|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #35 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.
Now I did this fiberglass experiment in 2010 and had some glitches
occur, but that is good because all experiments have glitches that need to be ironed out. If one reads about someone doing an experiment in science and reports no glitches is an experiment to be suspicious thereof. Subject: Redshift Experiment became hugely more complicated Well I repeated the experiment tonight, only outside of my house. For I took a single panel 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5 millimeters. Now I do not know how science of optics describes these panels. Whether they are translucent for they are not clear, and whether they are opaque and the difference between opaque and translucent. They are fiberglass and you can see white streaks inside. And if I held a sheet of paper with handwriting on it, if held up close to the panel, one can read the writing but at a tiny distance away, the writing is too blurred to read. The panel comes from a small greenhouse, much like a small shed bought in Lowes lumber yard. The greenhouse could not stand up to the South Dakota winds so I cut it and use it inside the house. It is this use that I began to notice redshifting of auto headlights coming towards me. So I took this panel outside the house for I was getting too much in house reflections that may have contributed to a redshift. So to eliminate the in house reflection, I went to the side of the road and to conduct the experiment directly on the autos and headlights. Immediately I spotted all the white light headlights were redshifted coming towards me. Only when the autos were close by, could I see any white light from their headlights. When they were at a far distance these white lights were redshifted, and their was a maximum redshift at a specific distance. This is the same distance at which the opposite traffic exposing their taillights of red vanished from view in the panel. So in other words, when a car's taillights of red are in view of my panel, I see a bright red in the panel but at a select distance away, the auto red light vanishes in the panel and is black, but removing the panel, I still see the red light. And it is this distance at which is the maximum redshifting of the oncoming white light. Now the tilting of the panel has some role in the lateral spreading out of the redshift but not of the intensity of the redshift. Now if I tilted the panel to becoming more and more parallel to the road itself, there was a point at which the whitelight was able to be seen instead of the predominant redshift. So now, this is proof that the Cosmic Redshift, need not be a Doppler Effect of an expanding Universe wherein Space is moving at the speed of light or greater and carrying along with it the galaxies. In fact, this experiment points out that the speed of an object is immaterial in causing a redshift, because the white headlights should be blueshifted, yet none were blueshifted. All were redshifted. So what this experiment implies is that the Geometry of the Cosmos, or the curvature of the Cosmos, or perhaps, the opaqueness of the Cosmos causes a redshift. I returned inside my house to see to what extent that reflections off walls plays in the redshift and had a lamp near a white painted wall surface. The lamp itself was white and not redshifted but the reflection of the white light on the nearby surface was redshifted. So to some extent, reflected light can be redshifted and I do not know the physical explanation of how the interior walls can reflect the light so that the fiberglass panels cause a redshift. And I tried experimenting with obtaining a blueshift. I took a white light lamp and I vigorously waved the sheet back and forth, and I suspect I obtained a blueshift, however it was too small to be assured. The implications of this experiment are grand, because it offers a more simple explanation of Cosmic Redshift of galaxies. An explanation that does not depend on the speed of galaxies, nor their distance, nor a convoluted concept of Space in motion. This experiment should win over the Doppler redshift of light waves simply by the logical application of Occam's Razor, that the most simple explanation is usually the correct explanation. In fact, we can probably decipher what the curvature of Space or the opaqueness of space, or the width of Space is from the redshift data. If we have enough reliable redshifts and the motion of those bodies derived not from Hubble's style law, but derived from other tests of motion, that we should be able to describe the geometry and curvature of Space. So what I suspect will happen is that we can gather the data of cosmic redshift and gather the data of the motion of astro bodies, without the reliance on redshift, but the motion derived by other means. And then we can compute what the curvature or width or the geometry of Space has to be in order to have the redshift that we currently have. One explanation of the physics of redshift of reflected light is, I am guessing a sort of blackbody cavity effect. Earlier, I had argued that a big difference between the Big Bang theory and Atom Totality theory is that the Big Bang assumes Space is only 2D on the surface of some balloon like sphere that is inflating bigger. Whereas the Atom Totality theory attempts to set the Cosmos into a 3D Elliptic geometry. So the Big Bang is stuck in 2D Elliptic and the Atom Totality goes into 3D Elliptic, by saying the 3rd dimension in 3D Elliptic is sort of like a thickness to the surface of a globe. It is not the entire interior of the globe but like a lens thickness. So that white light when traveling in this lens thickness medium is refracted so that we see a redshift. But another possibility is that 3D Elliptic is the entire interior. So let me entertain you and myself with that prospect. On Earth, the thickness 3D would be to say that of the bottom of the oceans and all surfaces. But let us say that we are affixed to the interior of Earth and can see across the interior to all other points. Here the interior would be hollow and transparent. The galaxies would all reside on some point of this interior shell and send us light across the interior. And everything above the surface of this globe is nonobservable. So here I have outlined two possible 3D Elliptic geometries. (1) the outer surface of a sphere and it has a thickness of its surface to provide the 3rd dimension and where the interior is nonobservable and beyond the surface is nonobservable. In this model, a distant galaxy light reaches us after it is bent around until we actually come in sight of the bent light and thus redshifted. (2) the second model of 3D Elliptic is the interior of Earth is hollow but is the 3rd dimension. In this model light from a distant galaxy shots straight across in the hollow zone medium and is observed. And some may argue that this cannot be Elliptic geometry but rather Euclidean, and I would say it is only the behaviour of light, but the motion of all other objects is in Elliptic. Now the reason I am bringing these ideas up, is that if the redshift of my interior house of the reflections of white light lamps onto the fiberglass panels is a blackbody effect supports the notion of 3D Elliptic as a hollow interior globe. Now what is neat about the hollow interior is that it allows for alot of blueshifting in the local neighbors for they would be "seemingly coming at us". Whereas on the exterior surface, the local neighbors would be seemingly spreading out and moving away from us. And a bonus feature of the 3D Elliptic as the hollow interior is that all galaxies are visible and observable. Well, I wrote the above in year 2010 and was not cognizant of the Luminet team physicists reporting on a dodecahedral Space wherein lying within a face that we return to the starting point, in other words, the dodecahedral space is a similar accounting as what I tried above by including the interior or Earth. P.S. I am having this debate with myself as to whether to have this chapter precede the chapter where I prove physics cannot have a Doppler shift of light waves, or whether to have that proof first and then have the fiberglass experiment the next chapter. Since in this 5th edition I have the fiberglass chapter first, I think I shall continue but in the 6th edition, the logic demands that the nonexistent Doppler shift comes first, for there is no use, no need to even bring up Doppler redshift of galaxies if none can exist. Also, in these editions, a reader is getting not only physics data, but is getting the history of how I discovered these items. 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #36 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.
Redshift Experiment became hugely more complicated
Note that this experiment was conducted in 2010 and now I am reviewing and editing in 2011. Tonight I wanted to recheck my observations and the accuracy of my report: - Show quoted text - I rechecked stationary street lights and other stationary light fixtures. A few of these stationary lights that had a yellowish tinge resulted in a redshift with the panel. But bright white lights that are stationary have no redshift. So what I am thinking is that the lamp itself may be prone to redshifting if the candescence is lower than a brighter white light. Now that may offer a quick and easy solution to blueshift of cosmic bodies and why the Atom Totality theory has more blueshifting than does the Big Bang theory. (3) Then I reached the side of the highway of SD 50 that goes from Yankton to Vermillion. And I first observed a line of oncoming white lights at about 5 km distance from me. All of these vehicles with white headlights were redshifted. A big glaring red blotch for their white headlights. They remained redshifted until they were about approx 500 meters from me and then they resumed a white light appearance. Sorry, the 5 km is probably not accurate. Perhaps I can only see about 3 km at maximum, down the road. Also, the white headlights always remained redshifted and only about 500 meters did the redshift begin to wane, and at about 100 meters could I begin to see the white light in glimmers, but throughout, the redshift was present. (4) Next I waited until there were no white lights oncoming to observe the red taillights of vehicles in the opposite direction. The red taillight appeared very red in the fiberglass panel, and about approx 3 km away from me, the red taillight disappeared from view in the panel but as I removed the panel I could see the red taillight with my naked eye. So I figure that the "redshifting effect" caused by the fiberglass had cancelled the redlight of the taillight at that specific distance of 3km. More accurately, probably about 1km distance not 3km, did the red taillight vanish from the panel but where my naked eyes could still see them. (5) So in summary, stationary white lights are white lights in the panel. Oncoming moving white headlights are redshifted in the panel from 5 km out to about 500 meters distance from the panel. Red taillights of opposite moving vehicles remain red until about a distance of 3km away where they vanished completely. Here again, I can probably only see about 3km down the road at maximum and the vanishing of the red taillight occurs at about 1km. And the oncoming white headlights were always redshifted but that the redshifting diminishes somewhat at 500 meters or less. - Show quoted text - I am beginning to think or suspect that this phenomenon is a mix of refraction and scattering of light in the panel of fiberglass. The important feature is that a motion towards the observer creates a redshift and unlike Doppler and Hubble's law, oncoming white light as redshifted is opposite of what Doppler and Hubble concluded. So I can begin to assess the value of the collected observations of galaxies and stars to date. If the Big Bang is correct, then there is a predominance of redshifting since all the galaxies would be moving away from the Milky Way. And blueshift in the Big Bang should be extremely rare, and no blueshifts for distant galaxies. The Atom Totality using the above fiberglass experiment to imply that the redshift is some intrinsic property of the Atom Totality such as curvature or intergalactic opaqueness implies that galaxies that are relatively motionless with respect to the Earth and Milky Way can be seen as no-shifting or even a blueshift and it matters not about distance, so long as the galaxy is relatively motionless to Earth. But if the galaxy is moving towards Earth or away from Earth, it will be redshifted. So in the Atom Totality there is a lot more blueshifting than in the Big Bang. And I believe the current state of knowledge on all the observed shifting supports the Atom Totality. I recently posted about news of a very far away galaxy that is blueshifted. This is conflicting news for the Big Bang, but quite a common feature of the Atom Totality. And so many of the local galaxies are blueshifted because they are relatively motionless with respect to Earth. And there is a very nice way of deciding if the Opaqueness is true and the Doppler redshifting is false. The Opaqueness implies that we can have rapid motion towards Earth and still be highly redshifted. So there must have been quite alot of cases of redshifting of galaxies which were originally thought to be speeding away from Earth, but upon closer examination were actually coming towards Earth yet having a redshift. Now there is some sadness in this reporting of the experiment because in the chapter on galactic density and distribution, and that mapping was based on redshift. So I am afraid that a new concept of what causes redshifts is going to vastly jeopardize all that mapping which would have to be revised. The distances are no longer so large, but rather, the Cosmos has shrunk exponentally. Question: would I be correct in surmizing that the amount of blueshift of galaxies observed is close to about 25% of all the shifts seen? And another interesting feature of Opaqueness Generated Redshift, is that there would be a lot more galaxies that have no-shift. And that is not what a Big Bang would predict since they have a Space expansion, and thus either a blueshift or redshift, but not a no-shift. Funny, how no-one before me had the insight to go out and put a sheet of fiberglass to see if a oncoming headlight is redshifted. But of course I have to be humble about this myself, since I only found it by accident, that I bought a greenhouse made of fiberglass see through panels, that it was not sturdy enough for the winds. And that I eventually brought it inside the house to make use of it. So only by accident, was I able to find a experiment that threatens to falsify all of Hubble's Law and the Big Bang. 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #36 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.
On Oct 7, 3:04*pm, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: But of course I have to *be humble about *this myself, since I only found it by accident, that I bought a *greenhouse made of *fiberglass see through panels, that it was not sturdy enough for the *winds. And that *I eventually brought it inside the house to make use of it. So only by *accident, was *I able to find a experiment that threatens to falsify all of Hubble's *Law and the Big Bang. Surely, we need a new theory of the Big Bang. Here's the one: In the beginning there was archipoopium. Then it exploded. PPJ. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #33 AtomTotality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 7th 11 08:46 AM |
Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #31 AtomTotality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 6th 11 06:43 PM |
Chapt8 Experiment that shows us what redshift really is #28 AtomTotality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 5th 11 07:31 AM |
Nebular Dust Cloud theory has contradictions #146; 3rd ed; AtomTotality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 15th 09 08:17 AM |
MECO theory to replace black-hole theory #41 ;3rd edition book: ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 8 | May 20th 09 01:17 AM |