Experimental Confirmation That The Universe Is Not Expanding

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
1. Objects with high and low redshift have been observed to interact with each other.

They found that the companion’s luminosity profile is asymmetric in the side of the connecting bridge, but they were able to explain this asymmetry. The asymmetry arises because of the overlapping of the companion and the arm from NGC 7603 and there’s also a faint foreground star placed properly to enhance the asymmetry. They subtracted the luminosity of the NGC 7603 arm and the star, and the asymmetry vanished completely making them to conclude that they found no evidence for interaction between the companion and the connecting arm.

And many more interesting points at arijmaki.wordpress.com...

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


False and misleading title. There is no confirmation. There is a theory. From what I understand it has not even been peer reviewed yet.

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
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

This theory is not peer reviewed and has zero "confirmation". So yes .... BOOYAH.

Oh and the theory is based on Einstein being 100% correct. So double BOOYAH since you just got excited about a theory that confirms Einstein was right.

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!

thank you for the thread AC

..please let me wrap my mind around it

now
this whole "expanding universe".... couldnt that be "expanding consciousness"..?

whó wants to 'expand consciousness'..? as means of rule ..?


right- satan

[ if you think, like the other OP, that "leave satan out of it", i will, immediately ]
but please consider:
whó has gain by an endless, expanding universe ?
a cold, nonpersonal universe ?
creating the compatible science-beliefs in accordance with that paradigm ?

thanks for the thread; please give some time to ponder

Santilli's paper is very basic and makes no mention of the methods he used to measure the spectrum.

Here are my immediate issues with his 'paper':
1. He is assuming that his 'direct line' measurements will not see any scattered light but hasn't mentioned what he did to avoid this. Simply pointing the spectrometer directly at the sun isn't good enough

2. His line for zenith sunlight appears to be an extra-terrestrial spectrum rather than terrestrial.

3. He also likes to tag his name onto others like 'Lorentz-Santilli', 'Doppler-Santilli' etc and his name is mentioned 88 times in that one short paper.

4. Most of the references are to his own work, or those of his co-authors.

5. His spectrum measurements are only 'confirmed' by his own cronies.

6. He is publishing in "Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering". My toddler could get a paper published there.

I have measured the spectrum myself at all times of day and have seen nothing like the black sunset line on figure 2.

A realistic spectrum for sunset can be found here: stellarnet-inc with the title 'Episodic Data capture of Sunset'

It's a shame because I was hoping for real, verfied, reviewed experimental confirmation

One has to remember that all of these mega questions are theoretical and will stay that way for quiet a while I would imagine. I find it silly when people argue theories. It's basically arguing about the same thing, speculation.

Anyhoo, I think the Big Bounce Theory sounds intriguing, just to add another "theory" into the mix.

The big bounce theory combines the big bang and big crunch theories to create a vision of an endless, cyclical cosmos in which the universe repeatedly expands from a singularity only to eventually collapse back in on itself -- before doing it all over again. In other words, a big bounce universe would continuously expand and contract.

Full Article: curiosity.discovery.com...

Also Novelty Theory is another "theory" that is intriguing. Obviously his whole "2012" part of the theory was not realized but the rest of the theory is very elegant to me.

McKenna viewed the universe as a swarm of matter waves, spiralling down the gradient of their synergetic (energetically favourable) constructive interference. He saw the universe as being "pulled from the future toward a goal that is as inevitable as a marble reaching the bottom of a bowl when you release it up near the rim...it comes to rest at the lowest energy state, which is the bottom of the bowl.

In novelty theory, when two matter waves become connected by mutual constructive interference (quantum entanglement, rapport), they imagine or grok each other. Mc Kenna believed that imagination was capable of interconnecting matter waves instantaneously, stating that "the imagination is a dimension of nonlocal information,"[30] and "novelty is density of connection." [31]

Wiki Link: en.wikipedia.org...

Video Description:

1998. Terence McKenna talks to John Hazard about Novelty Theory, and elaborates on its core principles involving hyper-complexification and the compression of Time. He holds forth on the correspondences between the structure of the DNA molecule and the Chinese I-Ching, then shows how his notion of an Archaic Revival leads from the theories of mind and the art movements of the early 20th century to the Shaman as the quintessential figure of the 21st century, with psychedelic substances being the bridge between these worldviews.

Link
Full Length Interview Link ( 1 hour 3 minutes): www.youtube.com...


When you really start to think of it, there are so many possibilities. Our "reality" could be just like the ending to Men In Black.



Thank you for creating this thread Op, very thought provoking! S&F

Originally posted by mcx1942
One has to remember that all of these mega questions are theoretical and will stay that way for quiet a while I would imagine. I find it silly when people argue theories. It's basically arguing about the same thing, speculation.

Scientific theories aren't speculation. A successful scientific theory is supported by evidence, and finds technological application. We wouldn't be going to space, making computers or cars, or using advanced medicine, if science was just a guess.

Which brings me to this question: if your safety depended on technology built according to alternative theories (EU, etc) and ignoring the mainstream theories like Relativity and Quantum Physics, would you risk your life operating that technology? If you were an astronaut, would you agree to launch in a rocket that was made ignoring all (or most) of the mainstream science? I know I wouldn't. I'd probably get a lethal dose of radiation in space, or just blow up at the launch. dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk...

Science is much, much more than just someone's guess.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
I agree,

He's wrong.

Thanks, it's rare to see such an admission from you. I'm glad you have the capacity to recognize that on further research. About the others, you did start the thread about Santilli, right?

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
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

And what's the appropriate exclamation when you find out that even the OP admits Santilli is wrong? Could it be....Oops?

Maybe you should have done less "booyahing" and more research? Then again an aversion to doing research sems to be a common trait among electric universe supporters.

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
1. Objects with high and low redshift have been observed to interact with each other.

They found that the companion’s luminosity profile is asymmetric in the side of the connecting bridge, but they were able to explain this asymmetry. The asymmetry arises because of the overlapping of the companion and the arm from NGC 7603 and there’s also a faint foreground star placed properly to enhance the asymmetry. They subtracted the luminosity of the NGC 7603 arm and the star, and the asymmetry vanished completely making them to conclude that they found no evidence for interaction between the companion and the connecting arm.

And many more interesting points at arijmaki.wordpress.com...

I like how you leave out the best part though:

They considered some explanations for the system. Clusters at the same line of sight they found unlikely. Amplification of background objects by gravitational macrolensing wasn’t good explanation because it would call for a huge mass in NGC 7603. Microlensing they also found not likely because type of objects required for the lensing in this case were not likely to be present in such large numbers. Non-cosmological redshift they couldn’t reject but there also weren’t very good explanations for it. They also mentioned variable mass hypothesis which obviously doesn’t fail here because it has been developed with this kind of systems in mind. They considered the hypothesis of galaxies ejecting new matter also and thought that to fit the system very well. They noted that the two HII-galaxies in the arm have redshift counterparts in other objects they measured redshifts (z = 0.245 & z = 0.246 and z = 0.394 & z = 0.401) which would also support ejection hypothesis (as the closeness in redshift might suggest common origin) but it also could just suggest that there are two groups of objects in the field at those redshifts. They favor the ejection hypothesis because it explains the low probabilities in the system. They noted that the redshifts of objects were close to the Karlsson peak of z = 0.30. They also presented a sketch of the system assuming the ejection hypothesis.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You guys are just too easy to spin up

the evidence for the universe expanding is quite phenomenal. it is not only grounded in known scientific fact, but common reason as well.

i don't value one theory over the other, however i do value which is true over which isn't.

reply to post by wildespace


The Pauling article is a conundrum for me. I had heard the story that he was a crank who had lost it in his later years and thought vitamin c was the cure-all snake oil for everything and all the data argued against his views, etc.

Then I had a relative who researched his findings on c, specifically for heart disease and found that he was, or rather seemed to be, right. He saved another family member and started keeping records of heart patients treated with c.

After talking to the five-hundredth or so person that had arterial blockage removed by relatively high dosage of c and the amino acid lysine, sometimes in as little as 2 weeks... I have become convinced that Pauling knew what he was talking about.

And the end of the article was especially disingenuous... Pauling died at age 94 (or 96?) for pity's sake! He never claimed it was an immortality vitamin.

I don't know why there is a smear campaign on him, and he may have had an ego and even been wrong about some things, but the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming and I have no other explanation than Pauling was correct and most heart disease is caused by chronic low level scurvy... or it's an incredibly effective placebo effect?

Either way, no sanctioned, unbiased medical studies have been done at the levels of ascorbic acid Pauling recommended... so it remains in a scientific grey area, sorta, with thousands of people's experience being it works... go figure.

Some people think it's a conspiracy so that big pharma can make money... but that's too evil for even this conspiracy-open mind.

EDIT - and I apologize for going off topic from the non-expanding universe OP, which is cool, but I though the crank reference relevant.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


haha I love how you just immediately discount all of the scientific community (or think you have) by saying this..

"I doubt these exprimental results will be acknowledged by the wider fraud based academic community."

lol

Originally posted by TheLotLizard
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.

Perhaps we are sinking into the gravitational well of the super-massive black hole in our galaxy as it gradually acquires more mass through the formation of more black holes. That would stretch space-time and make it seem like the rest of the universe is moving away from us and produce a red-shift (the classic rubber-sheet with metal spheres example).

It's also been proven that gravity travels fast than the speed of light, around 10,000x faster. So two objects that are 10,000 light years apart, could interact in the space of 1 year.

I imagine this could be proved by using a combination of weights in a water tank. A small weighted floating object is initially set to sit in the centre of a water tank. Another larger denser weight is suspended by a pole from the ceiling and made to rotate at different speeds around the smaller weight. The gravitational attraction would cause the smaller weight to start moving. But the inertia of the weight would cause a time lag. Get the speeds right and the smaller weight would remain stationary, but at very slow speeds (in the order of hours) the smaller weight would try and follow the larger weight around.

Originally posted by stormcell
It's also been proven that gravity travels fast than the speed of light, around 10,000x faster.

It has? Where? You mean by the guy the OP says is wrong?

Granted I'm not an expert in particle physics or plasma but from rudimentary observations the theory of a stagnant universe doesn't make much sense. As long as stars continue to die and supernova the discharges of matter continue to project outwards. For the universe to have a set shape and distance the novas and black holes collected in a limited area would eventually wipe out the existing matter wouldn't it?

reply to post by Shadowcast

Einstein had a problem with a static universe too, but for the opposite reason...he thought that gravity would pull things together and make it collapse. (In fact galaxy clusters and superclusters may be collapsing to some extent...which is probably why our galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy).

So, he created something called the "cosmological constant" to offset this tendency to collapse, that would make the universe tend to expand, and the balance between that and gravity would stop gravity from collapsing the universe.

Little did he know that possible evidence of the cosmological constant would be discovered in 1998, and that it was actually doing way more than just offsetting gravity but accelerating the expansion of the universe.

I think the explosions of supernovae are such local effects that they don't affect the entire universe. Even if it jostles a few nearby stars and changes their galactic orbit a bit, I doubt it knocks any of them out of the galaxy, unless it's a binary star system and then the companion star could get knocked out of the galaxy. But all you would have then is a rogue star leaving the galaxy, not expansion of the universe.

reply to post by stormcell

It's also been proven that gravity travels fast than the speed of light, around 10,000x faster.

actually gravity travels at the same speed that light does. there are select situations where this is sort of not the case, but what actually happens in those situations is that their rate of travel becomes so fast that they begin moving backwards in time relative to us. it's like trying to show a dot on a movie screen travel more than one frame at a time, it will appear to move backwards until it reaches the next frame (assuming it keeps accelerating) where it would appear to stand still for a frame, then start moving forward again.

light and gravity are limited because time is quantized. they travel the farthest possible distance each time a new frame of the universe appears. in essence, they assume the fastest possible rate and are hampered only by the rate that time passes.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

Experimental Confirmation That The Universe Is Not Expanding

I don't understand. If the redshift doesn't suggest that the galaxies are moving away from us, then the idea of measuring the redshift in a way that proves the galaxies are moving away faster and faster has to be an outright lie. Why would science do this?

I've always been bothered by the fact that the galaxies we see are not galaxies, but only the light from those galaxies that has traveled millions of years to reach us. Meaning that all those galaxies are long gone. Right? So, if the universe is not expanding, where are those galaxies?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by stormcell
It's also been proven that gravity travels fast than the speed of light, around 10,000x faster.

It has? Where? You mean by the guy the OP says is wrong?

From this article stating that quantum entanglement must be at least 10000x times the speed of light. That would then include gravity:

www.gizmag.com...