Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #31 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.

Subject: experiment of fiberglass panels, that redshift is about
geometry, not speed

In fact I do not need the corrugations but only a flat sheet of
fiberglass
and the more of angle I tilt it from perpendicular the more of a
redshift I get.


And in fact, I need no motion in the white light that comes through
the
fiberglass. Just a stationary white light from the distance gives a
redshift.
So the motion of a white light whether coming towards or going away
is irrelevant to producing a redshift. The redshift is caused
totally
by
refraction and the distance away of the white light source and the
power
of that white light.


Here is a entry by Wikipedia on refraction and showing redshift:


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


Now scroll down to the pictu "refraction in Perspex (acrylic)
block"


Notice the redshift of that initial white light beam.


So how does this affect the Big Bang theory? Well, it was assumed
that
when
the redshift of galaxies was discovered, that it meant the Universe
originated in
a Big Bang explosion and that these galaxies are moving away causing
a
Doppler
redshift and thus they are moving at nearly the speed of light.


With this experiment we have a better explanation of redshift in an
Atom Totality.
The curvature of Space of the 5f6 of the 231Pu Atom Totality is
highly
curved
lobes, ellipsoids, and as white light travels from distant galaxies
it
is bent since
Space is bent and it thus refracts the white light. Depending on
distance and
power of that white light source yields a redshift.


So in the Big Bang, the redshift is an explosion effect with speeds
causing a
redshift. In the Atom Totality, the speeds of galaxies are
immaterial,
and whether
they are going towards us or away from us. The redshift is caused
solely by the
extreme curvature of Space over long distances.


The favorite explanation is the Atom Totality because it dismisses
the
nonsense
that galaxies can have speeds nearly that of light, when anyone
knows
that
it takes infinite energy to get a heavy object moving near the speed
of light.
And that Special Relativity theory is violated by having galaxies
speeding with
nearly that of light. And Resonance energy comes into play whenever
speeds
of astro bodies exceed that of about 500 km/sec. Galaxies just rip
apart or
disintegrate with speeds higher than 500 km/sec.


So it is not that the Big Bang is supported and vouched for with the
redshift. But
rather instead the redshift shows how much the Big Bang is a fake
theory of
science. And the only reason any astronomer or physicist still
believes in the Big
Bang, is the same reason that they could not accept Quantum
Mechanics
in the
early 1900s, because a mind reaches an age in which it is never able
to change
and adapt to the new truths. There are still people who deny that
the
earth is round
not flat and that deny that atoms exist. And we should not assume
that
scientists
are immune to denial-phases in history.


I wish every chapter of this book had an experiment with it, and
such
an easy experiment
that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High
School students can
perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated
piece
for the corrugation
only gets in the way.


I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be
about
1929. Now I need
to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval
atom". It must have
been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier.


Now the idea and the experiment that the redshift is the geometry of
space and has
nothing to do with speed of galaxies or the speed of cosmic
expansion,
but simply
the idea that as white light travels in highly curved space over
long
distances causes
a refractive redshift.


So that the redshift of faraway galaxies was never due to a explosion
and expansion
of the Cosmos, but merely a result of white light traveling far
distances in a curved
space.


So this brings me to the logical conclusion that 3 dimensional
Elliptic geometry
needs to be detailed or discussed or made progress on. We know the
sphere
surface is a model of Elliptic geometry but that is 2 dimensional
Elliptic geometry.
Here we need 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry, because the lobes of
the 5f6
of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality is 3rd dimensional Elliptic
geometry. And we
need this 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry in order to see or
understand how
white light travelling in this bent space becomes redshifted. We
cannot expect
white light from a galaxy on the pole when it reaches the equator
with
a galaxy
there to see a redshift because that is a two dimensional medium.


So I am going to take the most obvious suggestion of a solution since
we
cannot visualize 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry. I am going to
say
that
3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry is the surface of the sphere and
is
a layer
of the sphere above and below the surface. Now how thick this layer
is,
is not clear to me as yet and am hoping that by the chapter on
dodecahedron space on the
shape of the Cosmos, that this suggestion is good.


Now how thick that 3rd dimension layer is, would be governed by the
Dirac positron space that gives the force of gravity. So is this
layer
about the
thickness of a galaxy? Seems kind of arbitrary.


Now here I am sort of guided by the astronomy of Earth in that we
have
a
huge magnetic field surrounding Earth. So let me be guided by that
image
and to say that the 3rd dimension is a layer that is the thickness
of
the magnetic
field surrounding a galaxy and that as we get into space where there
are no
galaxies the layer is the thinnest but still a layer.


So my image of 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry of the Universe is a
sphere surface
covered by "lenses" where one lense is contiguous to other lenses
and
the thickness
of these lenses is the thickness of the magnetic field surround
galaxies. So that when
a white light wave leaves a distant galaxy it travels through these
lenses and when
it reaches Earth is redshifted.


The idea of lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic, sort of reminds
me of Leibniz's monads.
He called them monads but I call them lenses.


And the idea of lenses reminds me of the Luminet team's research into
the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space where traveling in one of the 12 faces ends up in
travelling down
an identical face. So the face is just repeated in the next face.
Likewise when in
a lense of Elliptic geometry, you can just go round and round inside
that lense.


So basically this post is about how a light wave travels in Elliptic
geometry and is redshifted,
just as the light is redshifted from oncoming cars by the fiberglass
panel. I need a
3 dimension for the light wave to be refracted and redshifted.


The easiest solution is to think of lenses as the 3rd dimension of
elliptic geometry.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Subject: experiment that redshift is about geometry, not speed

Surprize to me, for it looks as though the Big Bang theory arose
afterwards
of the Hubble redshift announcement that the distance to faraway
galaxies
was proportional to the redshift.


For it looks as though Lemaitre announced the Big Bang "primeval atom
explosion" after 1929, in the 1930s.


So the history has to be rechecked on the sequence of events. I had
thought
that the Big Bang idea was extant before Hubble's redshift
announcement, but
it looks as though the Big Bang was not extant.


The history of the Atom Totality theory is very clear. It was borne
on
7 November,
1990 with the announcement that the Universe is a big atom of
Plutonium.

The easiest solution is to think of a lenses as the 3rd dimension of
elliptic geometry.

If I am not mistaken, I believe the Luminet interpretation of the
Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is a 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. What
allows
a
3rd dimension is the 12 faces of the dodecahedron return to the
original face.
So that as you travel along one face and meet a second face you are
travelling
back through the first face. In this geometry, Space, stars and
galaxies repeat themselves. And that idea is going to be hard for
me to fathom.


So if I am not mistaken, If I substitute a face with a huge lense and
there
would be 12 lenses altogether in the Poincare Dodecahedral Space.
That
such
a model would be 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry.


And so the travel of light from one galaxy to another galaxy is
always
travelling
inside this lense medium and is refracted. The further away two
galaxies are
means that light travels through the thickness portion of the lense.


I am anxious to look up any blueshifted galaxy. Because I feel that
the blueshift
is able to separate the true conjectures from the false conjectures.
If I am correct
about lenses, then the blueshift should conform. In all these years
from 1990 to
2011, I have not focused on what galaxies are blueshifted, and it is
fun to now
have to explore what are blueshifted, if any.

The blueshifting is going to be more nettlesome than any other thing
about shift in wavelength. And let me say something about Logic and
the
Doppler shift for sound waves but where physics has never proven that
light waves can be Doppler shifted. So let us take two firm beliefs of
the Big Bang community for they believe light is Doppler shifted
depending on speed
and whether the galaxies are coming towards us or away from us, but
another tenet of the Big Bang theory is that every point in space the
galaxies distant from that point in space are all receding away from
the given point. So as you draw a point on a balloon as Earth and then
other points and blow up the balloon, all the other points are going
to recede away from Earth. So in the Big Bang theory there should not
be any blueshifts at all.

In the Atom Totality theory, since curvature is what causes shifting
and not speeds or whether galaxies are coming toward us or away from
us, then
blueshift is possible for galaxies that are young and bright in hot
stars, blue stars and the space between them and us is rather flat
with no curvature. My point is that blueshift should be occasional but
rare in
Atom Totality but blueshift should be impossible in Big Bang due to
the overall expansion. Such a shame so few astronomers or physicists
have
enough logic to cover a topic of science, that they cannot examine
ideas and what those ideas imply and then lead to.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Subject: does the blueshift support the Atom Totality more than the
Big Bang?

The title is appropriate because the blueshift is a tricky item to
explain. Overall
the explanation is easier, far easier with the Atom Totality than with
the Big Bang.

In the Atom Totality explanation we have a blueshift when a galaxy is
not in a highly
curved portion of the Cosmos relative to observer and where the stars
within that galaxy
are blue hot stars. So that it is a phenomenon not of the shifting of
light wavelength as a Doppler
shift but rather where the predominant wavelength we see is blue light
from the galaxy.
So in the Atom Totality explanation we can see blueshift of light from
distant galaxies
which would be a contradiction for the Big Bang theory. So if there
are galaxies, and I am
reasonably convinced there are some reported galaxies far away that
are blueshifted yet would
make no sense in the Big Bang theory.

- Show quoted text -
--- quoting from Wikipedia on blueshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift


*The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards our own Milky Way Galaxy
within the Local Group; thus, when observed from earth, its light is
undergoing a blue shift.
*When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning towards us will
have a slight blue shift (see Tully-Fisher relation).
*Also, Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets towards us,
emitting synchrotron radiation and Bremsstrahlung that appears blue
shifted.
*Nearby stars such as Barnard's Star are moving towards us,
resulting
in a very small blue shift.
--- end quoting from Wikipedia blueshift ---


--- quoting about a quasar blueshift ---
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2005ApJ...618...


*We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) of
the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III]
emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 relative
to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG
1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow-
line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date among
type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs).
--- end quoting ---

Now in the above quote about spiral galaxies having one arm as
blueshifted
is mostly misleading for it is a tiny blueshift and also, it should be
mentioned
that in the arms closer to the observer are likely to be hot blue
shining stars
to account for that tiny blue shift. So before this book on Atom
Totality, these
arm reports of blueshift were bogus evidence of a Doppler blueshift.

I need to look into these reported blueshifts. I think most of them
are due to rotational
speeds such as the quasar report above, and that most of them are so
tiny and small of a blueshift as to be insignificant. But in the Atom
Totality explanation that there is no Doppler shift of light at all,
that
the explanation is whether a galaxy is in a curved region of space and
thus
the light is redshifted due to refraction by curved space and whenever
there is
a blueshift, it is due to being not in a highly curved region of Space
and that
galaxy has a predominant hot blue stars in the viewers line of sight.


I am unsure as to "occurrence predictions", what the Big Bang theory
predicts according to the
occurrence of
blueshifts and what the Atom Totality predicts according to the
blueshift occurrence. Whether the Big Bang predicts more occurrences
of blueshifts than the Atom Totality. According
to the fiberglass window on approaching white light auto headlamps,
all of them were
redshifted. So does the Atom Totality predict more blueshifts since
there
are more regions relatively not curved? And
should the Big Bang
theory predict far fewer blueshifts considering the Big Bang
explosion and
expansion is a uniform expansion that has every galaxy committed to a
expansion
motion?

In the next chapter I am going to give a Experimentum-Crucis that
destroys the
Doppler light shift and for the Big Bang without a Doppler light shift
then the
question of redshift or blueshift makes no sense at all in the Big
Bang theory
for the redshift has no mechanism in the Big Bang theory. For the Atom
Totality theory
the redshift is all due to geometry of Space, the more curved the more
redshift
by refraction. And where there is blueshift simply means a less curved
space and
a predominance of hot blue stars.

In the Atom Totality, all of a sudden the Cosmos is smaller and
shrinks tremendously
in size because the redshift is no longer a measure of distance but a
measure of where
there is a lot of Space curvature and where Space is rather flat
relative to observer.



Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies