Macro Spin Levels and the Relativistic Universe Model

[link to www.holoscience.com]

The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp's new view of the cosmos, active galaxies "give birth" to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.

The huge puzzle for astrophysicists is why a galaxy should exhibit an atomic phenomenon. So we turn to particle physics. This difficulty highlights the fact that quantum "mechanics" applied to atoms is a theory without physical reality. The weirdness of quantum theory has been attributed to the subatomic scale to which it applies. But now that we have quantum effects in something the size of a galaxy, this convenient nonsense is exposed. If Arp is right many experts are going to look very silly. His discovery sounded the alarm in some halls of Academe and since nobody likes a loud noise - particularly if they are asleep - the knee-jerk response was to attack the guy with his finger on the alarm button. Arp's telescope time was denied, papers rejected, and he was forced to leave the US to pursue his work.

Apologies for my dimness, lol, I'm a very keen amateur! The whole thing has fascinated me since childhood, but unfortunately at 15 I had to work to live. Maybe in future years the chance for more study will come along. Great talking to you fellars, here's looking forward to the next discoveries.

No, not at all. This is all 'new' for most. We have to understand that many sciences are run on politics and funding, not for true studies. There seems to be many agendas involved that should not be.

DOH, Double post

So, how would you best sum up red shift? Some form of quantum radiation? Sub atomic light? Or maybe even the feminine blush of a heavenly body, giving a clue to her age? lol.

Guess that would make the blue shifts the old hags of rthe cosmos!

Last Edited by Blueacres on 06/05/2010 05:09 PM

The universe is fully complete.
That does not mean that the main frame and the reference frame cannot exchange between themself, in exotic ways, for instance with high frequency and a interrupted electric potential with saw tooth wave fronts, the resulting phase conjugation during z pinch events would make a coherent entity, nothing like a gas, almost alive, hence the name Plasma.

Indeed the Correas of Aethormetry, have been the people who made the plasma in a box, aka vacuum tube, and the result was the Autogenous Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge discovery.


[link to www.aetherenergy.com]

A plasma will become coherent. Gas will not. The phase conjugate wave is why. A grating Holographic wave front to organize the pump rays into the time reversed dual opposite....creating a negitive region, this is where the main frame and the reference frame come together to make matter via the Z pinch effect.

the red/blue shift is being replaced

The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp's new view of the cosmos, active galaxies "give birth" to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.
[link to www.holoscience.com]

I thought the problem with this form of energy was the huge amount of power used in stabilizing the plasma whilst keeping it contained? Is that not the case?

OK scratch that last question!

""An attractive magnetic configuration is one that is passively stable and can be reliably sustained using little or none of the output power from the fusion plant. The success of the most widely studied magnetic fusion concept, the tokamak, has shown the advantage of bending the plasma into a toroidal, or doughnut, shape for achieving reactor-level plasma parameters for a short time. The tokamak can be made into a continuously sustained “advanced tokamak” configuration using the self-generated bootstrap current, but up to 20% of the plant’s output power would still have to be recirculated to drive active plasma controls needed to prevent the disruption of a tokamak plasma. This National Compact Stellarator ExperimentNCSXprompted fusion physicists to search for configurations that would match the tokamak’s good performance and, by reducing the recirculating power requirements, would be even more attractive.

A solution was found in another well-studied toroidal concept, the stellarator, invented by Princetonastrophysicist Lyman Spitzer, Jr. He realized that a stable, three-dimensional plasma torus could be formed and sustained continuously without active plasma controls. The cross-sectional shape of a stellarator plasma depends on where the torus is sliced, while that of a tokamak, a two-dimensional torus, is always the same.

The third dimension provides physicists with an additional degree of freedom that they can use to tailorthe plasma shape to obtain attractive physical properties""
[link to www.militaryphotos.net]

The universe is plasma and hydrogen, both of which are charged.
The universe is electric and this is part of the dumbdown, they want to keep you out of....so they tell you a "black hole" (that looks extremely bright in photographs for some strange reason) a massive one no less, lurks at the center of the spiral galaxy.

Not really The Electric Universe is developed upon plasma cosmology, which is a recognized discipline within the practical electrical engineering profession through the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Refereed papers on plasma cosmology are published in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. The freewheeling discussion in that journal is reminiscent of the science journals of more than a century ago, not the monoculture of the big bang today. My paper on the electrical nature of supernovae and stars was published there in 2007. [It is curious that astronomers’ plot stellar colors and brightness (the Hezsprung-Russell diagram) like “Alice through the Looking Glass.” Left and right are reversed, which makes it difficult to see the obvious connection between the electrical power arriving at a star and the star’s color, size and brightness]. Unlike big bang cosmology, plasma cosmology is subject to experimental tests in the laboratory and follows the Lichtenberg experimental tradition. Any ‘bangs’ it creates are real and noisy. Plasma cosmology can demonstrate with simple physical principles the electrical formation and behavior of spiral galaxies and stars without recourse to hypothetical dark matter and black holes.

Almost the entire visible universe is composed of plasma—a gas where some of the atoms have lost an electron or two. However, unlike the gases we are familiar with on Earth, plasma reacts strongly to the presence of electromagnetic fields and is a better conductor than copper. Its behavior has been described as complex and “life-like.” That should be a clue! The universe is principally an electrical plasma phenomenon.

Electricity exists in space. Magnetic fields detected in space can only be generated by electric currents. Radio telescopes routinely map galactic magnetic fields and their field configuration matches that found in plasma cosmology experiments. If science were the advertised open pursuit of truth, we should expect big bang cosmologists to be rushing to the plasma labs. Not a bit of it. They are principally theoretical mathematicians. We strike the artificial modern barrier of specialism. The cultural historian, Jaques Barzun, defined specialism as “a piece of etiquette which decrees that no specialist shall bother with the concerns of another, lest he be thought intruding and be shown up as ignorant. Specialism is born of what the philosopher Arthur Balfour called ‘the pernicious doctrine that superficial knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.’ Rampant specialism, an arbitrary and purely social evil, is not recognized for the crabbed guild spirit that it is, and few are bold enough to say that carving out a small domain and exhausting its soil affords as much chance for protected irresponsibility as for scientific thoroughness.” —Science: the glorious entertainment.

The plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang never Happened, says “one of the most destructive features of the methodology of the big bang is that it conveys the idea that only people versed in extremely complicated mathematics can understand the universe… This is, of course, the argument of the emperor’s new clothes. If you can’t see the emperor’s new clothes you must be either stupid or incompetent.”

Engineers are neither stupid nor incompetent. Much of the hyped success of science over the last century can be attributed to engineers. And it is engineers who tend to prefer the real-world simplicity of the Electric Universe to the metaphysics of the big bang and black holes.


The Simple Electric Universe

A signature of a good theory is its simplicity. One of the participants at the London meeting concluded:

“I think the Electric Universe is actually very simple.

In essence, everything hinges on the question of whether or not electricity exists in space. The mainstream view is that it does not; we argue that it does. Everything else flows from that.

What we are attempting to do is bring about a scientific revolution; The Electric Revolution. This Revolution will have as far-reaching consequences as the Copernican revolution, which was also based on one simple idea, is the Earth or the Sun at the centre?

Like the Copernican revolution, the data can be interpreted in both ways; Copernicus did not phrase his argument that the Sun was at the centre; he merely suggested that it was an awful lot easier to interpret the data if, for the sake of calculation alone, one pretended that it was. In the same way, I believe we are essentially suggesting that it's an awful lot easier to explain the observed behaviour of the universe if one allows electricity to have a role. Yes, you can develop a gravity-only model that gives the right answers, but having to live with 96% of the resulting universe being dark and unobservable is no better than having to have multiple levels of epicycles to explain the planetary motions around the earth.

That's why it's so simple. Just assume electricity is there and it all becomes a whole lot easier.” —Bob Johnson


History will show that our present big bang cosmology is an unfortunate accident of timing. The foundations of the big bang story were being laid down early in the 20th century. At the same time, electric lights were just being introduced and the study of electric discharges in gases was in its infancy. The result was that Einstein’s new, esoteric geometric theory of gravity that treats empty space as an ‘object’ capable of being warped, was combined with a curious interpretation of the redshift from faint extragalactic objects (that was not favored by Hubble himself as being physically likely) to produce the notion of an expanding universe. The fact that this defied a principle of physics in creating matter from nothing at the beginning, or big bang, seems not to have concerned theorists. It should have. Invoking “the ultimate free lunch” is not science. On the other hand, based on observation the Electric Universe assumes a universe of unknown age and extent.

“Who, indeed, are we as a species to dare ask such mighty questions as concern the origin of the universe and in unique arrogance believe we may have the correct answer within cosmic microseconds of the asking.” —Gerrit L. Verschuur, Interstellar Matters.



I see a super bright plasmoid...I see no evidence of a black hole.
Concering Dark Matter and Dark Energy...total fudge factors to keep the dumbdown going and the "idea" that gravity runs the show....

Which is silly, as no one has explained what gravity is, nor have they ever measured the so-called gravity wave. So to use gravity as the key to open the door to dark matter, dark energy and black holes is the signs of blind men gropping in the dark.

But then nobody knows what an EMF really is! Or a volt, or an amp. We just quantify it without even understanding it.

"In 1800, as the result of a professional disagreement over the galvanic response advocated by Luigi Galvani, Alessandro Volta developed the so-called Voltaic pile, a forerunner of the battery, which produced a steady electric current. Volta had determined that the most effective pair of dissimilar metals to produce electricity was zinc and silver. In the 1880s, the International Electrical Congress, now the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), approved the volt as the unit for electromotive force. At that time, the volt was defined as the potential difference [i.e., what is nowadays called the "voltage (difference)"] across a conductor when a current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power.The international volt was defined in 1893 as 1/1.434 of the emf of a Clark cell. This definition was abandoned in 1908 in favor of a definition based on the international ohm and international ampere until the entire set of "reproducible units" was abandoned in 1948.Prior to the development of the Josephson junction voltage standard, the volt was maintained in national laboratories using specially constructed batteries called standard cells. The United States used a design called the Weston cell from 1905 to 1972." [link to en.wikipedia.org]

""A source of emf can be thought of as a kind of charge pump that acts to move positive charge from a point of low potential through its interior to a point of high potential. … By chemical, mechanical or other means, the source of emf performs work dW on that charge to move it to the high potential terminal. The emf ℰ of the source is defined as the work dW done per charge." [link to en.wikipedia.org]

No definitive answer, just quantitative formulae. What IS an EMF in real terms?

>>>The only thing which is in fact at rest in the whole (closed) universe is its boundary, or its reference frame beyond which no matter can exist.<<<


Wrong!
Fail!