Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #37 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.

Subject: if not a Doppler redshift then a refraction and scattering
redshift??

A respondent, WG, in this thread suggested this maybe a form of
scattering in the fiberglass panels. There are many forms of
scattering.
But as for the Cosmic redshift of galaxies I believe we have a case of
refraction, much like a Cosmic prism that as light travels in space
the lens shape of the 5f6 of Plutonium Atom Totality refracts the
light
and we see the reddish color more than refraction of the other colors.

Optics is a complex and detailed science and I claim no expertise in
the subject, but I have enough of an understanding that gets me to the
heart of the issue. I am not saying that the galaxy redshift is
entirely due
to refraction for there maybe a component of scattering along with the
refraction.

WG wrote:
* with the object, most aren't] in a characteristic spectrum in
order to
* notice the shift.
* There is reddening of light but that's due to scattering, a
different
* topic.
* I could give you an example of light being redshifted and
appear
bluer to
* the eye .... but ,,, ahh....
* nevermind.


WG

Probably noone in astronomy today has a good enough handle on these
questions of information:
(1) how much blueshifted galaxies exist and their percentage
overall?
(2) how many stars are red-giants and their percentage overall?
(3) how many stars are blue stars that would give a blueshift if the
refraction was small? As in my fiberglass experiment that a blue lamp
is blue in the fiberglass.


What is known with some confidence is that of the Luminet Poincare
Dodecahedral
Space is far smaller of a Cosmos than is conceived of by Big Bang
believers.
Exponentially smaller of a Cosmos in the Luminet Poincare
Dodecahedral
Space.
The Luminet team uses the Microwave Background Radiation, but am not
sure
whether they totally stay away from ever using the "supposed Big
Bang
redshift."


What I am going to have to do, whether in this edition or some future
edition of this
book is to figure out what would cause a Cosmic redshift that is
equivalent to
the fiberglass translucent panel that turns white lights of a car
into
a redshift.


Is it purely a refraction problem, or a scattering problem or a mix
of
the two?
Probably a mix of the two.


And then I would have to translate that fiberglass panel into what
features of
a 231Pu Atom Totality causes the Cosmic redshift? Is it a purely
geometrical
feature of the Atom Totality or is it far more messy with
intergalactic mediums
that scatter light?


Funny, how the most reliable data and information available is not
the
astronomers
who observed and cataloged all the redshifts and blueshifts, but
rather the
Luminet team working with Microwave Radiation who computed the
Cosmos
as
being far smaller in size than what Big Bang redshifters want you to
believe.


And this is probably going to be a trend that has a lot more fruit to
harvest in the future.
The trend of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation versus the Cosmic
Redshift
data. Both
are cosmic data and somewhat independent. And it is reasonable to
suspect that
one of them can actually falsify the other.


Now I understand very well that my panel of fiberglass is an extreme
case of
redshifting and that the Cosmic redshift is a phenomenon that is
tiny
in relation
to the redshift that I see with the fiberglass. But the point of the
experiment
is that it shows us it is very easy to create a Cosmic Redshift and
that Doppler
Shift has nothing to do with it. For the Doppler shift as I will
prove
in the next chapter is nonexistent. How silly it was for all
physicists
of the 20th century to hear a train whistle being Doppler shifted of
sound waves, and how all the physicists of that century took the
leap of faith without experimental proof that lightwaves can be
Doppler shifted or not Doppler shifted. It was a sorry and sad
state of physics to go from a train whistle sound waves to go from
that, to saying that lightwaves are Doppler shifted. What it shows is
that in the history of the sciences of physics and mathematics, where
both are sciences highly dependent on the experts being "good at
logic"
that most scientists lack logic.

But let me continue with redshift.

At this moment in time, I suspect the explanation for the Cosmic
Redshift is
due mostly to refraction due to the geometry and shape of the lobes
of
the 5f6 of Plutonium Atom Totality, and have a small proportion due to
scattering, for the Cosmos seems to be rather "clear and
clean"
of scattering on a universal scale. So I am prone to think that the
Cosmic
Redshift is due to a geometrical feature of the 231Pu Atom Totality
and so
I think it is a refraction problem. If it were a scattering problem
intrinsic, I think
the scientists would have been alarmed over how messy the Hubble Law
would have become, but the Hubble Law and its observers have rarely
complained over messiness of findings. There are the blueshifts of
very
distant galaxies, but if scattering was involved, I would think the
messiness
of many reported sightings would have occurred. So I am prone to
think
that the Cosmic Redshift is a rather "clean affair." And that would
lead
me to believe it is a refraction problem and thus a geometrical
feature of
the Atom Totality. If the Cosmic Microwave Radiation is so smooth as
to be so difficult to have fluctuations (in fact no fluctuations in
the Atom
Totality since it is blackbody and thus cavity radiation), that such
would
also be the case of Cosmic Redshift be as quantized and smooth.


At this moment, those inductions would lead me to believe the Cosmic
Redshift is a geometry feature and that feature would be the 3rd
dimension
of Elliptic Geometry. No human mind can actually visualize 3D
Elliptic
geometry.
We can easily picture 2D objects on the surface of a sphere as 2D
Elliptic,
but none of us can think in terms of 3D Elliptic. I believe this
Cosmic
Redshift that my fiberglass panel imitates or mimics is the 3rd
dimension
of 3D Elliptic. I am guessing it is a lens shape that refracts
light.
So that the
12 faces of the Poincare Dodecahedral Space is a 12 lens that
compose
that
Space and we reside in one of those 12 faces or lens.


So that the light of every body that is moving away or towards us is
perceived
by us as redshifted. The redshift is not a Doppler Redshift but is
due
to the
light traveling in a lens shaped Cosmic medium. This would cause
there
to
be a large percentage of blueshift of the galaxies and especially
distant
galaxies, and this would also cause nearby galaxies that are moving
towards Earth to be the opposite of blueshift that Doppler predicts
but rather
redshifted.


The data collection and information of Cosmic Redshift is hodgepodge,
depending on whom you ask. No-one in astronomy can give you an
accurate
measure of how much blueshifting? And no-one is offering a list of
disconforming
redshift reports or contradictory redshift reports. Such is a hurdle
of when
a fake theory like the Big Bang has taken over a community, that the
reports and
reporters are not coming clean on their contradictions, and so the
new
theory
of Atom Totality has to work around these nonclean reports.

Now let me talk a little bit more about this redshift experiment
discovery using
a sheet of fiberglass for a window and seeing oncoming auto
headlights
redshifted.
If one were to compute the refraction of the figerglass and
translate
that into a
lens shape that would give the same refraction. And then correlate
what the
cosmic redshift is. Then I suspect one can compute what the Cosmic
Lens is.


Now that is important because noone has ever dared to describe 3
dimensional
Elliptic geometry. The Big Bang is deaf, dumb and silent about 3D
Elliptic geometry,
although it uses 2D Elliptic geometry of a sphere surface.


So what I am saying is that 3D Elliptic geometry is a sphere surface
but is a layered
sphere surface that has a lens as that 3rd dimension. Normally we
have
dimensions
as orthogonal to one another, not a sphere surface is 2D Elliptic
geometry. So we
need that 3rd dimension Elliptic geometry and I propose that 3rd
dimension is a lens
type of layer to the 2D surface of a sphere. So 2D Elliptic is the
sphere surface and to
make it 3D Elliptic, a lens is that surface. Now how thick is this
lens? Well, I am thinking
that the experiment of fiberglass correlated with the observed
cosmic
redshift can imply
the thickness of the lens layer of 3D Elliptic geometry.


Now I do not know if the Luminet work on the Poincare Dodecahedral
Space is a 3D Elliptic
geometry. I am not that familar or expert enough to evaluate whether
that Space is a
3D Elliptic geometry. I would guess it is since you return back to
your starting point if you
travel far enough. And maybe the 36 degree twist in the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is
a equivalent to what I am calling a lens as the 3rd dimension of
Elliptic geometry.


As I was looking at Hubble's law, it was graphed to where it had
increments of the
speed of light. Not only does the Big Bang reach the speed of light
but exceeds it
for one graph had from 0 to c to 2c to 3c to 4c to 5c and beyond. I
suppose these
people who believe in the Big Bang would also believe that a ship on
ocean tides
travelling at the speed of light, that the ship would stay in tact
and
not disintegrate.


The Big Bang theory explains redshift as that of Space moving and
carrying along
with Space the galaxies. So Big Bangers impart a speed to galaxies
with the speed
of light and beyond. These Big Bangers have to explain these
questions:
(a) How is Space so independent of the Cosmos itself, when Space is
never independent
in normal physics?
(b) How can Space be moving at the speed of light and not have the
galaxies moving
with the speed of light?
(c) Why should Space in the Big Bang theory be treated differently
in
physics, whereas
in all other physics, space is treated as if it is a medium that is
motionless?
(d) Had Big Bang believers ever heard of "resonance energy" and that
if you have a galaxy
nested inside a space moving at the speed of light, how in the world
would that galaxy
not bust and break apart due to resonance.


The Atom Totality theory rests on a simple experiment that anyone can
do in their homes
if they have a view of a road with car headlights. Simply buy a
sheet
of opaque fiberglass and tilt it slightly in the the window. The
sheet
I have comes from a greenhouse and has some
corrugations, but a flat sheet tilted would do. Anyway, the oncoming
white light headlights of
cars are all redshifted. The further away the car is, the more the
redshift. So the speed is
irrelevant and the concern of whether the car is moving towards the
window or away from
the window is irrelevant. The redshift is caused by the refraction
of
light as it passes through
the fiberglass. So what this experiment tells us of the Cosmic
Redshift of galaxies is that
it is caused by the geometry of Space, and not a Doppler Redshift of
galaxies in a expanding
universe. In fact the Universe is probably pretty much stationary or
at rest and about the only motion stirring of the Universe at large
is the increase in mass due to Dirac new radioactivities.


So the redshift is due to white light travelling large distances in a
bent and curved space ends
up being redshifted.


So one needs not have to figure out the predictions of the Big Bang
theory as per what to
expect of redshift and blueshift. Nor does one have to figure out
the
predictions of the
Atom Totality with respect to blueshift and redshift. All one has to
do is realize that the
Big Bang imposes anti-physics or non-physics upon that of physics.
The
Big Bang expects
you to believe we can have a Space that is independent of the rest
of
the Universe and that
this space can carry galaxies with the speed of light. So the Big
Bang
is anti-physics.

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

While editing this chapter 8, my mind is already exploring chapter 9
where
I want to prove that lightwaves cannot be Doppler shifted. And perhaps
only sound waves are Doppler shifted. The proof I am going to use on
that
is the experiment of "slowed light" where a team of researchers led by
Hua
in a Harvard laboratory slowed the speed of light, but the light was
not
Doppler shifted.

But I think, also, that the Michelson Experiment of 1887, with its use
of the interferometer is a experiment that proves no Doppler shift is
possible with lightwaves because none was ever seen in these type of
experiments. It is easy enough to re-adapt the Michelson Experiment
with
the express purpose of looking for a Doppler shift.

So I have two experiments, Experimentum-Crucis, that the Doppler shift
for
lightwaves is nonexistent. Then I have the Principle of Special
Relativity,
that if it were possible for lightwaves to be redshifted due to
Doppler, then
we can find an absolute reference frame, in other words the Big Bang
explosion itself.
Ironic, that the Big Bang as Doppler redshift contradicts the Special
Relativity.

In future editions of this book, I definitely need to have the
disproof chapter of Doppler
shift with light come before the fiberglass experiment chapter. Too
late for this edition.

Continuing with redshift.


How do Big Bang people reconcile their theory with the implications
that Space is moving,
and would that not also make the galaxies move at the speed of
light?


Whereas the Atom Totality theory explains the redshift as simply a
Space that is motionless
but highly curved as a lens is curved and that white light traveling
far distances is refracted
in this curved and bent space yielding a redshift.


So I ask the commonsense physicist or the commonsense layperson.
Which
makes the easier explanation? The Big Bang which asks you to believe
that Space is in motion and
travelling beyond the speed of light and carrying galaxies along in
that motion to yield
a redshift? Or is the explanation that Space is motionless but
highly
curved like the surface
of a sphere and that this curvature over large distances causes
light
to be refracted and thus
redshifted?


Clearly the Atom Totality theory is the better commonsense
explanation. The Big Bang involves new physics that has never been
seen or heard of before, where you have
Space in motion, where you have Space as a separate entity, yet
never
defining what Space is, and you have Space carrying galaxies
along in that motion. Sounds really farfetched and preposterous. But
then in the time
frame of 1930 to 1990, the Big Bang was the only theory on the block
and so any farfetched
and preposterous and ludicrous notions would pass, since there was
no
other theory to
compete with.


The question of redshift
and blueshift in Big Bang
and Atom Totality. Here, I have not fully resolved it. Because it
comes down to
a choice between
Space travelling at the speed of light and thus the galaxies would
be
travelling at the speed of
light, or a whole new physics. Or, the choice that Space is
motionless, and that galaxies are
travelling at slow speeds like that of 70 km/sec, and that the
redshift is caused by the
curvature of space that refracts white light and redshifts that
light.
This is standard common
physics and nothing new. So on that account alone, where we do not
need to have to
compare redshifts and blueshifts.


The Cosmic redshift of galaxies is not due to a explosion but due to
what can
be called Electromagnetic Lensing produced by the fact that the
nucleus of the
Atom Totality holds the electrons in orbit and thus producing a
geometry of
a sphere surface which is a lens in 3 dimensional Elliptic geometry.


Here is a review of how redshifts are produced from Wikipedia:


--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift


Redshifts are attributable to three different physical effects. The
first discovered was the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in
the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves
emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the
Doppler
effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.
Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe,
and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few
million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of
increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a
light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.


--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

In the next chapter, chapter 9, I am going to present experimental
proofs
that Doppler redshift cannot exist with light waves.


The Cosmic Redshift, as this book with its experiment of fiberglass
window on auto
headlights demonstrates, is similar to gravitational lensing, only
the
producer of the
Cosmic Redshift is a force that is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and
is
the force of the
Coulomb force that holds electrons to atoms, of their nucleus of
protons. It is
EM force of protons holding the electrons to the atom. The EM forces
creates
a Space like a sphere surface but is radiating outward in lens, much
like the
magnet with iron filings pattern.


In the 231Pu Atom Totality, the 5f6 of its last 6 electrons, our
night
sky are held in place
by the attraction of the Cosmic Nucleus. This EM attraction causes
our
Space to be
Elliptic geometry such as a sphere surface. But a sphere surface is
only 2 dimensional.
To make it 3rd dimensional the surface has a thickness of a lens
shape. This lens shape
is recreated by the High School student performing a fiberglass
window
upon oncoming
white headlights of autos on the road. It is redshifted, even though
the cars are coming towards us. The refraction is far greater than
the tiny Doppler
effect.


So, Wikipedia is all wrong about their account and the Big Bang
theory
is all wrong
about their hijacking of the Cosmic redshift, fraudulently claiming
it
supports a
ancient explosion. And it is fitting that High School students
performing the experiment
are wiser than the professors of astronomy and cosmology and physics
who pretend
that there ever was a Big Bang explosion.



And what is the Big Bang theory without the redshift expansion? In a
previous
chapter we showed how the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was
blackbody
radiation and thus supports the Atom Totality not the Big Bang. And
here, the
Big Bang has lost another evidence of the redshift. So it appears that
the
Big Bang no longer has any evidence at all.


So the Cosmic Redshift of galaxies was never that of a speeding away
from
us, but was merely a measure of the Cosmic Overall Geometry. That
our
Cosmos
is highly bent the further away we are (corrugated sheet). And those
far distant
galaxies are not moving near the speed of light to cause such a
redshift. The redshift
is caused by the geometry of the Cosmos as a highly spherical
geometry
such as the
shape of a cigar surface or a sausage surface or a elongated balloon
surface which
is called an ellipsoid. So the redshift of galaxies was never a
measure of the speed
involved with the galaxies, because they were all slow moving speeds
just like the
Milky Way and local galaxies of 100 km/sec, and nowhere near 299,792
km/sec.
Big Bangers actually believe these faraway galaxies are moving
nearly
299,792 km/sec to cause the redshift.


The cause of these redshifts is that as light travels through the
bent
curvature
of space (through my corrugated fiberglass), the light is refracted
and thus redshifted. The
redshift
says nothing to do with the speed of the galaxy but says a lot about
how far
away
that galaxy is from Earth.


So, here, we have a case of a theory of physics, that was borne and
lived on
two pieces of evidence. The Redshift of galaxies and the Microwave
Radiation.
Both pieces of evidence have turned against the Big Bang and are now
evidences that destroy the Big Bang theory.


A Cosmic atom is highly bent and curved into spherical or ellipsoid
geometry
and that light travelling far away is going to have to be highly
refracted or
redshifted, and the small speeds that these faraway galaxies
possess,
makes
no difference upon the redshift affect.

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

As I already mentioned, while I am finishing up this chapter 8 of the
fiberglass experiment
I am already diving into chapter 9, in my mind, of the proof that
lightwaves cannot
be Doppler shifted. Already, I suspect a commonplace ordinary
experience of lightning-bolt flashes
tells us that lightwaves are never Doppler shifted. If the Doppler
shift of light were
true we should see many lightning-bolt strikes that are bluish versus
reddish, but in fact
we see them all as white light. And in my Wimshurst electrostatic
generator, if it were
to be in motion or at rest, the arc is always white light. Now during
the time of Christian Doppler
of around 1845, he would not have been aware that by 1887 there would
be the Michelson Experiment
that proves light is not affected by motion, by relative motion. But
the sad consequence is that
the entire astronomy and physics community did not have enough logical
abilities during the
20th century to realize that Special Relativity means no Doppler shift
on light waves.

You know the Ancient Egyptians used to have bodies of animals with
heads of humans such as the sphinx,
but for astronomers and physicists of the 20th century, their body was
a sheep, since they
followed around anyone with a half baked notion and their head was a
parrot that would sound off
anything the listener wanted to hear. For the Doppler shift affect in
the 20th century, not a single
scientist with a brain of logic could be found. But I stray, here, so
let me get back to the
fiberglass experiment.

Subject: comparing Cosmic EM lensing versus gravitational lensing for
redshift

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(all snipped except this)

- Show quoted text -
So if we can have a gravitational lensing producing redshifts, why
not have electromagnetic Coulombs force lensing of holding together
a Cosmic atom? EM holding together the electrons to the protons.


With EM lensing there is no need for space to be in rapid motion,
rather
instead, Space is motionless. And there is never a worry or mystery
as
to how any physics can have a Space traveling at speed of light,
while
its galaxies are traveling at what speed?


If there ever was an Occam's razor of reasoning, surely, it is far
more
plausible to have slow moving galaxies in motionless Space and the
redshift due to a bent Space. Surely that scenario is far easier and
compelling than the scenario of a Space independent of the matter,
travelling upwards and beyond the speed of light, and reliant on 2D
geometry, to give a Doppler redshift.


There is a good reason that Big Bang theorists never discuss 3D
elliptic geometry.
Because their theory fails. They only talk about 2D elliptic
geometry
where Space
has no edges and no center and where every point on the surface of
the
sphere is
moving away from all other points.


But everyone knows that Space is not 2D. Everyone knows Space is 3D.
The
Big Bang does not work in 3D Euclidean nor does it work in 3D
Elliptic.


But the Atom Totality theory explanation of the redshift works in all
geometries.
In 3D Elliptic there is an edge and a center to the Universe. But
matter is confined
in 3D Elliptic.


The 3rd dimension in 3D Elliptic is a lens that covers 12 faces of a
dodecahedron.
Whether there are 12 lens for the Poincare Dodecahedral Space I am
not
sure of.
Instead of the face being a flat pentagon, the face is a lens. And
the
galaxies reside
in these lens. So as the light from one galaxy travels through this
lens to reach
another galaxy, it is refracted and thus redshifted.


The pros and cons of the Big Bang redshift :
Pros
(a) does predict a redshift since everything is moving away from
each
other
Cons
(a) is stuck with only a 2D explanation, yet space is definitely 3D
(b) separates Space from Matter as independent entities
(c) must impart galaxies with speeds up to and surpassing that of
light
(d) resonance theory says that galaxies whether imparted with speed
of
light or are carried by Space with speed of light, that these
galaxies
would disintegrate.
(e) Worst of all, the Big Bang contradicts the principle of Special
Relativity because no Doppler shift of light waves is possible.


Pros and cons of the Atom Totality redshift :
Pros
(a) natural offshoot of gravitational lensing is a EM lensing of the
atom held together by a nucleus
(b) offers a 3D explanation as a lens on the surface of a sphere
(c) makes Space and time a continuum and not separate entities
(d) has all galaxies with slow speeds and with Space as motionless
Cons
(a) there are no cons since it fits the data


Subject: question on tinted fiberglass in the experiment; Space/time/
Matter
continuum

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(all snipped except for this with its typo error)


(c) makes Space and time a continuum and not separate entities
(d) has all galaxies with slow speeds and with Space as motionless
Cons
(a) there are no cons since it fits the data

It is probably good that I made that typo error of saying Space and
time a continuum.
It is already known that Space and Time are a continuum. What I am
trying to focus
attention on is the idea of a Space-Time/Matter continuum. Special
Relativity already
has Space and time a continuum. But the important new concept is how
matter fits into
a Space Time continuum.


If the Big Bang with its explosion and redshifts of Space moving
faster than the speed of
light is to be believed in, then it implies that Space is separate
from Matter. And Physics
does not really allow such a concept of Space being independent of
the
Matter that resides
in that Space.


Space-time-Matter continuum is what Quantum Mechanics has in its
duality of time and energy since mass and matter are parts of
energy.


So the Big Bang theory of redshift, fails, just on the issue of how
matter within Space-time
are separated.


In that Atom Totality theory, Matter is dependent on Space-time, not
independent. And that
you can never have a situation of a Space moving at the speed of
light, whilst it carries
galaxies as if they were ships on a water floating along with the
rapid moving Space.


So the Big Bang believers never really focused on this issue that is
a
utter contradiction to
Physics we know. Again, when you have the only theory on the corner
or
block grocery store,
you tend to overlook these huge flaws and gaps of reasoning and
understanding.

Let me also address a question raised about the experiment with the
fiberglass to prove
that curvature of space causes redshift, and not a explosion of a
Big
Bang. The question
was whether the greenhouse fiberglass panels were tinted to a
certain
color like green tint
and which would then see all car headlights as red. Whether a tinted
panel forces all
white light to be red. That is a good question. But I tend to think
that even if a tinted
panel were used, that a clear, untinted panel can be found that
matches the redshift
of a tinted panel. In other words, redshifting occurrs in all these
panels due to refraction,
only that the tinted panel has a booster headstart in redshifting.


My greenhouse fiberglass panels are not clear, they are opaque and
they are somewhat
tinted, whether it is a green tint or a blue tint, I am not sure.
Regardless, a clear panel
can be made that matches the redshifting of the tinted ones, only it
is probably much
thicker of a panel to compensate for the refraction.

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