The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

Originally posted by sirnex
Where is the effect in this picture then?



I see a bunch of galaxies near enough to each other that I *should* see a similar effect, but I don't see it there either.

The fact that they appear next to each other in the photo doesn't mean they are near each other. take this photo for example:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4233c433a22.jpg[/atsimg]

Just because the hands and the ball of light look near to each other, doesn't mean they are.

If the galaxies really are near to each other they will all have similar redshifts. But you have to measure the redshifts, you can't tell just by looking at the photo.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

If the galaxies really are near to each other they will all have similar redshifts. But you have to measure the redshifts, you can't tell just by looking at the photo.

The proposition is that redshift theory is wrong because two galaxies that are observed to be close to each other show significant different red shift. I am currently watching those videos, and I must say they make a pretty strong case. But also recognize the information they give is very once sided.

Okay so, I still don't get how redshift has been equated to distance? How did they measure distance to check against redshift to create that graph that keeps popping up?
If brightness is what is being used to determine distance, than isn't that an indication that there is a correlation of redshift and brightness? How is it determined that there is a direct correlation between distance and brightness?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Okay so, I still don't get how redshift has been equated to distance? How did they measure distance to check against redshift to create that graph that keeps popping up?
If brightness is what is being used to determine distance, than isn't that an indication that there is a correlation of redshift and brightness? How is it determined that there is a direct correlation between distance and brightness?

Hubble took a plot of galaxy brightness on one side of a graph and plotted galaxy redshift on the other side of the graph.

When you look at the final plot of galaxies, its clear redshift/brightness are correlated because the galaxy plot makes a nice smooth line right up the middle of the graph.

Given that we know red shift and brightness are correlated for galaxies, scientists then jumped to the conclusion that this red shifting must be due to the Doppler effect shifting light because the galaxies are flying away from us.

If red shift is caused by the Doppler effect, then we can say red shift provides us an indicator of distance. This is buttressed by the fact that galaxies with high red shifts appear to be dimmer, which is obviously what one would expect if the galaxies are further away from us.

However, all of what I just said does not apply to quasars because their red shift does not correlate to their brightness as it does with galaxies.

This means there is most likely some other cause of red shift other than "expanding space" Doppler effects.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm am no astrophysicist, but it seems logical to me that a brighter universe also has a greater mass. In that video a page back it was stated that gravity also causes red shift. Maybe this effect is underestimated in the current models? The two effects could even have a 1/1 relation, meaning that a galaxy with mass x and distance y would have about the same red shift as a galaxy with mass 2x and distance 2y. So for us both galaxies would appear to be equally bright with equal red shift, making us think they are at the same distance.

Have there been any experiments to prove that the doppler effect applies to light when not travelling through a medium(such as the space between galaxies(I'm not sure that our solar system would be devoid enough of medium to prove it))? And if the doppler effect did apply to light, doesn't that violate Einstein's theory that the speed of light is constant?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I'm am no astrophysicist, but it seems logical to me that a brighter universe also has a greater mass. In that video a page back it was stated that gravity also causes red shift. Maybe this effect is underestimated in the current models? The two effects could even have a 1/1 relation, meaning that a galaxy with mass x and distance y would have about the same red shift as a galaxy with mass 2x and distance 2y. So for us both galaxies would appear to be equally bright with equal red shift, making us think they are at the same distance.

Well, you're warm.

I don't think they said gravity causes red shift, it doesn't. The standard theorists are claiming that gravity is what is causing "gravitational lensing" which is the excuse as to why we see quasars apparently embedded in galaxies.

As to the relationship between mass/distance, what the standard theorists are saying is that they are assuming red shift ALWAYS provides a distance no matter what the brightness of the galaxy or quasar may suggest.

Thus this statement "meaning that a galaxy with mass x and distance y would have about the same red shift as a galaxy with mass 2x and distance 2y. " would be incorrect as far as mainstream astrophysicists are concerned.

Red shift is only a function of Doppler in their view, thus if we see two galaxies of equal brightness but one has a high red shift, then the one with high red shift must be more massive/energetic.





[edit on 25-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I don't think they said gravity causes red shift, it doesn't. The standard theorists are claiming that gravity is what is causing "gravitational lensing" which is the excuse as to why we see quasars apparently embedded in galaxies.

Well it was stated in the video and further explained in this post by Arbitrageur.

As to the relationship between mass/distance, what the standard theorists are saying is that they are assuming red shift ALWAYS provides a distance no matter what the brightness of the galaxy or quasar may suggest.

Thus this statement "meaning that a galaxy with mass x and distance y would have about the same red shift as a galaxy with mass 2x and distance 2y. " would be incorrect as far as mainstream astrophysicists are concerned.

Red shift is only a function of Doppler in their view, thus if we see two galaxies of equal brightness but one has a high red shift, then the one with high red shift must be more massive/energetic.

Yes well, I think the consensus may indeed be wrong about this. Although this would not automatically mean that the universe is not expanding. What is the EU stance on the red shift phenomena?

reply to post by -PLB-


Three schools of thought.

One is tired light. As light travels over great distance it becomes red shifted due to loss of energy. This theory has some problems that need to be overcome.

One is optical correlation + Doppler. Light from quasars is scattered as it passes through the plasma which can produce red shift effects. This theory still suggests galaxies are flying away from us, but would still pretty much blow up the big bang theory as it stands today.
arxiv.org...

One is the CREIL effect. Light is redshifted due to a resonant state of diffuse hydrogen. In an electric universe, this theory can explain all observations, including galactic redshift, without conflict as far as I am aware.
jean.moretbailly.free.fr...
arxiv.org...


My personal take is that it is probably a combination of CREIL and optical correlation.

Both of these effects are lab proven. - unlike expanding space.


Oh, and I have to make an minor addendum as to gravity redshifting light. The guys in the videos are saying redshift has no relationship to gravity.

As to the standard theorists, I point to this study refuting time dilation in quasars.

www3.interscience.wiley.com...



[edit on 25-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
ORLY?

It is the name of an airport near Paris, I believe.

Here's an entire institute dedicated to anarcho-capitalism: mises.org...

Fiddlesticks. The work of von Mises and the Austrian School of economists he founded is world-famous. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were fans. Neither of them were anarchists.

Mises was a classic liberal. Neither he nor the Austrian School advocated any form of anarchy. You have just proved, yet again, that you don't have a clue.

Oh wait, here's another one: c4ss.org...

A crank site run and frequented by others as ignorant as yourself. I never said you were alone in your fantasy world.

www.walterblock.com...
www.stephankinsella.com...
www.hanshoppe.com...

Present as many links as you please. Every lunatic idea in the world has a few dozen educated fools to promulgate it - sometimes, they even have professorships. That doesn't mean it works in practice.

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics.

Thanks for quoting this Wikipedia page. It encapsulates perfectly the internal contradictions, impossibility and blind folly of this moronic creed. One needs hardly add that nothing like 'anarcho-capitalism' has ever existed in the real world, or ever will.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I have a few more choice words for you was well.

More thunder balls, eh?

You have lobbed nothing but ad hom attacks and have, yet again, provided no rebuttal information other than simply stating I'm an idiot that has no idea what I'm talking about.

In thread after thread of your making, I have asked you to explain the scientific basis of your ideas. You have responded with evasions, links to irrelevant web sites, or - most frequently - by ignoring the question altogether. Since you have not the decency to answer fairly and honestly, questioning you is clearly pointless.

In thread after thread of your making, I have in the past offered reasoned, detailed rebuttals of your points, supported by documentary sources where appropriate. These you either ignored or replied to with gibberish. Since you have not the honour to admit it when you are proved wrong, rebuttal is clearly pointless.

Meanwhile, your own arrogance, discourtesy, foul language and self-righteous pomposity offend anyone who disagrees with you even slightly. Since you cannot disagree with others politely, polite conversation with you is clearly pointless.

In sum, you leave only two choices open to those who disagree with you: ignore you or attack you as you attack others.

Your conduct is a disgrace to these boards. I take exception to it, and to the pseudoscientific nonsense with which you aim to pollute hopeful minds with little knowledge and much desire to learn. It is among such people that you do your damage, and that is more than sufficient reason to oppose you and the likes of you.

Clearly if I am an idiot, then by definition, all of the physicists and cosmologists I reference must also be total idiots, since you are claiming I'm apparently incapable of formulating my own opinions.

The flawed implications and stupid conclusions you draw from misreading good scientific work do not invalidate the work, nor do they make idiots of the people who did it. Their achievement cannot be sullied by you. Your arrogant pronouncements reflect only on yourself, and they reflect poorly indeed.

Perhaps you should just butt the hell out of this thread if you have nothing productive to offer.

What I have to offer is productive, never fear. Your responses so far are proof enough of that.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Although I have not read this completely, it seems to only apply to quasars. How does it explain the difference in red shift between galaxies at the same distance?

reply to post by Astyanax


Amen to that, brother. Well written.

reply to post by Astyanax


What you have to offer is a lot of ad homs, this time not only directed at me, but at an entire field of economics.

Since you have yet again provided no science to back any of your claims and have offered nothing but personal attacks after I have repeatedly asked you to, I'm going to simply ignore you rather than continue this conversation.

While I disagree with the others, at least they attack my arguments and not me personally.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Although I have not read this completely, it seems to only apply to quasars. How does it explain the difference in red shift between galaxies at the same distance?

There are no differences in redshift between galaxies at the same distance.

If two galaxies have equal redshifts, then the standard theory says they are at the same distance.

If two galaxies are at the same distance, then they must have equal redshifts, according to the standard theory.

If you are interested in more information on redshifts, here's a tremendous amount of research that backs my claims.

sites.google.com...

You can find a large selection of papers proving that redshift is quantized, that we see high and low redshift objects attached to each other, and a large selection of papers that provide alternative explanations for redshift using the known laws of physics backed by laboratory experimentation.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Astyanax

 

What you have to offer is a lot of ad homs, this time not only directed at me, but at an entire field of economics.

Since you have yet again provided no science to back any of your claims and have offered nothing but personal attacks after I have repeatedly asked you to, I'm going to simply ignore you rather than continue this conversation.

While I disagree with the others, at least they attack my arguments and not me personally.

Hi OP. Looks as if some are doing a little digging on your associations. Try to not let it rob you of spin, angular momentum, all the good stuff that you still believe in that einstein didn't besmirch and call his own. The more I think about it, the more I realize is taken for granted. I am not a scientist in disposition, and here I see many connections for the realm of spirit (I shudder to use 'religion' just as I now question 'gravity' OMG). Mormon's, for instance, have this thing where they dream up a planet for themselves. Can't you just see the cult possibilities herein!

Not a real fan of the big A thing, because all systems require some tyranny, esp. in the universe. I won't go snooping through your associations and play judge. It's getting so that I know nothing at all, except how to be. THX for mindbending thread.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

There are no differences in redshift between galaxies at the same distance.

If two galaxies have equal redshifts, then the standard theory says they are at the same distance.

If two galaxies are at the same distance, then they must have equal redshifts, according to the standard theory.

If you are interested in more information on redshifts, here's a tremendous amount of research that backs my claims.

sites.google.com...

You can find a large selection of papers proving that redshift is quantized, that we see high and low redshift objects attached to each other, and a large selection of papers that provide alternative explanations for redshift using the known laws of physics backed by laboratory experimentation.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say

There are no differences in redshift between galaxies at the same distance.

And then:

we see high and low redshift objects attached to each other

The movie you linked is in favor of the last quote. So I was wondering how EU is explaining this. The links you gave earlier only seem to explain quasars, but in the video you linked they talk about galaxies also.

reply to post by -PLB-


hahah no I'm not contradicting myself.

What I'm demonstrating is that the standard theory is wrong.

If redshift = distance, then it should be impossible that we see high and low redshift objects connected to each other, yet we see such connections all over the place.

Thus, redshift must not be strictly a function of distance as the standard theory claims.




[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by -PLB-

 

hahah no I'm not contradicting myself.

What I'm demonstrating is that the standard theory is wrong.

If redshift = distance, then it should be impossible that we see high and low redshift objects connected to each other, yet we see such connections all over the place.

Thus, redshift must not be strictly a function of distance as the standard theory claims.




[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Yes I know the general consensus, and I know your position. What I am asking is how EU explains it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes I know the general consensus, and I know your position. What I am asking is how EU explains it.

I guess I wasn't clear enough.

In the post that details three alternatives to Doppler redshifts, you'll find plasma cosmology's explanation.

There may in fact be some Doppler redshifting, but plasma cosmology assumes a steady state universe, therefore any Doppler shifting will be limited.

Thus any explanation of redshifts that demonstrates a steady state universe would be compliant with plasma cosmology, such as those I just listed.



[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]