Prev: The Big Bang was the biggest spam ever?
Next: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 297)
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 12 May 2010 02:40


Enrico wrote:
> On May 10, 3:31 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
>
> Search string:= density of intergalactic matter
> http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/universe/index.html
>
> Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
>
> Abstract.
> An increasingly large number of observations consistently
> reveal the existence of a much larger amount of intergalactic matter
> than presently accepted. Radio signals coming from directions
> between galaxies is discussed. An average density of matter in space
> of about 0.01 atom/cm3 is derived. It is known that the density of
> matter is compatible with many reliable observations. These results
> lead to a nonexpanding cosmological universe.
>
>
> Enrico

Enrico, I just returned from a two day absence, of a micro-vacation. I
went on
a field trip of biology, looking for seed of Ulmus thomasii. Seems
like never any
luck with this. My last hope is grafting. I did see alot of lovely
water birds, and
I saw my first badger in the wild. I thought I saw a porcupine in
Minnesota near
Pipestone. My car headlights reflected in its eye the same as what is
reflected
in a cat's eye, in that it glows. I do not know if porcupine live in
the prairie of
Minnesota, for I thought they need pine trees to eat. But maybe they
are
extending their range.

I did do alot of thinking of this issue while on the vacation.

I realized I have two experiments, not just the greenhouse fiberglass
panel as
a redshift duplicator via refraction. But I have to also check to see
if a prism
held up at the edge of the road can redshift the oncoming white
headlights. So
I ordered a prism and await it being mailed to me to conduct that
experiment.

But thanks for the data of 0.01 atom/cm^3. I am positive I ran across
that number
before with respect to whether the Cosmos will expand forever or
collapse inward.

And that number makes my earlier talk of 1 atom per km^3 look
ridiculous.

But Enrico, I am making good progress here with your help in searches.

Let us ask if that 0.01 atom/cm^3 is not a regular hydrogen atom but
is rather
one of Halton Arp's "low mass electron". Whether there is a need for a
"low mass
proton" is questionable.

Now in a earlier post I remarked that 3-dimensional Elliptic Geometry
can be viewed
as that of the surface of the sphere for 2D but that we also add a
"thickness layer"
to the surface which looks like 12 lens added the the surface of a
sphere and giving
it thus, 3D Elliptic.

I also am arguing that the Cosmic redshift is a refraction by light
traveling through
these LENS, and that oncoming galaxies, not receding galaxies are
redshifted more
than receding galaxies.

So here I have a chance to incorporate Arp's "low mass electrons".
Instead of thinking
of 12 Lenses as the 3rd dimension, how about thinking that the lenses
are these
patterned "low mass electrons". And how these electrons come into
being is that they
are created via the Dirac new radioactivities.

But I need to incorporate one more item-- the upper limit distance of
what a telescope
can see.

So if we had a regular uniform spacing of low mass electrons
throughout space, that it
would "infer, or deduce, or logically conclude" that after a certain
distance, the brightest
astro body of a supernova has its image destroyed at that distance.
Likewise, we cannot
see a tiny object in space with a run of the mill telescope because of
the dust particles
in the air destroys the image making of the object.

So how do I fit all these things together? Well if a distant object
sent light to Earth, it would
be redshifted as it travelled past all those "low mass electrons". It
would be redshifted
because those low mass electrons forms a prism lens of space and thus
refracted.

Now the quasars, as Arp argues on his website that they cannot be that
far away, for he
notes a bridging quasar with a normal galaxy that is not redshifted as
much. And they
cannot be that far away because the telescopes can still form images
of those quasars.

So it looks as though I can fit all these data-points into a
persuasive argument.

Now I need to figure how the 0.01 atoms/cm^3 determines the upper
limit of distance
of telescopes. Is it going to be 400 million light years away, and
that the billions of
light years away were all fake reports.

I wonder if there is a experiment setup that proves this 0.01 atoms/
cm^3 points to
a upper bound number? An experiment such as holding up a pie pan in
front of a
light source and the light coming through uniform holes in the pie
pan. An experiment
of holes in a pie pan, and at what distance can the source not be seen
as a image?
I suppose a better setup would be a stroboscope light that imitates
holes in the pie
pan and which ultimately imitates a "dust particle every cm^3.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: The Big Bang was the biggest spam ever?
Next: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 297)