Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Go down

Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:37 pm

.
I’d like to submit Miles’ latest paper Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts * for discussion. Limiting myself mainly to the physics portion, here’s a quick rundown.

Describing gravitational redshifts as non local velocities and particle expansion are not viable theories. Then again, mainstream really doesn’t have a viable theory. The main example is the lack of explanation for 95% of the universe, the so-called dark matter. That’s charge. A viable theory would be based on charge. By the end of the paper we might all agree that the redshift should be called a unified field redshift.

Mainstream assumes redshift is caused by Relativity, Einstein’s equations work. Miles explains that charge has been locked in mainstream equations since Newton. Miles unlocked the charge by breaking mass into density (the source of charge), and a volume (the source of gravity). G is the transform that exists between the two charge and gravity fields.

Miles goes into detail how space between the galaxies contains charge. High mass densities in the center of a galaxy such as quasars are also associated with high charge densities. Photons emitted from high charge densities will interact in increased edge-to-edge side collisions causing spin changes, red or blue.

As usual, Miles does a great job reviewing all the physics. I had no idea that mainstream believed redshift was caused by Relativity. The second half of the paper addresses less savory political/military/historical aspects of this bad theory. Miles makes his points, I'll admit I appreciate seeing a bigger picture.

Any comments?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. A special instance of this is the cosmological redshift, which is 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 in their distance from Earth.

* http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
NEW PAPER, added 2/18/18, Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts. http://milesmathis.com/arp.pdf. Where we find redshifts aren't caused by doppler, and a whole lot more.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Cr6 on Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:46 pm

Yeah LTAM, Miles' explanation definitely fits better with observations current and historical.

Problem is that the Red-shift debate always brings up the Big-Bang as well. How do they reconcile? A universe of expansion or no-expansion? Here's a guy with some opinions (Kurt Johmann).

http://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html
-------


Why the American Empire Pays the Bills for the Big-Bang Myth


In trying to understand why the Big-Bang mythology is so firmly in place, Halton Arp, in his book Seeing Red, only blames his own profession, and academia in general. However, for a correct understanding, one must look at who is paying the bills. Specifically, the annual research budget for academic science in America—especially an academic science that has no business value, such as astronomy—is paid for primarily by the federal government (the government core of the American empire).

       For roughly the last fifty years, astronomical research that assumes the reality of the Big Bang—and whose aim is to support and confirm the Big Bang—has been funded with many billions of dollars. And today, for any research proposal that even hints at contradicting the Big Bang: nothing, nada, not one cent. The Americans have a saying: you get what you pay for.
       Thus, the Big-Bang Universe has been bought-and-paid-for by the American government. And this Big-Bang Universe has been actively promoted for many years in both America’s media, and in the media of America’s imperial provinces around the world. To understand just why this false view of the universe has been put in place, and is so actively promoted, examine the key beliefs of the Big-Bang Universe, and see how these beliefs provide psychological support for the American empire. Consider the following table:




As I have said elsewhere regarding empires:

   It is worth noting that, in general, an empire, being based on the enslavement of other nations, is especially likely to be hostile to anything that can give its slaves any insight into a bigger reality. And just as an empire wants to falsify the history of its enslaved peoples, so that they cannot remember when they were free, so does an empire want to falsify reality, so that its enslaved peoples cannot find their way to freedom. [13]

An effective way to combat a correct view of reality, is to put in place, and actively promote, a false view of reality. The Big-Bang Universe is an important part of the false reality that the American empire wants all of its subjects to believe.

https://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/kj_big_bang.htm


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1099
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Ciaolo on Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:54 pm

This paper was so different than the others... I think Miles should rewrite it to talk only about physics.

I was looking for a good paper to “introduce” Mathis to some friends, but if they then find papers like that on the website they’d get a bad impression. (I would)

Ciaolo

Posts : 133
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:50 pm

.
Ciaolo wrote. This paper was so different than the others... I think Miles should rewrite it to talk only about physics.

I was looking for a good paper to “introduce” Mathis to some friends, but if they then find papers like that on the website they’d get a bad impression. (I would)

Airman. Hi Ciaolo, Miles has mixed physics and spook like subjects in a small number of his papers, I’ve also had a bad impression or two. In reading this paper more closely, I don’t believe Miles is expressing any irrational attitude or anything your friends may be embarrassed with; instead, he’s providing additional information as background data that may help answer why Halton Arp was marginalized while living yet still given full honors after his death by the New York Times.

Cr6 wrote. Yeah LTAM, Miles' explanation definitely fits better with observations current and historical.

Problem is that the Red-shift debate always bring up the Big-Bang as well. How do they reconcile? A universe of expansion or no-expansion? Here's a guy with some opinions (Kurt Johmann).

Airman. Great, Cr6, Big-Lies. There are so many. Critique is welcome, not to be confused with the bane of our times, fake news. I’d need a few readings but I’m also put-off by some of the subject matter areas. It appears they mostly stopped posting in 2002.

How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud? This page helps tie things together and needs further study. Thanks to Miles we are well aware of many problems in physics, usually boiling down to the lack of the charge field. We are thereby better able to judge the critiques of others.

Big Bang? Describes Halton Arp in a somewhat less than stellar, yet still positive light. A professional astronomer, familiar with Big Bang and redshift, interpreting data in favor of a steady state universe. This seems consistent with Miles’ paper. If Halton Arp was a rebel, he didn’t have a proper theory – or cause - to rely on.

I’d say a Redshift debate naturally leads to a Big Bang discussion since both theories deal with the limits - cosmologically speaking - of mainstream’s theoretical knowledge. According to the charge field, we can have red or blue shifts resulting from photon edge-to-edge, or side collisions, without any need for an expanding universe.

Halton Arp is a pillar of the Electric Universe. D_Archer had the good fortune of posting notice of Miles latest paper on the Thunderbolts New Insights and Mad Ideas forum. I thought I might need to participate, I’m grateful for the additional material to draw upon. Last time I looked, there 68 views without any comments. Are the EU folk ignoring it?

How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud? http://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html

9. Big Bang? [Includes link to Kurt Johmann piece]
http://www.big-lies.org/modern-physics-a-fraud/modern-physics.html#bigbang.

Miles Mathis on Halton Arp http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16978#p123736 » by D_Archer Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:59 am
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Cr6 on Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:16 am

Thanks for D Archer's post. Didn't see it.
-----

Found this which is actually close to a reasonable discussion on the Big Bang that I've seen. Finite or Infinite? Answer: "We just don't know".

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

I'll have to post it over at TB...but it might become one of those "heated controversy" threads...

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1099
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:04 pm

Joseph Silk said: Flat is just a two-dimensional analogy. What we mean is that the Universe is 'Euclidean', meaning that parallel lines always run parallel, and that the angles of a triangle add up to 180o. Now, the two-dimensional equivalent to that is a plane, an infinite sheet of paper. On the surface of that plane you can draw parallel lines that will never meet. A curved geometry would be a sphere. If you draw parallel lines on a sphere, these lines will meet at a certain point, and if you draw a triangle its angles add up more than 180o. So the surface of the sphere is not flat. It's a finite space but it's not flat, while the surface of a torus is a flat space.
Airman. Being math/geometry oriented, I found this paragraph interesting. Joseph is well aware of the various possible shapes of the universe. Flat refers to low space curvature. In order to explain gravity, Einstein introduced space curvature as Special and General Relativity. Curvature is one of the properties of space.

We know it’s wrong to give properties to space, once you do so there’s enough room to hide all sorts of misunderstanding. In this case, Miles has provided a proper mechanical explanation - gravity can be completely explained by matter expansion. Knowing the rate of expansion (g=9.8m/sec^2) and the time separation between objects gives us a simpler physical understanding of the need for relativistic calculations. We don't need to spend so much time imagining the shape of space, we can now concentrate on matter.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Cr6 on Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:04 am

Found this old quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/845239.stm
--------
Friday, 21 July, 2000, 18:05 GMT 19:05 UK

A 10 billion billion billion megaton bomb in space

Type Ia supernovae are important for astronomers because they all reach roughly the same brightness when they explode. Because of this, astronomers can use them to measure the scale of space.

By using this method, astronomers have found that the Universe is not only expanding, but that the expansion appears to be speeding up.

The method only works if Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies are the same as the ones nearby.

Now that KPD1930+2752 has been found, it can be studied in detail so that astronomers can work out how Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might behave and so, perhaps, help determine the fate of the Universe itself.

The discovery of KPD1930+2752 will be published in Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1099
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Ciaolo on Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:35 am

How sad to see these people building castles of math that have nothing to do with real phenomena.

Ciaolo

Posts : 133
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Cr6 on Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:01 am

By the way, I found this link on one of Lloyd's posts. Hope he comes back around.

Has pretty good overall coverage on singularity, redshift, Compton Effect, pre-Big Bang, et. al.:

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

John Kierein, john-k@comcast.net
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

Old Discovery & Breakthrough on Gravity
Post by LloydK on Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:27 pm
http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t391-old-discovery-breakthrough-on-gravity


Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1099
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by D_Archer on Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:58 pm

The buttons are in French!
---

Anyway, no comments to the Halton Arp article from Miles on the Thunderbolts forum, hitting too close to home?

My 'enjoy' was a bit sarcastic, but Arp is still a hero to me... i can entertain the profits of his work and live with Miles's article at the same time..

Regards,
Daniel

D_Archer

Posts : 1
Join date : 2014-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:14 pm

Aye, nothing wrong with studying other sources. I feel the same about Alfvaen, Arp, and Crothers. Tesla too. They may not have pushed as hard and far as Mathis but they sure didn't hurt things either. Baby steps, vs. giant leaps.

It's the pure misdirectors such as Bohr, Hilbert, and Heisenberg that make my stomach turn. Tyson, Hawking, Nye, and Harris for more modern flabbergastics.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 444
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:58 am

.
Update, I'm glad D_Archer posted here. I cannot explain the French buttons.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yesterday, at TBolts, On Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:34 am,
JeffreyW posted a reply to D_Archer
Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16978&p=124306&sid=dc667e45997f128576520d51dcf227cf#p124306
Quote
I think Miles and Arp were incorrect.

The redshift of quasars was caused by a doppler shift.

The quasar is moving in a transverse orientation not radial. Meaning sideways, not towards/away from us.

In other words here is the breakdown.

Establishment only accepts the doppler effect due to radial shifts, or Vr.

So naturally if the doppler effect is due to transverse motion, or VT, then they have a lot of explaining to do. I think this is the case, as outer space is 3-Dimensional.

Quasars ONLY have a Vr and not a component VT is being disingenuous. As stars themselves have both radial and transverse components, the transverse component is called proper motion.

So in other words, the proper motion of quasars is not accounted for, which is extremely high in all cases, due to them being ejected from host galaxies.

Miles' charge stuff I think is nonsense, btw. I think he can see through lots of b.s. of establishment and others, but his replacement offerings are not up to my standards, simply because they cannot be explained without resorting to your mind being turned to mush, like general relativity does.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v2.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 2

I read JeffreyW's Metamorphosis book several years ago. He has many unusual ideas. For example, planets are old - shrunken and consumed - stars. In his post I copied above, JeffreyW has introduced "the fact" that in addition to a radial velocity (I assume with respect to the viewer), Quasars also have a transverse velocity that might be responsible for the doppler shift. I suppose JeffreyW's post is "technical", he believes the charge field is nonsense, but he isn't being antagonistic.

D_Archer doesn't need the help, but the dam might break. Please throw in some thoughts. Your comments are appreciated.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:48 pm

I couldn't help but respond.

Jared Magneson wrote:
Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Postby JaredTheDragon » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:49 am
Since GR has mushed your mind, it stands to reason that Mathis's charge theory would definitely do the trick as well. I'm not curious what doesn't mush your mind, but am curious about your transverse velocity being a factor in Redshift.


Are you stating that all quasars are moving sideways relative to us, and none are moving towards or away from us? While I agree that there is likely some lateral motion in many cases, what evidence do you have that absolutely zero quasars are moving towards or away from us?

Have you observed and logged every quasar visible? Have you tracked their transverse motions and logged those? Do you keep a nice, tidy database on every star? What instruments were you using to observe every star and quasar, that nobody else but you seems to have access to?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 444
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:27 pm

After your comment Jared, JeffreyW left another lame reply. I needed to respond too. Thank you all for help with the improved version.

Re: Miles Mathis on Halton Arp

Postby LongtimeAirman » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:10 am
.
Describing gravitational redshifts as non local velocities and particle expansion are not viable theories. Then again, mainstream really doesn’t have a viable theory. Mainstream lacks explanation for 95% of the universe, the so-called dark matter. Mainstream theories don’t include it. Miles Mathis explains dark matter with his Charge Field theory; dark matter is infrared photons.

quoting GBT Detection Unlocks Exploration of 'Aromatic' Interstellar Chemistry https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2018-01

   Cambridge, MA - Astronomers had a mystery on their hands. No matter where they looked, from inside the Milky Way to distant galaxies, they observed a puzzling glow of infrared light. This faint cosmic light, which presents itself as a series of spikes in the infrared spectrum, had no easily identifiable source. It seemed unrelated to any recognizable cosmic feature, like giant interstellar clouds, star-forming regions, or supernova remnants. It was ubiquitous and a bit baffling.


Many scientists have noted the glow. These scientists have a theory - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). What? In every direction? Will they be able to explain dark matter as aromatic hydrocarbons? Sorry - that doesn’t smell right.

The infrared glow is undeniable evidence of the charge field - IR photons. Miles’ Unified Field theory combines gravity and the charge field. Mainstream assumes redshift is caused by Relativity, because Einstein’s equations work. Miles explains that charge has been locked in mainstream equations since Newton. Miles unlocked the charge by breaking mass into density (the source of charge), and a volume (the source of gravity). G is the transform that exists between the two opposing charge and gravity fields.

Miles goes into detail how space between the galaxies contains charge. High mass densities in the center of a galaxy such as quasars are also associated with high charge densities. Photons emitted from high charge densities will interact in increased edge-to-edge side collisions causing spin changes, red or blue.

As usual, Miles does a great job reviewing all the physics. I had no idea that mainstream believed redshift was caused by Relativity. In the second half of the paper, Miles is trying to uncover why – if Halton Arp was marginalized and unrecognized while living - did the New York Times give him full honors after his death. I appreciate seeing a bigger picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. A special instance of this is the cosmological redshift, which is 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 in their distance from Earth.

* http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
NEW PAPER, added 2/18/18, Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts. http://milesmathis.com/arp.pdf. Where we find redshifts aren't caused by doppler, and a whole lot more.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:05 pm

I've kind of taken Miles' advice to heart, when debating with these types around the web. Go hard. Hit them with their own medicine, slay them. Sometimes I'm nicer and instructive, especially if I know the person or am friendly with them, but you know? Fuck strangers. I owe them nothing. Not that I'm always ruthless, by a longshot, but it's the audience that matters - not necessarily the person I'm arguing with. You cannot change anyone's mind; they have to do so for themself.

My latest response:
Jared Magneson wrote:
by JaredTheDragon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:51 am

   JeffreyW wrote:
   That's not my problem. Fact is, out of all the information I've ever read on quasars none mention transverse velocities causing redshift.

   They ALL assume that redshift in quasars ONLY happens when it is radial. You know why? Big bang. It is the only assumption that fits with an expanding universe paradigm. They all have to be moving away from us, so any transverse velocities can be ignored.

   I see that a lot. Ignoring data that doesn't fit the paradigm. It is a shame. I mean, yea, sarcastic sympathy. If they want to be clueless? Again. Not my problem.




"Fact is" is another way of saying you're dodging.

I do agree that their assumptions that everything is moving away from us is absurd. That would make Earth (and us) the epicenter of everything, which is preposterous of course and we know that gravity is an acceleration towards, not away from. So they want it both ways, in the mainstream.

However you haven't begun to explain how transverse motion causes a shift in observe spectra towards red, or towards blue for that matter. Hans Alfvaen and Halton Arp were much closer with their "intrinsic redshift" theories, which basically state that the light is red because it's actually red light, not because things are (necessarily) moving towards or away from us. A simplification, but it holds plenty of water.

You state that answering my questions isn't your problem and I agree, it's not your problem. Your problem here is an inability to explain redshift or blueshift, thus the need to dodge off into "not my problems" and "Fact is", despite it not being a fact at all. What you've read or not read isn't a fact, it's a postulate. You could be lying for example - how would anyone know? You could have never read anything on the topic, making your "fact" irrelevant to begin with.

On top of all that, you never say what it is about Mathis's charge theory that's "mushy" either. You said it wasn't up to your standards, but so far those standards don't appear to have any merit. What parts of Mathis's theories are you finding "mush" in, if I might ask? Perhaps I can help you unmush yourself.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 444
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Cr6 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:07 pm

Nicely done Jared and LTAM!

Like a lot of commenters on these sites, he (JeffreyW) may have a personal ($) interest in not looking at new research, reconciling facts, or breaking away from publications he has previously cited in his professional life. These folks will dump on most postulates not related to what they have studied or published.  Who knows really. Like a lot of folks, he probably sees too many bridges to burn if he goes down the road with Mathis. Miles gives good advice on going on the offense. Cool

Of course clearly explainable logic with verifiable observations must prevail at the end of the day. This is hard to do with astro-physics in the big picture. There's always a "bigger picture" of the big picture after a few years -- especially as it relates to milliseconds after the big-bang, or dark matter, or string theory, etc. Can these three ideas even be resolved using current computers/math?  Still a lot of money rides on it. LTAM points to a more reasonable explanation but there is probably no money to back something "base" and not so theoretical.
Personally, I'm really wary of "researchers/students" that have any kind of grant money backing them aside from those creating new tools to see stuff farther out. Increasingly they've found the universe a lot bigger than expected - which is good. But can quantum theory explain it all?  I personally think the universe is likely infinite in size...essentially endless in all directions.  How did it get to be like that? Was there a starting point or was it always in existence?  Forever and Endless are teenage love terms btw.  sunny  

Worth a look. I am a fan of Halton Arp's work:
http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/
http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

Observational evidence favors a static universe
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953v5

A bit dated but a good link on a related book that kicked off a lot of this:  
The Endless Universe (2007)
(The comments are worth a look as well.)
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=563

https://archive.org/download/universetodayguidetospace/165_isTheUniverseFiniteOrInfinite.mp3
https://www.universetoday.com/119553/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/
https://phys.org/news/2012-01-faint-satellite-galaxy.html

BTW D_Archer/LTAM, the French may be due to the fact that this forum is based in France and may have set your browser's Locale settings if your browser settings allowed for it.  

When your browser pulls a document from the Web, it sends a request to the server where the information is stored. This is known as an HTTP request. With the request, the browser sends information about its language preference settings.

The HTTP request carries this language preference information in the Accept-Language header. If the server is set up to return alternate versions of a page or resource in more than one language, and the language you prefer is available, it will go through a process known as HTTP content negotiation to find content in the language(s) indicated in the HTTP request. If there is only one version of a page on the server, that version will be retrieved. If none of the languages you request are available, the server should be set up to return a default language choice.
https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-lang-priorities.en
-------------

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1099
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Halton Arp, Quasars and Redshifts

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum