streams show motion pretty straight W to E, even somewhat southerly, not S to N.

Looking up from on earth it would seem that there is an equal amount of air everywhere so transfers to and from the region above the equator should balance out leaving no net E to W flows. Rather than the Coriolis force, the overall west to east air flows suggests that the wind motive source is supplied from outer space. The velocity of the earth’s rotation at the equator is determined by the paep stream rotational push velocity at that location. It will have the same push at smaller latitude circles thus causing a similar atmospheric velocity rotating around a smaller circle. Thus there is more wind exceeding the surface rotation at higher latitudes.

Due to the wind flows, clouds, which represent our atmosphere, tend to move from west to east. Why does our overall atmosphere revolve faster than the planets surface? More distant bodies such as our moon revolve more slowly (as do other planet=s moons). Moons are farther away than the planet=s geostationary distance and so must revolve slower than the planet surface to keep from flying off and expanding their orbit. Newton explained that moons (and likewise planets) revolve at the rates they do so their motion offsets gravity given the radius of their orbits. An important unanswered question is how did they get and retain their motion? The answer comes from remembering the net sideways push supplied by my bending external gravitation streams.

It is not sufficient to accept Newton=s idea that planets retain their motion for lack of any offsetting force. Planets interacting with any mass or force (meteors, dust, solar wind etc.) in their orbit leads to ultimate breakdown of the constant motion. It does no=t matter that such decay might take a long time. Newton=s laws were developed prior to the detail knowledge of forces and the micro world that is available today. A more complete view would prefer the existence of a motive force that pushes the orbitals at the speed of the motive. Such a motive force is very weak so that it can both introduce motion to extremely small mass particles and also can in summary provide retention of motion to larger masses that are already moving. The masses move at the maximum velocity that the net local lateral imbalance of paeps provides.

Strictly speculating here, imagine a paep pressure beam coming to earth from the sun, which beam is tangent to earth at about 1:30 o’clock. By geometry the resulting pressure at 12 o’clock is focused at 1700 mi above the surface. Possibly the nearby lateral paep flow is a product of the paeps penetrating earth along with a remnant of the stream of paeps from the sun.

Imagine then that the distance of maximum self supported rotation then might be 1,700 miles above earth. All higher orbits receive gradually less rotational push as a percentage of all push. By extension, the more distant moon goes slower than earth=s surface. By extension, more distant bodies with even less percent of rotational push would revolve even slower, as do the planets around the sun.

To relate sideways velocity with altitude, assume that gravitation is the >ether=. Originally, due to its bending effect upon gravitation, the sun causes a sideways imbalance at the distance of a planet such as earth. The imbalance provides not only a sideways push causing revolution, but also an imbalance causing rotation.
The mass of affected particles plays a major roll in determinations of orbiting. The downward push of gravity dictates what can exist in all the different radial distances from the surface. Near the surface, the sideways push can only carry clouds, which are of such light molecular weight that the sideways motion is enough to counterbalance the downward push. Anything heavier obviously falls down. The higher up you go from the surface, the greater the mass that can exist and be subject to the slower sideways push that occurs there. Higher up, a mass incurs less downward gravitational push as per the Newtonian laws.

There is a cycle of solar system gravitation. Gravitation from the central body attracts and pushes its orbitals. The rotation that has been applied to its orbitals (planets) then determines where the sub orbitals (moons) can exist and how they revolve. It also affects their rotation. Our moon exists in a three step grandfather (sun), father (earth), son (moon) relationship of singular entities. Gravity that creates equilibrium on earth is not distorted in nearby regions by other bodies. Since there is a singular source (the earth) that affects our moon, the moon is pushed directly sideways throughout its orbit such that it shows the same face to earth throughout. Multiple moon situations cause various sideways pushes from their planet and between the moons.

One last mention of the Coriolis force is that it causes rotations such as hurricanes due to bending of the air flows especially toward the equator. This similarity between wind and my paep flows amplifies the logic of my bending paep streams causing rotation or spin within the ether.

paul schroeder
2007-Nov-26, 04:01 PM
Energy to Mass - The Existence and Growth of Mass

I discussed the creation of mass. But what is energy? Energy is contained within mass per Einstein=s E=MC 2 formula. A paep has none of what we call energy. I claim that spin defines mass, defines the density of mass, and also the energy included within that mass. Energy is local activity, and the essence of a local activity is motion. In order to remain local, that motion must rotate in place and thus represent spin. Obtaining energy from mass means releasing some of the spin. Nuclear plants and bombs represent this activity. They follow the logic of Einstein=s mass to energy conversion. I have touched on the mass energy conversion working in reverse as energy to mass conversion. To continue this subject I will relate it to the solar system creation discussed above.

Particle conversion begins as paeps impact within a massive body. The series of impacts may cause a bending of the flow stream, an angular force being applied to the otherwise straight line flow of the paeps. At some distance in space the angularly moving paeps, which were bent by the sun's internal and external rotations, cause a ripple effect upon the otherwise normal pattern of paeps coming from all directions. Normal space is now is sufficiently interrupted at the place in question, to undergo change.

This change may occur throughout space while being more pronounced at certain distances. In the expanse of space these ripples may be limited to causing the simplest buildup. It is the process by which hydrogen is formed and disbursed throughout space. These ripples now define pieces of mass because there is spin. The ripples achieve spin due to the angular stream of paeps being affected by other streams at the merge point.

How does this activity become spin? To answer this question note that all atoms have zero net charge, consisting of electron charges offsetting proton charges. Since we start with no spin nor electric charge, and end up with an atom, we might say that something has fractured empty space at the point of this new existence. For a preliminary view, within a region of turbulence, angular paeps are striking others and in the process instigating local spin. Given Newton's law 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction', the initial local net zero spin condition must be retained by creation of an offsetting opposite spin. Therefore, a minus and a plus spin are simultaneously created. These spins define the charges known as electrons and protons. By extension, the existence of mass implies spin and vice versa.

Turbulence is like a tidal action. Tidal action occurs because there is no longer the equality of paeps from all directions. The tidal interaction in its mildest form initially causes a wave. A more intense tidal action advances to create a local rotation. The more compact this rotation becomes the more it serves as a spin. The paep stream creates an eddy suggesting the electron cloud while the cloud center becomes the proton absent the electron type of spin. This tidal creation of mass by paeps is similar to the findings that two photons can collide and disappear, leaving the mass bodies, an electron, and a positron which both possess offsetting spin. These particles are antimatter because their characteristics match each other and nothing protects one from the other. The spins will soon remerge into emptiness. Electrons and protons are different from each other and protected from each other as described so they don=t anhilate each other. Mass seems to have been created from nowhere because spin was introduced.

Consider my paep streams being launched from the sun and thus having a path which includes some sideways motion because of the suns rotation. A net pressure from other paep streams that this stream encounters tends to increase the bending over time (gravitationally), much like the velocity of a falling object increases over time. Given enough total distance of travel from the sun, the stream of paeps might suggest a hyperbolic path or even a highly elliptical orbit of the sun itself. I am suggesting the gradual increase of bending.

Rather than the stream simply orbiting, when the bend becomes sharp enough, it reaches a vortex point. There the stream becomes bent past the horizontal relative to the source, and continues to be rapidly bent and forms a loop like a shoelace loop. After looping the paeps in the stream then continue on their way approximately in the direction they was previously going. The loop itself stays put and is quickly subject to paep pressure from all sides thus compacting as densely as possible.

The inside of the loop is a nucleus. Outside of it the paep stream orbits once around the center, retaining the loop concept. Then the paeps continue on. At that region paeps are performing as electrons, suggesting spin simply via orbiting, and then continuing to travel at the speed >c=. The new loop center is a nucleus representing matter and it remains in its place. The electron cloud region is the constantly changing loop of paeps. Each new paep performs as its predecessor paep, being from the same stream with the same background. The resulting object suggests a hydrogen atom.

Now a second stream might bend at the same location. The existence of the first nucleus might even encourage others. The second stream repeats the looping and is squeezed such that its center joins the prior center. So we have two nucleons and two electron streams, and now helium. The 3 dimensional (spherical) ways these streams can intersect limits the possible wrappings. The two streams may be perpendicular to each other. If more streams are added they wrap further out and their center is less compacted to possibly represent neutrons as well as protons.

Thinking back to action within a mass, the flow of paeps through the bow/loop of the atom suggests that this same event happening within a massive body will cause a diminishing of the force of paeps as they pass through heavenly bodies and exhibit less force upon exiting.

Modifying or interfering with a paep stream just before it flows into an atom/loop can cause the paep cloud to suddenly show a different electron pattern. We recognize this as quantum jumps in the steps occupied by electrons. From this point many development ideas may describe larger atoms, radioactivity, mass/energy distinction etc.

The same clock concept used previously in describing planet building showing greater pressure at 5 o'clock and spin determined by excessive gravitation paeps passing to one side of center applies in the atomic world. The rotation of electrons must be relative to something. So, in this case rotation is identified as relative to the nucleus area. The more disturbance there is, the greater the spin. The initial spin forms the lightest element of mass, a hydrogen atom. As more spin is added, the atom becomes a heavier and denser element. This progression continues throughout the periodic table of elements. The topic becomes more complicated as you consider whether what has been created forms adjacent atoms or extra spin within a single atom.

Paeps and mass particles together form a complete spectrum of existence depending on the degree of their wave frequency and spin.

Extending the 'paeps creating planets= perspective, the same type of action that builds up the planet occurs on a continuing basis in the micro range. The end result is a slowly growing mass as paeps gain spin and are converted into mass.

Internal interactions can release photons, which then take the place of some paeps upon exiting the sun. Since paeps define space, volumes of space would be lost if we just accepted the LeSage shadowing concept showing more emptiness between two massive bodies. We need replacements for the absorbed paeps. The replacements include particles such as photons. Note that, by extension, gravity is what ultimately causes the interactions from which light and heat are created and released by heavenly bodies such as our sun. Nothing is really burned up or used up even by particle conversion within a sun. Its output is simply a converted form of the gravity paeps entering it on the opposite side.

captain swoop
2007-Nov-26, 05:12 PM
A nice story, wheres the evidence?

paul schroeder
2007-Dec-14, 10:33 PM
I do not seem to be able to post my responses to Nereid in my first 2 strings as they are closed, so I will post them here.

String 1.
I address first your words about testing. My idea can be tested in principle. By assuming a velocity based on redshift and finding velocity varies with distance, cosmological redshift theory determines an amount of redshift associated with the distance of a star or galaxy. I believe the formula for working back to determine redshift given distance would be z=HD/C. H=Hubles constant, D= distance in mega parsecs, C=speed of light. It is that amount of redshift that should modify the results If one does a form of the Pound Rebka test.

There are no observations supporting my idea since no appropriate tests, including the three I mentioned, have been done. If such tests could be and had been done then someone already would have corrected the theory of cosmological redshift. It is because the tests haven’t been done that I am now the one providing the sensible explanation of redshift across space.

You keep bypassing my answer to question 3c. Cosmological redshift leads to universal expansion which violates the known workings of gravity and its force that brings together masses. That alone supports my idea. As I mentioned early on, my idea presently must rely on logic. That is the logic of applying scientific principles. It seems like the mainstream would rather support the religion of cosmological redshift because it is established in people’s minds rather than consider new scientific logic that obeys the laws of physics.

Moving back up to your clouds, emission lines are the component of light that provides wave related repetition and a mark against which frequency can be determined. Absorption lines added to existing emission lines in the radiation by clouds would seem to disturb the calculation of the redshift of the beam. Analysis must be able to overcome this in order for cosmological redshift determinations to be matched back to the source and describe the overall redshift of its light. Perhaps original emission lines remain identifiable. I am not familiar with the process. The basis of my submission is to distinguish between cosmological – motion away redshift – and ongoing gravitational redshift. Your clouds should affect both types of redshift similarly. The distance gravitational redshift idea does have redshift caused by a mix of slowing and stretching of the waves whereas cosmological redshift is exclusively wave stretching. However I cannot picture how the appearance of absorption lines can distinguish between the two. Finally, if a different source were located in place of the cloud, then that source would provide the light and subsequent redshift would begin at that distance.

paul schroeder
2007-Dec-14, 10:36 PM
Response to Nereid for string 2.

It appears from your post that I am not to challenge mainstream ideas, with which you are challenging me, by asking questions. I don’t know how to further address plasma especially as I am not very familiar with it. Hopefully sometime early next year I will have a chance to reference your question and answer section with these and other questions. Since challenges to this thread have focused on the micro world via spin and plasma, rather than on the macro issues, I am not prepared to further promote it here at this time. The other issue you just inserted referred to dark energy and dark matter which I believe to be unnecessary within my first thread which eliminates universal expansion. There is much further development of macro issues that relate to this string, but including them at this time would complicate the issues further.

I have appreciated the opportunity to post my ideas on ATM. You have a good site and the feedback is valuable. Time constraints and learning issues make it difficult to continue defending this string at this time.

RussT
2007-Dec-15, 01:35 AM
The other issue you just inserted referred to dark energy and dark matter which I believe to be unnecessary within my first thread which eliminates universal expansion.

Just to clear up one thing, that I have shown in many other threads, before this thread is closed by a Mod, because of pauls self proclaimed time restraints, or time running out...

Non-Baryonic Dark Matter has Nothing to do with the expansion OR non-expansion of the universe. (ETA: actually, I should say "Expansion from a Point")

The only thing that could be responsible for ANY expansion of the universe, IF it exists, is Inflationary Vacuum energy, Hubble Flow Vacuum energy and the accelerated expansion energy...which are ALL Dark Energy! It is just that the name "Dark Energy" as a placeholder for what it "Might be" has been assigned to the "Accelerated Expansion" portion of all parts of any 'expansion' that might be taking place.

Nereid
2007-Dec-16, 12:23 AM
I do not seem to be able to post my responses to Nereid in my first 2 strings as they are closed, so I will post them here.That is because those two threads had reached their 30-day limit (per Fraser's announcement, in a sticky at the top of the ATM section). Note that the closing of ATM threads, when they reach their 30-day limit, is automatic, and no mod can reverse it.
String 1.
I address first your words about testing. My idea can be tested in principle. By assuming a velocity based on redshift and finding velocity varies with distance, cosmological redshift theory determines an amount of redshift associated with the distance of a star or galaxy. I believe the formula for working back to determine redshift given distance would be z=HD/C. H=Hubles constant, D= distance in mega parsecs, C=speed of light. It is that amount of redshift that should modify the results If one does a form of the Pound Rebka test.

There are no observations supporting my idea since no appropriate tests, including the three I mentioned, have been done. If such tests could be and had been done then someone already would have corrected the theory of cosmological redshift. It is because the tests haven’t been done that I am now the one providing the sensible explanation of redshift across space.

You keep bypassing my answer to question 3c. Cosmological redshift leads to universal expansion which violates the known workings of gravity and its force that brings together masses. That alone supports my idea. As I mentioned early on, my idea presently must rely on logic. That is the logic of applying scientific principles. It seems like the mainstream would rather support the religion of cosmological redshift because it is established in people’s minds rather than consider new scientific logic that obeys the laws of physics.

Moving back up to your clouds, emission lines are the component of light that provides wave related repetition and a mark against which frequency can be determined. Absorption lines added to existing emission lines in the radiation by clouds would seem to disturb the calculation of the redshift of the beam. Analysis must be able to overcome this in order for cosmological redshift determinations to be matched back to the source and describe the overall redshift of its light. Perhaps original emission lines remain identifiable. I am not familiar with the process. The basis of my submission is to distinguish between cosmological – motion away redshift – and ongoing gravitational redshift. Your clouds should affect both types of redshift similarly. The distance gravitational redshift idea does have redshift caused by a mix of slowing and stretching of the waves whereas cosmological redshift is exclusively wave stretching. However I cannot picture how the appearance of absorption lines can distinguish between the two. Finally, if a different source were located in place of the cloud, then that source would provide the light and subsequent redshift would begin at that distance.As the thread presenting your ATM idea is closed, I think it best to not try to continue presenting it - or answering questions on it - here.

If and when you develop your idea to the point where it is ready for submission to arXiv as a preprint, or when some similarly significant development occurs, please start a new thread in the ATM section.

If you have questions about, or wish to comment on, how BAUT's ATM section works - the policy announced on 1 March this year, for example - please use the About BAUT section. Please note that there are already quite a few, lengthy, threads that are - very likely - quite relevant.

Nereid
2007-Dec-16, 01:15 AM
Response to Nereid for string 2.

It appears from your post that I am not to challenge mainstream ideas, with which you are challenging me, by asking questions.If you have a question - 'why is EMR (electromagnetic radiation) with frequencies below the plasma frequency of the medium not able to propagate in such a medium?', for example - then the best thing is to start a thread in BAUT's Q&A section with just such a question. That way you are much more likely to a) get an answer (not very many BAUT members are as kind as Celestial Mechanic, in the ATM section), and b) get your question read by folk both well-versed in the relevant physics and prepared to take the trouble to answer (many BAUT members avoid this ATM section).

If you are, truly, presenting an ATM idea - 'EMR with frequencies below the plasma frequency of the medium are, contrary to standard textbook plasma physics, able to propagate freely', for example - then you should be prepared to answer questions on such an ATM idea.

And an implication in your post is correct: here in the ATM section, things are quite asymmetric, in that those presenting ATM ideas are required to answer direct, pertinent questions on those ideas (as presented), while questions on standard, textbook material do not require answers, no matter how fervently you may believe such material to be in error.
I don’t know how to further address plasma especially as I am not very familiar with it. Hopefully sometime early next year I will have a chance to reference your question and answer section with these and other questions. Since challenges to this thread have focused on the micro world via spin and plasma, rather than on the macro issues, I am not prepared to further promote it here at this time. The other issue you just inserted referred to dark energy and dark matter which I believe to be unnecessary within my first thread which eliminates universal expansion. There is much further development of macro issues that relate to this string, but including them at this time would complicate the issues further.For the record, I don't recall any mention of dark matter (DM) or dark energy (DE) by Nereid (a different BAUT member introduced them into this thread).
I have appreciated the opportunity to post my ideas on ATM. You have a good site and the feedback is valuable. Time constraints and learning issues make it difficult to continue defending this string at this time.Thanks for the appreciation.

When you have developed your ideas further, you may wish to consider a new presentation. In the meantime, why not take advantage of the huge breadth and depth of experience and expertise BAUT members, collectively, have, by asking questions about mainstream astronomy, space science, astrophysics, and cosmology in the Q&A section?