Chapt18 telescopic-eclipse- technique #1594 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now I wrote this chapter in May of 2010 and quite a few changes in
thinking have occurred by 2013, major of which is that gravity is EM-
gravity with gravity cells that cause the refraction of light and
causes the astronomy redshift. So redshift is not a measure of
distance, but only a measure of refraction of light going through bent
space. That means that many galaxies we thought were far away are
actually quite close to the Milky Way.

Date: May 17, 2010 3:54 AM
Author:
Subject: Chapt10; fiberglass/prism experiment, and eclipse-test to
tell with
moving towards Earth

Now I failed to mention what happens when a white light headlight of
a
car is moving
away from me, the observer with a fiberglass panel. For obvious
reasons I did not
include that because there are no cars with white taillights. So I
am
assuming that
if there were white taillights and thus viewed through the
fiberglass
panel would
be refraction-redshifted. I am guessing the redshift would be less
than an
oncoming white headlight, even with the stipulation of equal
intensity.


That has to be worked out in a more in depth experiment.


Supposing that I am correct in my assumption that a moving away from
an observer with a white light is also redshifted would suggest that
the
objects in astronomy which have a redshift can be either moving away
or moving towards the observer. And that suggests that the Cosmos
of objects is 50% moving away from Earth and 50% of the objects
moving
towards Earth. A Cosmos of that nature would not support the Big
Bang
which relies on nearly 100% of the objects moving away from one
another.


Actually I do not know what the Atom Totality theory would imply as
to
percentage
moving away versus moving towards. A reasonable guess is that the
Dirac
new radioactivities to create new matter and astro bodies is in a
sort
of
equilibrium state so that a 50 to 50 percent moving towards and
away.


But let me outline a testing procedure to use on stars, galaxies,
quasars to
tell if the body is moving towards or away. The idea is a "eclipse"
procedure.
Suppose we see a Great Wall or a quasar or supercluster. And we set
up
the telescope to eclipse the body. We eclipse it to the finest
detail
possible
and then we wait for a week or month or year or more and come back
and
we
place the eclipse on the same object. If a breach of the former
eclipse is seen
with light means the object is moving towards us. If it were moving
away, the
eclipse on the second time would suffice to eclipse again.


Now many of the local group of galaxies to our Milky Way are reported
a redshift,
only the old Doppler redshift was the procedure. And here is a way
of
testing whether
the Refraction Redshift is true and the old Doppler redshift is
false.
We eclipse one
of the local group galaxies with a reported Doppler redshift and
view
it some future
time later and see if the eclipse was breached. If so, means the
galaxy is moving
towards Earth in direct contradiction to the Doppler redshift
implying
a moving
away from Earth.


So in one fell swoop of testing, we can find out if the old Doppler
redshift can stand
muster or be falsified very easily.


May 18, 1:41*am
Date: May 18, 2010 2:41 AM
Author:
Subject: Using the Eclipse-Test Chapt10, Fiberglass/Prism Experiment;
Refraction Redshift, not a Doppler


The larger the
purported redshift, the better is the choice. Next, get a computer
filtering that eclipses the "seen object". Do not eclipse it by
overeclipsing. I
mean, eclipse it at a "least minimum eclipse." Wait a week or a
month
and reimpose
the previous eclipse on the object. If the eclipse is breached by
the
object,
means that AP is correct with the Refraction redshift, because the
object is
not moving away from Earth but is moving towards Earth with a
concurrent
high redshifting.

Now I looked on the Internet to see if astronomy and astronomers have
ever devised a means of telling whether a luminous body is moving
towards
or away from Earth? I found no technique. So I would hazard the
guess
that
noone in astronomy has ever devised a means of answering the
question
of
whether a distant object is moving away or moving closer.


Logically, the technique would simply utilize the fact that if
something is moving
closer then that object will increase in the size of its image from
the telescope.
If it is moving away, well, its size of image will decrease. That is
logically obvious,
but why has no astronomer sought to use that technique on Doppler
redshift? Was it
too simple, too obvious?


The major tenet or principle of Doppler redshift is that if a object
is moving away it
is redshifted, and moving closer to the viewer, it is blueshifted.But
Doppler shift works only for sound waves, not light waves for that
would violate Special Relativity. By 2013 the realization that the
redshift that we see in the night skies is due to EM-gravity and
refraction of light in bent space.


But as the Fiberglass and prism Experiment elucidates, that a
redshifting can occurr
from Refraction. Refraction can shift the entire image of a source-
object. Since refraction
can shift the entire image, then refraction can do far less things
like shift the wavelength.


In the Fiberglass Experiment, we see the oncoming white headlights
redshifted. In a
Doppler Redshift there is never a oncoming redshift.


So, what does this mean? It means that if we start to view and
observe
the quasars and
galaxies and measure, not their redshift, but measure instead
whether
they are moving towards us or away from us, and if we find that they
are moving towards us yet have a
high redshift, means that the Doppler redshift in astronomy and
cosmology was all
false and bogus.


Now I went and made a search of the web to see if any astronomer ever
dared to
find out if a redshifted object was moving closer to earth? I found
none. The best I found
was this skepticism of the Doppler redshift:


--- quoting from ---
http://laserstars.org/news/3C345.html


Varshni (1974) has shown that quasar redshift is merely an empty
number without physical significance, quasars are stars within the
galaxy. However, despite the overwhelming amount of contradictory
data, the astronomical community still persists in assuming that the
redshift is a valid distance indicator from which they incorrectly
deduce that quasars are extra-galactic. The gross overestimation of
quasar distance has led to spurious paradoxical properties such as
superluminal motion, one of four paradoxes of Kellermann (1972),
which
we now discuss:


--- end quoting ---


I also found Halton Arp's quasar redshift bridged by a different
galaxy which was lesser
redshifted.


I believe that Arp, Varshni, and Kellermann are all on the correct
path to the truth of
redshift by being wary and skeptical. But unable to deliver a
knockout
punch to the
Big Bang redshift. The knockout punch is to systematically measure
and
observe whether
an object is moving towards or away from us and then correlate that
with the redshift of
the same said object.


I suspect that once we begin doing that, we quickly discover that
most
of these redshifts
are actually moving towards Earth and are oncoming objects. This
means
the Doppler
redshift as Varshni and Kellermann say "are physically meaningless
numbers". That
the redshift in astronomy and cosmology is caused by the geometry of
the Cosmos
due to refraction, and has nothing to do with the intrinsic motion
of
the object in Space.


Until now, we have only measured for redshift, and neglected
measuring
for motion
towards or motion away.


I believe our instruments, especially the Hubble Space Telescope can
easily perform
routine observations of Eclipsing quasars, where we minimally
eclipse
them, wait a
week, maybe a few months, and maybe a few years. Come back in a
future
time and
eclipse them again and find out if those redshifted quasars were
really moving away,
or, as I suspect, actually moving towards us.


Maybe some astronomer has noted some paradoxical object with a high
redshift, but
which in fact, the astronomer knows the object is moving towards
Earth.


Maybe that object was all the Supernova to date reported, since the
explosion of a
supernova is a stream of particles moving towards Earth, yet all
those
supernova
were reported as highly redshifted, in contradiction to Doppler
redshift.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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

well, this one is not; drat it all!
seriously, I'm bookmarking this for further review.

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google

doesn't follow, exactly, but it is the same
as the "tired light" idea, that their are "atoms in space."

but many astrophysicists tacitly *assume* that "space
is Pascal's ideal plenum;" go & figure!

of course, it is also true that
the distance swamps the blueshifting of the half of objects
that must be going "away from Earthlings."

redshift is not a measure of
distance, but only a measure of refraction of light going through bent
space. That means that many galaxies we thought were far away are
actually quite close to the Milky Way.

Date: May 17, 2010 3:54 AM
Author:
Subject: Chapt10; fiberglass/prism experiment, and eclipse-test to
tell with
* *moving towards Earth

*Now I failed to mention what happens when a white light headlight of
a
*car is moving
*away from me, the observer with a fiberglass panel. For obvious
*reasons I did not
*include that because there are no cars with white taillights. So I
am
*assuming that
*if there were white taillights and thus viewed through the
fiberglass
*panel would
*be refraction-redshifted. I am guessing the redshift would be less
*than an
*oncoming white headlight, even with the stipulation of equal
*intensity.

That has to be worked out in a more in depth experiment.

Supposing that I am correct in my assumption that a moving away from
*an observer with a white light is also redshifted would suggest that
*the
*objects in astronomy which have a redshift can be either moving away
*or moving towards the observer. And that suggests that the Cosmos
*of objects is 50% moving away from Earth and 50% of the objects
moving
*towards Earth. A Cosmos of that nature would not support the Big
Bang
*which relies on nearly 100% of the objects moving away from one
*another.

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:11:49 -0700, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:

doesn't follow, exactly, but it is the same as the "tired light" idea,
that their are "atoms in space."

but many astrophysicists tacitly *assume* that "space is Pascal's ideal
plenum;" go & figure!

of course, it is also true that the distance swamps the blueshifting of
the half of objects that must be going "away from Earthlings."


"Tired" light is sort of the idea, but not correct. What happens is that
light travels from distant points in a straight line. Because our
universe is a 4D hypersphere, light does not travel in our 3D space but
takes a short cut "chord" across 4D space. For that reason light from
stars arrives at our telescopes at a angle to our 3D space that more or
less depends on distance to the source. It is that multi-dimensional
angle that creates the so-called Red Shift, NOT "Doppler shift" due to
velocity which is a HUGE mistake.

I'd direct you to my website with some mathematics outlining my "Light is
Right" theory but there is something seriously wrong with the math that
hasn't been fixed yet. And it is soon to change to a different subject. I
am so clever YEAH! G=EMC^2

you are stuck in Minkowski's butt
-- his worse piece du merde.

we've had 3d movies for a while, although
"the flipbook" has always been available
to the soi-dissant doctors of teimennspacenn
-- you freaking lightconeheads!

"Tired" light is sort of the idea, but not correct. What happens is that
light travels from distant points in a straight line. Because our
universe is a 4D hypersphere, light does not travel in our 3D space but
takes a short cut "chord" across 4D space. For that reason light from
stars arrives at our telescopes at a angle to our 3D space that more or
less depends on distance to the source. It is that multi-dimensional
angle that creates the so-called Red Shift, NOT "Doppler shift" due to
velocity which is a HUGE mistake.

hey; it's just quadric surfaces --
go & configure your "configuration space

in the land of the lightconeheads; coneheadlights?

go & configure your "configuration space