The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

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

I thought you made the same claim as the standard theory that redshift and distance are correlated, though there may be some exceptions in either theory? Am I right or wrong about that?

I thought your beef with the standard theory was that you disagree the redshift correlated with recessional velocity, not that you disagree that redshift generally correlates with distance. You posted this graph and I thought you accepted redshift versus distance correlation?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5179db75884a.gif[/atsimg]

Standard theory doesn't say redshift is "strictly a function of distance as the standard theory claims."" so that's a false claim on your part. On the redshift versus distance chart, while there is a best fit straight line, most of the points are actually off the line, so for each deviation from that line, there is some other explanation for the deviation other than the general linear relationship of redshift versus distance.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought you made the same claim as the standard theory that redshift and distance are correlated, though there may be some exceptions in either theory? Am I right or wrong about that?

I thought your beef with the standard theory was that you disagree the redshift correlated with recessional velocity, not that you disagree that redshift generally correlates with distance.

Standard theory doesn't say redshift is "strictly a function of distance as the standard theory claims."" so that's a false claim on your part. On the redshift versus distance chart, while there is a best fit straight line, most of the points are actually off the line, so for each deviation from that line, there is some other explanation for the deviation other than the general linear relationship of redshift versus distance.

I made the claim (in my video) that there probably is some correlation between redshift and distance IN GALAXIES - which is a conditional statement. I also never said that this redshift was a function of recessional velocity. I don't believe that at all. It is still perfectly logical to say redshift correlates to distance in galaxies if one assumes that a CREIL effect is responsible for redshifting in galaxies rather than Doppler.

The further away from us a galaxy is, the more resonant hydrogen the light will pass through, thus the more redshifted its light will be.

Standard theory assumes Doppler effects are responsible for the VAST majority of redshift. I don't find the statement disingenuous at all.

reply to post by mnemeth1


We are talking in circles. My reply to the three hypothesis you came with was that they only seem to propose an explanation for quasars, and don't seem to explain the different red shift in galaxies that are at the same distance. So I expect an answer that goes something like "no they also explain discrepancies for red shift of galaxies, and it works like this and this". Or you can answer "EU can't explain it very well yet".

[edit on 26-5-2010 by -PLB-]

reply to post by mnemeth1

No matter which theory one subscribes to, they have to account for the blue shifted galaxies. If it was strictly a function of distance, there would be no blueshifted galaxies because that would represent a negative distance which is impossible.

So saying it's a general correlation is one thing, saying it's "strictly a function of...." isn't right. There's too much variability in the data to say it's all due to one correlation of anything as the blueshifted galaxies demonstrate.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

We are talking in circles. My reply to the three hypothesis you came with was that they only seem to propose an explanation for quasars, and don't seem to explain the different red shift in galaxies that are at the same distance. So I expect an answer that goes something like "no they also explains discrepancies for galaxies red shift, and it works like this and this". Or you can answer "EU can't explain it that very well yet".

Oh, sorry.

Lets look at galaxies.

Part IV: Restates the coherent radiation transfer process described by Moret-Bailly, (CREIL),which is responsible for displacing the redshift of quasars-like objects, and their host galaxies, relative to the rest of the universe.

arxiv.org...

See part IV for more information on how CREIL can affect intergalactic space, and hence, galactic redshift.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No matter which theory one subscribes to, they have to account for the blue shifted galaxies. If it was strictly a function of distance, there would be no blueshifted galaxies because that would represent a negative distance which is impossible.

So saying it's a general correlation is one thing, saying it's "strictly a function of...." isn't right. There's too much variability in the data to say it's all due to one correlation of anything as the blueshifted galaxies demonstrate.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

CREIL accounts for that.

See the paper I just linked in the previous post.

CREIL all on its own can account for all effects of redshifting and blueshifting observed, including the Pioneer probes.





[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Oh, sorry.

Lets look at galaxies.

Part IV: Restates the coherent radiation transfer process described by Moret-Bailly, (CREIL),which is responsible for displacing the redshift of quasars-like objects, and their host galaxies, relative to the rest of the universe.

arxiv.org...

See part IV for more information on how CREIL can affect intergalactic space, and hence, galactic redshift.

Yes, I know CREIL could explain red shift anomalies caused by quasars like objects, I am asking about difference in red shift between galaxies that are very near each other, like demonstrated in the movie you linked.

If you don't know this, just say so, I won't bite.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Oh, sorry.

Lets look at galaxies.

Part IV: Restates the coherent radiation transfer process described by Moret-Bailly, (CREIL),which is responsible for displacing the redshift of quasars-like objects, and their host galaxies, relative to the rest of the universe.

arxiv.org...

See part IV for more information on how CREIL can affect intergalactic space, and hence, galactic redshift.

Yes, I know CREIL could explain red shift anomalies caused by quasars like objects, I am asking about difference in red shift between galaxies that are very near each other, like demonstrated in the movie you linked.

If you don't know this, just say so, I won't bite.

CREIL does account for that.

Optical correlation also can account for that.

You have two choices to pick from.

I believe it is probably a mix of the two.

The paper is explicit in distinguishing the difference in CREIL effects between supernova, quasars, and galaxies.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yeah, I got my own video that debunks that nonsense.

I watched the rest of your videos. A lot of the points have already been argued here on both sides so no need to re-hash all of them. But one thing in particular stood out to me.

You mentioned the Einstein cross and how it was ridiculous that the intensity of the lensed images could change so rapidly if they were refracted images instead of real quasars. Actually it occurred to me it may be easier to understand the fluctuation if they are refracted images, if you understand how refracted images work.

Mirages are refracted images where the light is bent by changes in air density instead of by gravity. Here's a picture of a mirage:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2513e065cb52.jpg[/atsimg]

While this refraction doesn't have the same cause as gravitational refraction (or bending), it has a similar effect, in that it displaces apparent objects from their original position. The person who took this photograph noted that the entire superior mountaintop reflection above the mountain top was appearing/disappearing as they watched it We can see two tops just to the left of center without the rest of the mountain reflected,but that was fading in and out of view, with tiny changes in the conditions present.

Here's another example from the Tanana valley in Alaska:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/536f15dc7f2c.png[/atsimg]

It takes very little to change the size shape and intensity of refracted light as these mirage examples illustrate, and a gravitational lens is similarly refracted light. The tiniest changes in a gravitational lens could similarly make large changes in the intensity of the lensed objects. In fact, the drastic intensity changes you present seem to do more to support the opposing viewpoint than the point you are trying to make. So I watched patiently and waited for you to explain how your theory explains the variation of 4 separate quasars better than the "standard" explanation, but you never did.

If you are going to claim the other guy's explanation is wrong, and you have a better one, then you need to at least present yours, which you failed to do in this case of the Einstein cross intensity variability.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


First off, it is not necessary to provide a better alternative to show an existing theory is wrong.

There is nothing that says I can't falsify the existing theory and simply reduce the state of knowledge back to an unknown.

The "caustic crossing" events used to describe the intensity changes are a load of rubbish. Explain why intensity should change but not the image. There was no bending of light, no displacement. The quasars remained fixed in their positions as intensity changed. The quasars did not bend or become oblong in shape.

As for an alternative explanation, lets look at Peratt's work.

Peratt shows us how quasars can be formed and vary by filamental disruption. The current pinch creating the galaxy and subsequent quasars can be overloaded or short-out creating morphological changes. Peratt details the fundamental morphology of QSOs to proper Seyfert spirals in his super computer simulation.

What we see occurring in laboratory plasma filaments and pinches can be extrapolated on the large scale.

public.lanl.gov...



[edit on 26-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

So if Saturn is gas and water, how could it spit out a solid body like Earth?

If Jupiter and Saturn are merely gas, how is it that they have strong gravitational forces?

As to the Asteroid Belt; are you not familiar with this story:?

www.knowledge.co.uk...

"When the Earth Nearly Died carefully documents the fascinating story - which has never been told before in such detail - of how this Golden Age of peaceful conditions and equable climates ended traumatically in a tremendous catastrophe about 11,500 years ago. This was part of a cataclysm which disturbed the whole solar system, destroyed at least one sizable planet and its satellite, and also severely devastated Mars and Earth. "

reply to post by mnemeth1


First you say that it's not necessary to provide theory B in order to prove that theory A is wrong, and then the rest of the message is devoted to theory B. Some nice logic there.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sorry I haven't been in the thread latley, been busy arguing with religious morons in another thread. Damn hypocrites really get my blood boiling!

You mentioned the Einstein cross and how it was ridiculous that the intensity of the lensed images could change so rapidly if they were refracted images instead of real quasars. Actually it occurred to me it may be easier to understand the fluctuation if they are refracted images, if you understand how refracted images work.

My bleeping god! seriously? Even *IF* it were some form of mirage effect, it wouldn't make one quasar dim and another brighten! That's just common sense. The quasars are observably individual quasars exhibiting distinct individual behaviors. Neither mirage effect nor gravitational lensing should cause one to brighten and another to dim or show distinct differences in movement, rotation, etc.

Even if we say "mirage effect", if the *ONE* quasar brightens, ALL would brighten, even IF they look really really really funny compared to each other. Even if one of them looked like a bunny rabbit and another looked like a lollipop. Brightness would NOT change in either "distortion" of the one singular quasar. The problem here is that they ALL exhibit distinct individual characteristics!

reply to post by buddhasystem


I don't know if this has been answered yet, been away from the thread. But... Why can't we include plasma physics in a universe filled with plasmas? Why is that so wrong? Why is that considered "pseudoscience"? Why can't electricity have any effect in space born plasmas, but its perfectly fine for plasmas on Earth?

I just can't follow the logic here.

reply to post by sirnex

You're apparently assuming that the brightening and dimming must be of the original quasar, in order to assume that all 4 refracted images would brighten and dim in unison. And I'm not assuming the original quasar is changing in intensity, at least not to the degree we see in the Einstein cross images in the video.

The refracted image in the mirage can make an individual hilltop appear and disappear even though the surrounding hilltops are not doing so. And yet there's no change in the illumination of the original hilltops that are the source of the refracted images that are changing drastically. The phenomenon is the result of tiny changes in the refraction causing tiny angle changes over a long distance.

And of course in the quasar example the distances are even longer so tiny changes are even more amplified.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I don't know if this has been answered yet, been away from the thread. But... Why can't we include plasma physics in a universe filled with plasmas? Why is that so wrong? Why is that considered "pseudoscience"? Why can't electricity have any effect in space born plasmas, but its perfectly fine for plasmas on Earth?

I just can't follow the logic here.

I see mainstream articles about plasma physics in space all the time.

Mainstream doesn't reject plasma or its effects.

What the mainstream rejects is silly notions like the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion but by some unseen, unproven electric inflow that doesn't exist. But mainstream acknowledges plenty of plasma and electromagnetic phenomena in space.

Since when was being wrong a bad thing? I am sure Einstein might even have agreed with you ....if he were alive. He did the best he could at the time, sparked modern physics, then died....I think he did a fine job. I see no reason to rub it in his face that many years after his death, not everything he believed was final....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I don't know if this has been answered yet, been away from the thread. But... Why can't we include plasma physics in a universe filled with plasmas? Why is that so wrong? Why is that considered "pseudoscience"? Why can't electricity have any effect in space born plasmas, but its perfectly fine for plasmas on Earth?

I just can't follow the logic here.

I see mainstream articles about plasma physics in space all the time.

Mainstream doesn't reject plasma or its effects.

What the mainstream rejects is silly notions like the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion but by some unseen, unproven electric inflow that doesn't exist. But mainstream acknowledges plenty of plasma and electromagnetic phenomena in space.

Yes, yes it does reject REAL plasma and its effects.

See my other thread for what constitutes a real magnetized plasma.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What the mainstream rejects is silly notions like the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion but by some unseen, unproven electric inflow that doesn't exist. But mainstream acknowledges plenty of plasma and electromagnetic phenomena in space.

Yes, yes it does reject REAL plasma and its effects.

OK well the mainstream does reserve the right to determine what's real and what's not real, and that's subject to change as new discoveries are made and more observational evidence is collected and analyzed.

But sirnex's question seemed to suggest that the mainstream doesn't recognize the effects of plasma in space which as this article indicates, they do when they think it's real (And it's about a moon so maybe it's on topic in a moon thread?):

Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05b8cad9adaa.jpg[/atsimg]

Within Jupiter's magnetosphere, there is a significant amount of hot, ionized gas, or plasma. This plasma moves along with Jupiter's rotating magnetic field, sweeping charged particles off the surfaces of its moons as it passes them. Io has a particularly significant impact on Jupiter's magnetosphere. Io's volcanoes continually expel an enormous amount of particles into space, and these are swept up by Jupiter's magnetic field at a rate of 1,000 kg/sec. This material becomes ionized in the magnetic field and forms a doughnut-shaped track around Io's orbit called the Io Plasma Torus.

As Io circles around Jupiter and through the plasma torus, an enormous electrical current flows between them. Approximately 2 trillion watts of power is generated. The current follows the magnetic field lines to Jupiter's surface where it creates lightning in the upper atmosphere.

"an enormous electrical current" making 2 trillion watts of electrical power!!! The universe really IS electric.

This is one example of what mainstream calls "real" plasma in space, and it's pretty cool. There are plenty of other examples. So the mainstream does not "deny plasma" as you might like some of your readers to believe. They simply evaluate what observational evidence supports which theories and make judgment calls about which theories are supported by evidence and which are not. This judgment can change over time as new observations are made and more evidence is collected, so the process of scientific consensus is a dynamic process and not static.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Judgement needs to change NOW.

This is not a debate society.

The evidence is clear.

Space is electric.

This is not a "consensus" operation.

Scientists continuing to ignore the facts is criminal behavior. They know full well what the laws of physics say about plasma, these people aren't dumb. They are criminal. There are no more excuses for the behavior of these scientists.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by mnemeth1]