Experimental Confirmation That The Universe Is Not Expanding

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
One more nail in the coffin for the standard model. I doubt these exprimental results will be acknowledged by the wider fraud based academic community.

From the WSJ’s news wire:


Recently published independent experimental measurements conducted in the U.S. and Europe have confirmed scientist Ruggero M. Santilli’s “IsoRedShift of Sunlight at Sunset and Sunrise” research dismissing the conjecture of the expansion of the universe.

The R.M. Santilli Foundation announced the findings of the research in what was described as “avoiding a return to a Middle Ages belief that Earth is at the center of the universe.”

Santilli first noted the discovery in mathematical, theoretical and experimental publications initiated in 1978 as a Harvard University research program supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. New measurements conducted by Santilli confirm that, in the transition from the Zenith to the horizon, Sunlight experiences a shift of 100 nm toward the red for all frequencies without any appreciable relative motion between the Sun, the atmosphere and the observer. This confirms that light loses energy to cold media, thus experiencing a decrease of its frequency according to a new mechanism shown to be independent from scattering or absorption.

The discovery is built on preceding astrophysical measurements to achieve the approximate law according to which the cosmological redshift of galactic light is proportional to the distance of galaxies in “all” radial directions from Earth, and the redshift essentially occurs for “all” frequencies of galactic light.

To see the full supporting research click here.


Continue reading

Santilli’s results are not unexpected for those who follow plasma cosmology. Here’s some further supporting evidence that the mainstream science publications ignore:

1. Objects with high and low redshift have been observed to interact with each other.

2. Quasar redshift appears to be quantized, meaning the Earth must be at the center of the universe if expanding space is the cause of redshift.

3. Absorption lines can be effected by the “Coherent Raman Effect on time-Incoherent Light” (CREIL), which causes a reddening of absorption lines due to interference by hydrogen atoms in the vacuum of space.

4. The Wolf Effect can cause a reddening of absorption lines.

5. Magneto-optical effects of plasma, which makes up 99.9% of all the observable matter in space, can cause a change in the refractive index of light.

But hey, let’s not let the truth get in the way of Big Bang and Black Hole theory!




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Booyah!



1 - An exclamation of joy.
2 - A mocking or arrogant exclamation used to taunt a loser one has just beaten.


So, not to miss it. That's number 2 folks



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Let me post conventional explanations for some of these observations:



1. Objects with high and low redshift have been observed to interact with each other.


According to mainstream explanation, they just appear on top of each other from our direction of view, but in reality they are great distance apart. With the huge number of galaxies in the universe, it is probable that some will align to look very suggestively as if interacting, even if no interaction takes place.



2. Quasar redshift appears to be quantized, meaning the Earth must be at the center of the universe if expanding space is the cause of redshift.


There is a wiki article about this:

en.wikipedia.org...

The explanation is that redshift will be a bit quantised in our universe where galaxies are not regularly distributed, but instead arranged in superclusters and voids. This along with better measurements issupposed to explain all of the observed quantisation.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 

From your link:


PRESS RELEASE
The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content.

Here's the original release, placed by the R.M. Santilli foundation itself: PR Newswire.

Santilli is a crackpot.

For a discussion of basic errors and scientific howlers in his 'paper', see here.

The universe is expanding.



edit on 26/7/13 by Astyanax because: the universe is expanding.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Thanks for posting that, as it allows me the opportunity to point out the objections to those ridiculous explanations.


Originally posted by Maslo
Let me post conventional explanations for some of these observations:

According to mainstream explanation, they just appear on top of each other from our direction of view, but in reality they are great distance apart. With the huge number of galaxies in the universe, it is probable that some will align to look very suggestively as if interacting, even if no interaction takes place.


From a more recent paper that discusses NGC 7603: arxiv.org...


"Thus, with the magnitudes and the observed complete (non-biassed) galaxy counts[15]: P ∼ 3×10^−9"


In human terms, that's a 1 in 3,000,000,000 chance that this observed interaction is simply random coincidence.



There is a wiki article about this:

en.wikipedia.org...

The explanation is that redshift will be a bit quantised in our universe where galaxies are not regularly distributed, but instead arranged in superclusters and voids. This along with better measurements is supposed to explain all of the observed quantisation.


The wiki article attacks Arps' ancient papers on quantization. The paper I linked is from 2010. In that paper, Arp explains that the quantization becomes evident when the quasar cluster is transformed into the rest frame of the host galaxy. This finding by Arp has NEVER been refuted by anyone.


edit on 7/26/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Santilli is a crackpot.


Well, it's a good thing I linked papers from Arp, Wolf, Moret-Bailly, Lopez-Corredoira, Gutierrez, and a bunch of others on the wiki page.

Of course, I suspect you will call them all crackpots as well. That's what people like you do. You attack the messenger rather than the message. There's absolutely ZERO chance you will actually attack the science he published.

This is from the wiki page you linked:


Ruggero Maria Santilli was born in Capracotta, in the Italian region of Molise.

According to his curriculum vitae,[2] Santilli studied physics at the University of Naples and went on to attend the Graduate School in Physics of the University of Turin, graduating in 1966. In 1967 he was invited by the University of Miami to conduct research under NASA financial support. Starting in 1968, Santilli was an Associate Professor of Physics at Boston University, teaching physics and mathematics and conducted research for the United States Air Force. During this time, he became a naturalized American citizen. In August 1974 to August 1977 Santilli was a visiting scholar at the Center for Theoretical Physics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

From September 1977 to August 1981 was a visiting scholar at the Department of Mathematics Harvard University under Department of Energy funding jointly with Shlomo Sternberg.[3] In September 1981 Santilli established and became the President of the Institute for Basic Research.[2] Santilli is now Chairman of the Board and Chief Scientist of MagneGas Corporation.[4]


Yep, sounds like a real crackpot to me.

edit on 7/26/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


So you are saying that the universe is stagnant? And along with this theory where did they say it came from?

I get it ya but I think the universe is expanding no matter what due to gravity.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Thank you for your post and for the research and debate you have presented.

I am not a scientist. I just read a lot and love philosophy and topics about space and the universe. And, let me make it clear, i am all for research, seeking out new truths, new information and more important, 'Proof'

We (anybody on earth) have no idea where the center of the universe is. Fact! We have no idea how expansive the universe is. Fact!! We have no idea how the Universe or any of this all began. Fact!! (Nope, Big Bang is a theory....and nothing from nothing doesn't make something). We are missing something that we simply just do not know yet.

So, I love the discussion, love reading about new findings about planets, stars, and other fascinating things, things we have no clue about. It's 2013 and WE do not understand gravity. FACT!

Lastly, we haven't even investigated remote land regions on earth let alone the oceans of the world. So, it is ALL speculation, conjecture, possible, and maybe's!!!!! All we know, and that's questionable is that we are a small planet in a small galaxy revolving around a mid-sized star.

Due to lack of technology, meaning telescopes, optical equipment, etc. (Kepler is great), we can only see what our technology is capable of..........So humbly speaking, we have absolutely no idea what is out there in the far reaches of the Universe. We have no idea how large it is, if it even has a center (if infinite, no center) and so on and so on. Again, I'm all for research and searching and looking and exploring, love it, I only take exception when someone tries to influence or state for fact that something is true, when it is based upon potentially flawed theories, assumptions and dreams. IMHO!! Stick with the facts, take a deep breath and think about it!!! Peace!!!


Added Thought: Regarding expansion. Let's use the old pebble in the water example. Drop it in the water, what happens, ripples start to flow, flow and flow, now the point where the pebble actually made impact, may now seem calm, maybe even slight signs of receding into itself. However, those ripples keep going until we just can't see them anymore....but they are moving they are rippling slowly and continuously to what end? I have no idea and no one else knows either....but its fun to think about and to try and figure it out. It is only MHO that we stick with facts, the knowns and work from there, its ok to have theories, and to propose alternatives, but we just need to be careful with that, that's all they are, theories, possibilities, but those are not facts. again IMHO! Peace!
edit on 26-7-2013 by ItDepends because: additional comment



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Replying straight to the original post before I read the rest of the thread, but..... what??? That sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. 1) Redshift is always across the whole spectrum, you can't have a redshift of just part of the spectrum. and 2) The sky and the Sun go red at sunset / sunrise because sunlight has to go through a lot more of the atmosphere, and almost all of blue part is scattered and absorbed.

And what's that about light redshifting in cold medium? Have any experiments that support that?

Trust a pseudo-scientific theory find evidence in pseudo-science. Ruggero Santilli is quite an item himself.


Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Yep, sounds like a real crackpot to me.

Even some of the most prominent scientists are not immune to falling into crank-science. "A man who was so spectacularly right that he won two Nobel Prizes and so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack." - www.theatlantic.com...
edit on 26-7-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

For a discussion of basic errors and scientific howlers in his 'paper', see here.

The universe is expanding.


Very nice! Thank you, I was going to do my own "experiment" to test his claim using starlight instead, but frankly the debunkings on that link are so thorough and complete that there's really no reason for me to bother.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes, I knew those astrophysicists were jumping the gun. With their trigger happiness to put theories into print to teach the masses, what can we trust them on?



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Replying straight to the original post before I read the rest of the thread, but..... what??? That sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. 1) Redshift is always across the whole spectrum, you can't have a redshift of just part of the spectrum. and 2) The sky and the Sun go red at sunset / sunrise because sunlight has to go through a lot more of the atmosphere, and almost all of blue part is scattered and absorbed.

And what's that about light redshifting in cold medium? Have any experiments that support that?

Trust a pseudo-scientific theory find evidence in pseudo-science. Ruggero Santilli is quite an item himself.


Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Yep, sounds like a real crackpot to me.

Even some of the most prominent scientists are not immune to falling into crank-science. "A man who was so spectacularly right that he won two Nobel Prizes and so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack." - www.theatlantic.com...
edit on 26-7-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



I agree,

He's wrong.

However, the other links still make my point for me.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes, I knew those astrophysicists were jumping the gun. With their trigger happiness to put theories into print to teach the masses, what can we trust them on?


But why would you necessarily trust Ruggero Santilli more? Is there a reason to trust this scientist over the other scientists? Why do some people have a seemingly knee-jerk acceptance of this Santilli's theory when it actually has more holes in it than the going theory?

Edit to add:
I mean, do the people on here who are accepting Santilli's ideas over the current standard theory really see substance in this theory, or do they just think it would be "cool" if the current standard theory was wrong, and are being swayed by the desire to see mainstream science be wrong?

edit on 7/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Because I always felt, since I learned about the big bang and expansion in 8th grade science class, that the scientists were to gung ho in believing their beliefs, and desiring their theories to be truth, and then accepting their theories as truth, and using rather lame and iffy examples of 'evidence' and 'proof' to try and justify their theory, that I just never trusted their intelligence, and depth of imagination and ability. The cmb and redshift being one example of main uneasy things that made me question the present pillars of scientific understanding. Probably the lack of open mindedness and pride and confidence in the absolute validity of the present theories had a lot to do with turning me off from perusing a career in the profession though im not making this about me. Feel free to attack me on that last comment and disregard the rest.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
It's a shame that I put Santilli's work in with the rest of the links. That's what I get for not doing my homework first. I'm sure the critics will remain silent in regards to the rest of the published papers though.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Big bang is crazy. It's proponents may as well say the Earth is flat.

Big Bang is like squirting a cloud of dust from a smoke machine inside of a room, then saying that the room is expanding.


Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One more nail in the coffin for the standard model. I doubt these exprimental results will be acknowledged by the wider fraud based academic community.

From the WSJ’s news wire:


Recently published independent experimental measurements conducted in the U.S. and Europe have confirmed scientist Ruggero M. Santilli’s “IsoRedShift of Sunlight at Sunset and Sunrise” research dismissing the conjecture of the expansion of the universe.

The R.M. Santilli Foundation announced the findings of the research in what was described as “avoiding a return to a Middle Ages belief that Earth is at the center of the universe.”

Santilli first noted the discovery in mathematical, theoretical and experimental publications initiated in 1978 as a Harvard University research program supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. New measurements conducted by Santilli confirm that, in the transition from the Zenith to the horizon, Sunlight experiences a shift of 100 nm toward the red for all frequencies without any appreciable relative motion between the Sun, the atmosphere and the observer. This confirms that light loses energy to cold media, thus experiencing a decrease of its frequency according to a new mechanism shown to be independent from scattering or absorption.

The discovery is built on preceding astrophysical measurements to achieve the approximate law according to which the cosmological redshift of galactic light is proportional to the distance of galaxies in “all” radial directions from Earth, and the redshift essentially occurs for “all” frequencies of galactic light.

To see the full supporting research click here.


Continue reading

Santilli’s results are not unexpected for those who follow plasma cosmology. Here’s some further supporting evidence that the mainstream science publications ignore:

1. Objects with high and low redshift have been observed to interact with each other.

2. Quasar redshift appears to be quantized, meaning the Earth must be at the center of the universe if expanding space is the cause of redshift.

3. Absorption lines can be effected by the “Coherent Raman Effect on time-Incoherent Light” (CREIL), which causes a reddening of absorption lines due to interference by hydrogen atoms in the vacuum of space.

4. The Wolf Effect can cause a reddening of absorption lines.

5. Magneto-optical effects of plasma, which makes up 99.9% of all the observable matter in space, can cause a change in the refractive index of light.

But hey, let’s not let the truth get in the way of Big Bang and Black Hole theory!



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Well aside from some EU principles, I see the universe as Bohm surmised, who worked in particle physics, and observed a plasma state in atomic structure, he called it a screen, I think of it as a film, and this is a reflection from the real home/universe, and it was created perfect. Holographic Universe/school. The energies for this school are recycled, so that at different times, a different plan can be designed created for learning. And Big Bang is the moment of turning on the TV set.


Buffy the vampire slayer - Life's a show / Give me something to sing about

Inserted in without our memories (or another way of saying, we're all watching the movie, its like AI unfolding spore or something of that nature and we go in with a slice of our imagination) we think its real.

Default is what happened, and we're expected to not just do the body suit reactions but wake up, in the midst of this, and gain our Higher Mind and be Loving and if we are given the opportunity, develop or share out talents with the world and learn more.
edit on 26-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
mabey the universe is contracting and not expanding, of course then what was it prior state before it started collapsing.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


It's a shame that I put Santilli's work in with the rest of the links.

Made it the thread topic, you mean. Yes, it was a shameful thing to do.


That's what I get for not doing my homework first.

You mean, for trying to pass off a press release about absolutely nothing as a Wall Street Journal report about a scientific discovery. Trying, in other words, to pull the wool over ATS's eyes.


I'm sure the critics will remain silent in regards to the rest of the published papers though.

None of them prove that the universe is not expanding.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 



Experimental Confirmation That The Universe Is Not Expanding,
Like here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"I will still remain to my conviction that Universe is rotating at the speed of light I mean the walls of the Universe are rotating with the speed of light and in his vast imensitty we cannot see his round shape.This is why in my humble opinion we wrongly think that the Universe is still expanding and light is forwarding as a consequence of primordial Big bang billions of years ago.

This is the reason why speed of light is the limit.Although is hard to believe Universe has it's own gravity like any other universal body belonging to the universe.If universe will not spin with the speed of light,I mean his walls , then like all the systems in equilibrium here and there will collapse only this time in a primordial big bang and I will annotate more bang than bing."





 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join