Just reading this James P. Hogan interview:
http://www.artistinterviews.com/literature/jamesphogan.htm
"For a number of years I'd had experience from personally getting to
know specialists in such areas as atmospheric sciences, environmental
subjects, and nuclear energy of the enormous discrepancies that existed
between the stories the public were being exposed to and what seemed to
me to be the true state of affairs. ... Halton Arp, for decades one of
the most respected observational astronomers, became a nonperson
virtually overnight when he began publishing scores of plates suggesting
something fundamentally wrong with the conventional interpretation of
the redshift. "
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
which lead me to:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
"... This has been a brief introduction to Juergens' Electric Sun model:
- the realization that our Sun functions electrically - that it is a
huge electrically charged, relatively quiescent, sphere of gas that
supports an electric plasma arc discharge on its surface and is powered
by the subtle currents that move throughout the now well known tenuous
plasma that fills our galaxy. Today's orthodox thermonuclear models fail
to explain many observed solar phenomena. The Electric Sun model is
inherently predictive of all these observed phenomena. It is simple.
It is self consistent. And it does not require the existence of
mysterious entities such as the unseen solar "dynamo" that lurks
somewhere beneath the surface of the fusion model. The Electric Sun
model does not violate Maxwell's equations as the fusion model does. ..."
Anybody know anything about this Electric Sun or related Redshift
controversy? Could the Sun be powered electrically? And could Halton Arp
be correct and astronomers are witnessing frequent births of galaxies,
not collisions (and perhaps a very living universe with interactions
mediated more by plasma electrodynamics than gravity)?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm
What impact would this have on space settlement?
--Paul Fernhout
Em Sex 27 Fev 2004 21:42, Paul D. Fernhout escreveu:
> Anybody know anything about this Electric Sun or related Redshift
> controversy?
who claimed that the redshift is a collective hallucination of the scientific
establishment. On the other hand, I have never heard about the "Electric Sun"
stuff.
> Could the Sun be powered electrically?
I have not read his arguments (yet), and my reflex reaction so far is to think
that it is an utterly crazy hypothesis.
BTW, that is not the only wacky hypothesis about how the Sun works. There is
another guy who claims that the Sun is an iron ball remant of a red giant,
and is mainly powered by a neutronium core
(http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html). AFAIR, the "graceful
decay" of the red giant would produce planets in nicely circular orbits, gas
planets far away and rock-metal planets closer; and the Sun would be an
exception - he thinks that most stars (which are metal-poor) work using
fusion alone. And I think that this hypothesis of the "Iron Sun" is less
wacky than the "Electric Sun". :-)
> What impact would this have on space settlement?
None, I guess. One could claim that the Sun is powered by a god chained inside
a spherical shell of fire, and the Sun would continue to irradiate energy
nevertheless; and no matter how the Sun works, we know that it works over
geological timescales (i.e., eternity, in Human terms). In short, space
settlements could be powered by the Sun even if the settlers thought of the
Sun as a god-powered lamp...
>> http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
>> http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
>>What impact would this have on space settlement?
>
> (...)
>
> None, I guess. One could claim that the Sun is powered by a god chained inside
> a spherical shell of fire, and the Sun would continue to irradiate energy
> nevertheless; and no matter how the Sun works, we know that it works over
> geological timescales (i.e., eternity, in Human terms). In short, space
> settlements could be powered by the Sun even if the settlers thought of the
> Sun as a god-powered lamp...
energy to power space settlements or create their building materials.
--Paul Fernhout
I'm not sure as to the specific hypothesis that you are referring too, but
I've often had a problem with the redshift theory. I would like to preface
the following with the fact that I'm neither a physicist nor am I ever
likely to become one. Some things just don't make logical sense to me.
Here is why the redshift theory does not.
shifted as an object moves either towards or away from the observer just as
sound does terrestrially. In the case of the former, the light would shift
blue, in the case of the latter, red. My understanding is that nearly every
self-luminous object in space exhibits a redshift indicating an expanding
universe because everything is moving away from us. This does not seem to
match observation though.
In the first case, we are part of a spiral galaxy that spins around a center
(most likely a black hole). General consensus has it that spiral galaxies
are not so much a type of galaxy, but a phase on a continuum representing
the evolution of a galaxy similar to normal stars vs. red giants vs. white
dwarfs, etc, each representing a point in a stars evolution. The galaxy
evolves, in part, because objects are not all orbiting the center at the
same rate. The planetary system would be an analogy albeit a not a perfect
one. Within that analogy, Mars is sometimes coming closer to us and
sometimes speeding away from us. We use this cycle to plan probes, etc.
The same holds true for all the other planets. Applying this analogy to the
galaxy, some stars within the galaxy should be coming towards us and others
should be traveling away from us thereby representing a mix of blue and red
shifts. Perhaps I am mistaken (please correct me if I am), but to my
knowledge, this is not the case. The only rational explanation that I feel
might explain this would be if the universe is expanding at such a rate that
the expansion within the galaxy is so great the distance two objects within
the galaxy are moving apart from each other is greater than the distance
that is being closed by an object passing us by. Still, even if this were
so, there should be a redshift differential meaning that all objects within
the galaxy would display a varied redshift depending on there relative
position to us within the orbit. If they were approaching us orbitally
speaking, even if they would display less of a redshift than if they were
speeding away from us.
In the second case, galaxies have been observed "gobbling up" other
galaxies. Please forgive my lack of a scientific term there. Again, this
would indicate that galaxies approach each other, in which case a blue shift
should occur. Again, even with the caveat listed above, at best,
differential redshifts should occur.
If I am missing something fundamental here, or there is a fatal flaw in my
logic, please let me know. I don't tend to subscribe to conspiracy
theories. Neither do I feel that the redshift phenomenon is one. But like
all theories, until proven into law (and then still sometimes not even
then), are subject to revision based on observation.
DBJ
Em Sex 27 Fev 2004 21:42, Paul D. Fernhout escreveu:
> Anybody know anything about this Electric Sun or related Redshift
> controversy?
I remember vaguely about a friend saying that there was a guy on the
Internet
who claimed that the redshift is a collective hallucination of the
scientific
establishment. On the other hand, I have never heard about the "Electric
Sun"
stuff.
> Could the Sun be powered electrically?
I have not read his arguments (yet), and my reflex reaction so far is to
think
that it is an utterly crazy hypothesis.
BTW, that is not the only wacky hypothesis about how the Sun works. There is
another guy who claims that the Sun is an iron ball remant of a red giant,
and is mainly powered by a neutronium core
(http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html). AFAIR, the
"graceful
decay" of the red giant would produce planets in nicely circular orbits, gas
planets far away and rock-metal planets closer; and the Sun would be an
exception - he thinks that most stars (which are metal-poor) work using
fusion alone. And I think that this hypothesis of the "Iron Sun" is less
wacky than the "Electric Sun". :-)
> What impact would this have on space settlement?
None, I guess. One could claim that the Sun is powered by a god chained
inside
a spherical shell of fire, and the Sun would continue to irradiate energy
nevertheless; and no matter how the Sun works, we know that it works over
geological timescales (i.e., eternity, in Human terms). In short, space
settlements could be powered by the Sun even if the settlers thought of the
Sun as a god-powered lamp...
>
> I guess I was thinking more of tapping into plasma energy or zero-point
> energy to power space settlements or create their building materials.
understanding of zero point energy is that it cannot be reduced (hence
*zero* point), so there is no way to extract it.
It is notable that all claims of tapping zero point energy so far that
have been subject to critical examination have been shown to be either
erroneous or fraudulent.
I'm sympathetic to the notion that magnetohydrodynamics plays a much
larger role in cosmology than is commonly thought. But it comes to
creating a spacefaring civilization invoking new physics is not only
unnecessary, it's counterproductive. Everything needed to build a
spacefaring civilization is available right now. The difficulties are
sociological and economic, not technological or physical.
......Andrew
Softly, softly, catchee monkey...
Em Sb 28 Fev 2004 13:11, Donald Brewer, Jr. escreveu:
> Applying this analogy to the galaxy, some stars within the galaxy should be
> coming towards us and others should be traveling away from us thereby
> representing a mix of blue and red shifts. Perhaps I am mistaken (please
> correct me if I am), but to my knowledge, this is not the case. The only
> rational explanation that I feel might explain this would be if the
> universe is expanding at such a rate that the expansion within the galaxy
> is so great the distance two objects within the galaxy are moving apart
> from each other is greater than the distance that is being closed by an
> object passing us by.
redshift occurs. Inside our galaxy, and even inside our group of galaxies,
gravity reigns, and thus we indeed *see* a mix of red and blue shifts. For
instance, the Andromeda Galaxy is blue shifted, for its is comming to collide
with the Milkway.
Now, over cosmological distances (tens of megaparsecs) the expansion of the
Universe wins the gravity, and then the groups of galaxies are getting far
from each other - that is, almost all of them are redshifted related to the
others.
You are probably correct in your assessment of my comprehension of the
scales in question. I must say that I've posed that same argument to a
physicist or two who could never answer me. I think your explanation is the
most clear and concise I've ever gotten on the subject. It also makes
sense. I would like to follow up, if I may, to ask you to comment on the
other part (within the galaxy). You state that we do indeed see a mix of
red and blue shift within the galaxy. Is it differential in that at an
object's greatest acceleration away from us (relatively speaking) is the red
shift greater than when it is at its maximum distance? At that point,
theoretically speaking, there should be no shift whatsoever, correct?
collisions are gravitationally caused as opposed to two galaxies happening
to cross paths in the way meteors and comments sometimes intersect Earth? I
realize the Sun's gravity is involved there as well. My analogies aren't
always perfect, but are chosen to more clearly communicate what I'm trying
to say.
DBJ
Em Sb 28 Fev 2004 13:11, Donald Brewer, Jr. escreveu:
> Applying this analogy to the galaxy, some stars within the galaxy should
be
> coming towards us and others should be traveling away from us thereby
> representing a mix of blue and red shifts. Perhaps I am mistaken (please
> correct me if I am), but to my knowledge, this is not the case. The only
> rational explanation that I feel might explain this would be if the
> universe is expanding at such a rate that the expansion within the galaxy
> is so great the distance two objects within the galaxy are moving apart
> from each other is greater than the distance that is being closed by an
> object passing us by.
I think that you are misunderstanding the scales where the cosmological
redshift occurs. Inside our galaxy, and even inside our group of galaxies,
gravity reigns, and thus we indeed *see* a mix of red and blue shifts. For
instance, the Andromeda Galaxy is blue shifted, for its is comming to
collide
with the Milkway.
Now, over cosmological distances (tens of megaparsecs) the expansion of the
Universe wins the gravity, and then the groups of galaxies are getting far
from each other - that is, almost all of them are redshifted related to the
others.
Em Sb 28 Fev 2004 15:35, Donald Brewer, Jr. escreveu:
> You are probably correct in your assessment of my comprehension of the
> scales in question. I must say that I've posed that same argument to a
> physicist or two who could never answer me. I think your explanation is
> the most clear and concise I've ever gotten on the subject. It also makes
> sense.
But then I understand *nothing* of the ethereal and swampy parts of current
cosmological models - inflation, dark energy, cosmic strings, that sort of
ghostly stuff; I think that I understand 19th Century Physics only, and
that's all...
> I would like to follow up, if I may, to ask you to comment on the
> other part (within the galaxy). You state that we do indeed see a mix of
> red and blue shift within the galaxy. Is it differential in that at an
> object's greatest acceleration away from us (relatively speaking) is the
> red shift greater than when it is at its maximum distance? At that point,
> theoretically speaking, there should be no shift whatsoever, correct?
I didn't understand the question... :-(
> Taking the point a bit further, am I correct in assuming that galactic
> collisions are gravitationally caused as opposed to two galaxies happening
> to cross paths in the way meteors and comments sometimes intersect Earth?
> I realize the Sun's gravity is involved there as well. My analogies aren't
> always perfect, but are chosen to more clearly communicate what I'm trying
> to say.
Yes, I think that gravity alone is the main force orchestrating the "dance of
galaxies".
I'll rephrase the question. Using the intragalactic model, as two stars
orbit the center, they will at different points be at different speeds
relative to each other. As one passes the other, it will accelerate away
from the first one's point of view. If I'm understanding you correctly, as
this acceleration increases, the light we see from that star will begin only
moderately shifted to the red and then increase until it reaches about the
90 degree point. At that point, it will appear to be slowing down as it
reaches the 180 degree point relative to us. At that point, it will begin
an increasing shift to blue as it approaches the 270 degree point and then
back to center (no shift) when it is at a straight line with us and the
star. Is this correct even if a bit over simplified?
Em Sb 28 Fev 2004 15:35, Donald Brewer, Jr. escreveu:
> You are probably correct in your assessment of my comprehension of the
> scales in question. I must say that I've posed that same argument to a
> physicist or two who could never answer me. I think your explanation is
> the most clear and concise I've ever gotten on the subject. It also makes
> sense.
Uh, thanks. Maybe I should write a book entitled "Cosmology Made Simple"
:-).
But then I understand *nothing* of the ethereal and swampy parts of current
cosmological models - inflation, dark energy, cosmic strings, that sort of
ghostly stuff; I think that I understand 19th Century Physics only, and
that's all...
> I would like to follow up, if I may, to ask you to comment on the
> other part (within the galaxy). You state that we do indeed see a mix of
> red and blue shift within the galaxy. Is it differential in that at an
> object's greatest acceleration away from us (relatively speaking) is the
> red shift greater than when it is at its maximum distance? At that point,
> theoretically speaking, there should be no shift whatsoever, correct?
I didn't understand the question... :-(
> Taking the point a bit further, am I correct in assuming that galactic
> collisions are gravitationally caused as opposed to two galaxies happening
> to cross paths in the way meteors and comments sometimes intersect Earth?
> I realize the Sun's gravity is involved there as well. My analogies
aren't
> always perfect, but are chosen to more clearly communicate what I'm trying
> to say.
Yes, I think that gravity alone is the main force orchestrating the "dance
of
galaxies".
Em Sb 28 Fev 2004 16:26, Donald Brewer, Jr. escreveu:
> I'll rephrase the question. Using the intragalactic model, as two stars
> orbit the center, they will at different points be at different speeds
> relative to each other. As one passes the other, it will accelerate away
> from the first one's point of view. If I'm understanding you correctly, as
> this acceleration increases, the light we see from that star will begin
> only moderately shifted to the red and then increase until it reaches about
> the 90 degree point. At that point, it will appear to be slowing down as
> it reaches the 180 degree point relative to us. At that point, it will
> begin an increasing shift to blue as it approaches the 270 degree point and
> then back to center (no shift) when it is at a straight line with us and
> the star. Is this correct even if a bit over simplified?
scales much smaller than that, like in the Doppler Spectroscopy method for
detecting extrasolar planets.