Monday, March 12, 2012

386 Halton Arp - the new Galileo who disproved the Big Bang theory. Plasma Cosmology - the Electric Universe

Halton Arp - the new Galileo who disproved the Big Bang theory. Plasma Cosmology - the Electric Universe

If you've ever heard a train whistle die away as it speeds past you, you've encoutered the concept of recessional velocity.

It was this idea that led scientists to the view that redshift in the spectral wavelengths of a distant heavenly body indicated that it was moving away. The fact that distant objects seemed to be moving away (in all directions) implied an Expanding universe. Extrapolating backwards, they postulated an earlier, condensed state - the Big Bang, a Creation ex nihilo (from nothing), before which Space and Time did not exist. Many concluded that the universe would also come to an end one day.

Einstein stated that his universe (based on Relativity theory) is finite in size - bounded.

The Big Bang became entrenched Orthodoxy, to which a confession of faith was demanded of those aspiring to grants, tenure etc in academic Physics departments.

The religions derived from Zoroastrianism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and Feminism) have a linear concept of time, which they see as Salvation History. An act of Salvation or Redemption divides history into two stages - a time of sin, exile or slavery, and a time of liberation from it.

Abandoning the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe means abandoning this human-centred viewpoint. Perhaps that is, secretly, a reason for the grip the Big Bang has.

Space scientists fall into two groups - Astrophysicists, who specialize in theory, which requires mathematics - and Astronomers, who specialize in observation by means of telescopes (optical, radio etc).

Halton Arp is an Astronomer who, by his observations and the photos and galactic atlases he produced, has amassed evidence inconsistent with the recessional interpretation of Redshift.

He has thus undermined the Big Bang theory. Like Galileo before him, he has suffered persecution for daring to unsettle the orthodoxy. The Establishment's main defence against his data is to avert its gaze from it.

Arp has not worked alone. For decades he was a colleague of Fred Hoyle, a leading Astrophysicist who set out a powerful heterodox vision of an eternal and unbounded universe, one in which life does not arise from non-life but is seeded from live parts to dead parts.

Other Astronomers have also collaborated with Arp, sometimes at risk to their careers.

Arp says that, rather than there having been an initial Creation in the Big Bang, Creation and Destruction are ongoing and never-ending. Matter is constantly being recycled as old heavenly bodies die and new ones are born.

Item 3 consists of links to videos on Youtube. These ones are high-quality; I have taken pains to avoid the New Age rants that get mixed in. If you find the printed text of items 1 & 2 turgid - too thick for comprehension - then go straight to item 3. Item 4 features a book you might like to buy on this topic.

(1) Halton Arp shows that Redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. Thus no Big Bang.
(2) Halton Arp: Redshift is a property of newly-created matter (young matter)
(3) Plasma Cosmology - the Electric Universe (a corrective to "Gravity only" models)
(4) Donald E. Scott, author of The Electric Sky, explains Plasma

(1) Halton Arp shows that Redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. Thus no Big Bang.

What is the basic idea behind the Big Bang? Wikipedia says <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>:

{quote} After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity. If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. ...
This page was last modified on 3 October 2010 at 19:32.
{endquote}

Donald E. Scott explains Redshift:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Redshift

by Donald E. Scott, Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)

{quote} What is redshift?

If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'. The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us. This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us. The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume? It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

If the wavelength of an absorption line in an object's observed spectrum appears at a wavelength that is, say, 1.56 times its 'normal wavelength' (the wavelength at which it is observed in a laboratory experiment here on Earth), then we say this object has a positive redshift of z = 0.56. The 'z value' is simply the observed fractional increase in the wavelength of the spectral lines. The simple interpretation of this is to say that this object must therefore be receding from us at 56% of the speed of light or 0.56 x 300,000 km/sec. Mainstream astrophysicists believe that recessional velocity, v = cz. This object, therefore, must be very far away from Earth.

But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values.

Halton Arp

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'. ...

Inherent Redshift

Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent iredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. ...

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

Evidence Says Arp is Right - A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy

The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.

In fact, a higher magnification image of the quasar (below) shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar.

So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest.

The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified.

Halton C. Arp is now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Occasionally he returns to the United States to give lectures and visit family. {end}

(2) Halton Arp: Redshift is a property of newly-created matter (young matter)

The Reluctant Copernicans

Halton Arp

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/is_physics_changing

{quote} This brings us to the conventional assumption of extragalactic redshifts as representing large recessional velocities versus the evidence for their being an intrinsic property of young matter. The key here is the rock upon which science is founded - the observations. Large redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic objects which are at the same distance. Intrinsic redshifts are required. But now what is the consequence of having low mass fundamental particles? It is simply that low mass electrons transitioning between atomic orbits will emit and absorb lower energy photons, i.e. they will appear redshifted compared to atoms with heavier particles.

What Narlikar showed is that the rigorous solution of the field equations (which in flat space are simply conservation of energy/momentum) requires the elementary particles to gain mass as m = t2. This actually requires that galaxies all born at the same time show a scatter free Hubble relation matching the observed slope of about 50 km/se/Mpc.4 Moreover, as we shall discuss briefly in the next section, it predicts that extragalactic objects should have high intrinsic redshifts when they are young and lose their excess redshift as they age.

Observations of Growth and Change in the Universe

When dark matter and dark energy become stale we can go back to the observations. Galaxies, like a group of animals, reveal at a glance all stages of birth, growth and maturity. Take one example. M87 is a famous galaxy near the center of our Local Super Cluster. In 1918, even before the recognition of galaxies, it was observed with a small telescope to have a blue spike coming out of its center5. With the most expensive modern day telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, Fig. 1 shows this spike contains a number of small, compact objects. These objects are radiating a continuous spectrum of synchrotron (charged particle) radiation. The conventional view is that they are clouds of hot gas ejected from the nucleus with about the speed of light (observed from displacement over time).

But how do you accelerate a cloud of hot gas to velocity near c? How do you get a hold of it? And why does it not just go POOF and dissipate? Even more revealing, one sees these objects grow in size and luminosity as they move outward along the jet. What do we see further out along the jet? For one, a radio, X-ray galaxy (M 84) with swept back X-ray isophotes indicating travel out along the jet. It is closely accompanied by a high redshift (z ~ 1) quasar. Further out is a very bright radio, X-ray quasar with flanking quasars around z = 1. This is all set in an extended line of X-ray sources and older, more evolved galaxies 5.

So we have spread out before us a more or less complete empirical demonstration of how galaxies are born and evolve. As the variable mass theory requires, the emergence of new matter near m = 0 requires speeds of pure energy near c. As the particle masses grow they slow down in order to conserve momentum in the extragalactic rest frame. That means the elementary particles cool. Together with the increasing gravity the growing matter condenses into a proto quasar/galaxy. (No dark matter needed!) When atoms form they at first radiate weak, high redshifted photons. The redshift then decreases with time as it evolves into a more normal galaxy. The variable mass theory requires the younger galaxies to have intrinsic redshifts which diminish as they evolve. ... {end}

Halton Arp's website: http://www.haltonarp.com/.

Arp's Anomalies by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2473>

{quote} Halton Arp is an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich, Germany. He has been referred to by some of his colleagues as "the most feared astronomer on Earth" (see Kaufmann, 1981). Renowned physicist John Gribbin once wrote that "for 20 years or so" Arp has been "a thorn in the side of establishment astronomy" (1987, p. 65). ...

By way of summary, Arp has discovered entities (e.g., galaxies) that exhibit one redshift value (designated as "z" in the scientific literature) that are physically associated with other entities (e.g., quasars) with entirely different redshift values. As Gribbin wryly noted: "If a galaxy and a quasar are physically connected, but have different redshifts, something definitely is wrong.... Arp has enough evidence that he ought to be worrying more people than actually acknowledge the significance of his findings" (p. 65, emp. added). {endquote}

To buy Halton Arp's book Seeing Red: http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905.

(3) Plasma Cosmology - the Electric Universe (a corrective to "Gravity only" models)

The Electric Universe Pt1 of 4

Presented by Wal Thornhill and a number of others. As an example of the Electrical Model of the solar system, a comet is seen as a charged object moving through an electric field. Objects fired into asteroids, even into Jupiter, elicit a flash (of discharge) just before impact. It's worth watching all four parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEVM-IkXLA&feature=related

Electric Sun Theory - A CAPACITOR:

Argues that, while the sun contains a nuclear fusion reactor, that reactor causes a voltage buildup on the surface, such that the solar surface acts as a condenser (capacitor), attracting charge from across the solar system. The solar wind is a voltage equalizer; the solar wind would not flow out without a charge imbalance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWb-yDqQdJ4&feature=related

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1

A series of 9 Parts; I viewed 5. Features leading astronomers including Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp and Margaret Burbidge.

It shows that Halton Arp is the new Galileo who has undermined the Big Bang theory. Very important to watch this series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=related

Don Scott is the author of the book The Electric Sky, from which excerpts are presented below. It's a book that I've just bought, and which I urge others to buy. Details are at the end of this email bulletin.

But before risking your money, watch his presentation to NASA Goddard center:

Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions
by Dr. Donald E. Scott

This is a presentation given by Don Scott to NASA, in 7 parts. They should play sequentially: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y&feature=PlayList&p=706638773004BE39&index=0&playnext=1.

In case they don't, Part 2 starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dCJJj2u3NE&p=706638773004BE39&index=2&playnext=2.

(4) Donald E. Scott, author of The Electric Sky, explains Plasma

Donald E. Scott, author of The Electric Sky, explains Plasma at <http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm>:

{quote} Plasma

... An electrical plasma is a cloud of ions and electrons that, under the excitation of applied electrical and magnetic fields, can sometimes light up and behave in some unusual ways. The most familiar examples of electrical plasmas are the neon sign, lightning, and the electric arc welding machine. The ionosphere of Earth is an example of a plasma that does not emit visible light. Plasma permeates the space that contains our solar system. The cloud of particles that constitutes the solar 'wind' is a plasma. Our entire Milky Way galaxy consists mainly of plasma. In fact 99% of the entire universe is plasma!

History

During the late 1800's in Norway, physicist Kristian Birkeland explained that the reason we could see the auroras was that they were plasmas. Birkeland also discovered the twisted corkscrew shaped paths taken by electric currents when they exist in plasmas. Sometimes those twisted shapes are visible and sometimes not - it depends on the strength of the current density being carried by the plasma. Today these streams of ions and electrons are called Birkeland Currents. The mysterious sprites, elves, and blue jets associated with electrical storms on Earth are examples of Birkeland currents in the plasma of our upper atmosphere. ...

There are three distinctly different steady state modes in which a plasma can operate:

1.Dark Current Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) within the plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow. It is essentially invisible. We would not know a plasma was there at all unless we measured its electrical activity with sensitive instruments. The present day magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode.

2.Normal Glow Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) is significant. The entire plasma glows. The brightness of the glow depends on the intensity of the current in the plasma. Examples: Any neon sign. Emission nebulae. The Sun's corona.

3.Arc Mode - The strength of the electrical current in the plasma is very high. The plasma radiates brilliantly over a wide spectrum. Current tends to form twisting filaments. Examples of this mode of operation are: An electric arc welding machine. Lightning. The Sun's photosphere.

In all three modes of operation, plasmas emit measurable electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency noise). At any given time, the current density (Amps per square meter) existing in the plasma, determines which particular mode a plasma is operating in. The atomic structure of the gas that became ionized to form the plasma in the first place also is a factor in this.

Double Layers

One of the most important properties of any electrical plasma is its ability to "self-organize" - that is, to electrically isolate one section of itself from another. The isolating wall is called a double layer (DL). ...

If the voltage difference from one electrode to the other becomes large enough, a DL will form in a narrow cross-section somewhere in the middle of the tube. Almost all the voltage drop that is applied across the electrodes will fall across this DL. The plasma on one side of the DL (the side toward the anode) will have approximately the same voltage as the anode. The plasma on the cathode side of the DL will have essentially the same voltage as the cathode. The two halves of the plasma are then electrically isolated from one another by the DL. ...

If a foreign object is inserted into a plasma, a DL will form around it, shielding it from the main plasma. This effect makes it difficult to insert voltage sensing probes into a plasma in order to measure the electric potential at a specific location. This is a well known property of plasmas. Various methods have been developed in the laboratory to overcome it.

In space, it is impossible to send a spacecraft to measure the voltage of the solar plasma at some point. Voltage is a relative measure (like velocity, for example); it must be measured with respect to some datum. A spacecraft will start out having the same voltage as the surface of Earth. As it penetrates the plasmasphere and enters the solar plasma it will slowly accumulate charge and thus alter its voltage. The strength of an electric field, however, can be measured in space.

The Z-Pinch

Electric current, passing through a plasma, will take on the corkscrew (spiral) shape discovered by Birkeland. These Birkeland currents most often occur in pairs. ...

Now we know that there can be slight voltage differences between different points in plasmas. Plasma engineer Hannes Alfvén pointed out this fact in his acceptance speech while receiving the Nobel Prize for physics in 1970. ...

Because plasmas are good (but not perfect) conductors, they are equivalent to wires in their ability to carry electrical current. It is well known that if any conductor cuts through a magnetic field, a current will be caused to flow in that conductor. This is how electric generators and alternators work. Therefore, if there is any relative motion between a cosmic plasma, say in the arm of a galaxy, and a magnetic field in that same location, Birkeland currents will flow in the plasma. These currents will, in turn, produce their own magnetic fields.

Plasma phenomena are scalable. That is to say, their electrical and physical properties remain the same, independent of the size of the plasma. Of course dynamic phenomena take much less time to occur in a small laboratory plasma than they do in a plasma the size, say, of a galaxy. But the phenomena are identical in that they obey the same laws of physics. So we can make accurate models of cosmic sized plasmas in the lab - and generate effects exactly like those seen in space. In fact, electric currents, flowing in plasmas, have been shown to produce most of the observed astronomical phenomena that are inexplicable if we assume that the only forces at work in the cosmos are magnetism and gravity.

Why Do Astrophysicists Ignore Electrical Phenomena?

When such a firm foundation has been laid for continued work in the electrical properties of the universe, why do "mainstream" astrophysicists continue to ignore this field of study and, instead, patch up their failing "gravity only" models with more and more arcane, invented theoretical fictions? ...

The American Institute of Physics has just recently announced that they will now officially recognize the Plasma Universe as an official field of study in physics! Eighty years late! But better late than never.

Dark (Missing) Matter

What Was Missing

Dutch astronomer Jan Oort first discovered the 'missing matter' problem in the 1930's. By observing the Doppler red-shift values of stars moving near the plane of our galaxy, Oort assumed he could calculate how fast the stars were moving. Since the galaxy was not flying apart, he reasoned that there must be enough matter inside the galaxy such that the central gravitational force was strong enough to keep the stars from escaping, much as the Sun's gravitational pull keeps a planet in its orbit. But when the calculation was made, it turned out that there was not enough mass in the galaxy. And the discrepancy was not small; the galaxy had to be at least twice as massive as the sum of the mass of all its visible components combined. Where was all this missing matter?

In addition, in the 1960's the radial profile of the tangential velocity of stars in their orbits around the galactic center as a function of their distance from that center was measured. It was found that typically, once we get away from the galactic center all the stars travel with the same velocity independent of their distance out from the galactic center. (See the figure below.) Usually, as is the case with our solar system, the farther out an object is, the slower it travels in its orbit. ...

The dilemma presented by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation can only be resolved by realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Galaxies are not held together by gravity. They are formed, driven, and stabilized by dynamic electromagnetic effects.

The Real Explanation:

Dynamic Electromagnetic Forces in Cosmic Plasmas

Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of tenuous clouds of ions and electrons called electric plasma. Plasmas respond to the electrical physical laws codified by James Clerk Maxwell and Oliver Heaviside in the late 1800's. An additional single law due to Hendrick Lorentz explains the mysterious stellar velocities described above.

d/dt(mv) = q(E + v x B)Simply stated, this law says that a moving charged particle's momentum (direction) can be changed by application of either an electric field, E, or a magnetic field, B, or both. Consider the mass and charge of a proton for example. The electrostatic force between two protons is 36 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (given by Newton's equation). It's not that Newton's Law is wrong. It is just that in deep space it is totally overpowered by the Maxwell-Lorentz forces of electromagnetic dynamics.

Notice, in the equation in the previous paragraph, that the change in a charged particle's momentum (left hand side of the equation) is directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field, B, the particle is moving through. The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic sized Birkeland current) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current. Both electrostatic and gravitational forces fall off inversely as the square of the distance. This inherent difference in the spatial distribution of electromagnetic forces as compared to gravitational forces may indeed be the root cause of the inexplicable velocity profiles exhibited by galaxies.

Electrical engineer Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, using Maxwell's and Lorentz's equations, has shown that charged particles, such as those that form the intergalactic plasma, will evolve into very familiar galactic shapes under the influence of electrodynamic forces. The results of these simulations fit perfectly with the observed values of the velocity contours in galaxies. No missing matter is needed - and Newton can rest easy in his grave. The electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude stronger than the force due to gravity and it distributes itself more widely throughout space. But present day astronomy refuses to recognize the existence of any cosmic force other than gravity. That error is the cause of their mystification. ...

In 1986, Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven postulated both an electrical galactic model and an electric solar model. Recently physicist Wal Thornhill has pointed out that Alfven's circuits are really scaled up versions of the familiar homopolar motor that serves as the watt-hour meter on each of our homes. The simple application of the Lorentz force equation ("crossing" the direction, v, of the current into the direction, B, of the magnetic field) yields a rotational force. Not only does this effect explain the mysterious tangential velocities of the outer stars in galaxies, but also (in scaled down version) the observed fact that our Sun rotates faster at its equator than at higher (solar) latitudes.

Up to now astronomers and cosmologists have not given serious consideration to any sort of electrical explanation for any of the above observations. ...

Conclusion

Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation. The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms). The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)

But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell's equations are! Why do astrophysicists grope wildly for solutions in every possible direction except the right one? {end}

To order The Electric Sky from the publisher's online bookstore: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm.

Published in 2006. One sign that this is a good book is that the second-hand price (at Abebooks and Addall) is much higher (double) than the new price from the above online shop. Further, second-hand copies are rare.

The above material is from my webpage on Dissident Science, http://mailstar.net/science.html.

That webpage has much more material on this topic, than can be covered here. It includes much criticism of Einstein.

No comments:

Post a Comment