Prev:  A 396 dollar dual·core, Win7 PC that can play High·Definition videos.
Next: Manipulating neurons in living animals with light
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 18 May 2010 02:41
yesterday I wrote:
(snipped)
> The larger the
> purported redshift, the better is the choice. Next, get a computer
> filtering that eclipses the "seen object". Do not eclipse it by
> overeclipsing. I
> mean, eclipse it at a "least minimum eclipse." Wait a week or a month
> and reimpose
> the previous eclipse on the object. If the eclipse is breached by the
> object,
> means that AP is correct with the Refraction redshift, because the
> object is
> not moving away from Earth but is moving towards Earth with a
> concurrent
> high redshifting.
>

Now I looked on the Internet to see of astronomy and astronomers have
ever devised a means of telling whether a luminous body is moving
towards
or away from Earth? I found no technique. So I would hazard the guess
that
noone in astronomy has ever devised a means of answering the question
of
whether a distant object is moving away or moving closer.

Logically, the technique would simply utilize the fact that if
something is moving
closer then that object will increase in the size of its image from
the telescope.
If it is moving away, well, its size of image will decrease. That is
logically obvious,
but why has no astronomer sought to use that technique on Doppler
redshift? Was it
too simple, too obvious?

The major tenet or principle of Doppler redshift is that if a object
is moving away it
is redshifted, and moving closer to the viewer, it is blueshifted.

But as the Fiberglass and prism Experiment elucidates, that a
redshifting can occurr
from Refraction. Refraction can shift the entire image of a source-
object. Since refraction
can shift the entire image, then refraction can do far less things
like shift the wavelength.

In the Fiberglass Experiment, we see the oncoming white headlights
redshifted. In a
Doppler Redshift there is never a oncoming redshift.

So, what does this mean? It means that if we start to view and observe
the quasars and
galaxies and measure, not their redshift, but measure instead whether
they are moving towards us or away from us, and if we find that they
are moving towards us yet have a
high redshift, means that the Doppler redshift in astronomy and
cosmology was all
false and bogus.

Now I went and made a search of the web to see if any astronomer ever
dared to
find out if a redshifted object was moving closer to earth? I found
none. The best I found
was this skepticism of the Doppler redshift:

--- quoting from ---
http://laserstars.org/news/3C345.html

Varshni (1974) has shown that quasar redshift is merely an empty
number without physical significance, quasars are stars within the
galaxy. However, despite the overwhelming amount of contradictory
data, the astronomical community still persists in assuming that the
redshift is a valid distance indicator from which they incorrectly
deduce that quasars are extra-galactic. The gross overestimation of
quasar distance has led to spurious paradoxical properties such as
superluminal motion, one of four paradoxes of Kellermann (1972), which
we now discuss:

--- end quoting ---

I also found Halton Arp's quasar redshift bridged by a different
galaxy which was lesser
redshifted.

I believe that Arp, Varshni, and Kellermann are all on the correct
path to the truth of
redshift by being wary and skeptical. But unable to deliver a knockout
punch to the
Big Bang redshift. The knockout punch is to systematically measure and
observe whether
an object is moving towards or away from us and then correlate that
with the redshift of
the same said object.

I suspect that once we begin doing that, we quickly discover that most
of these redshifts
are actually moving towards Earth and are oncoming objects. This means
the Doppler
redshift as Varshni and Kellermann say "are physically meaningless
numbers". That
the redshift in astronomy and cosmology is caused by the geometry of
the Cosmos
due to refraction, and has nothing to do with the intrinsic motion of
the object in Space.

Until now, we have only measured for redshift, and neglected measuring
for motion
towards or motion away.

I believe our instruments, especially the Hubble Space Telescope can
easily perform
routine observations of Eclipsing quasars, where we minimally eclipse
them, wait a
week, maybe a few months, and maybe a few years. Come back in a future
time and
eclipse them again and find out if those redshifted quasars were
really moving away,
or, as I suspect, actually moving towards us.

Maybe some astronomer has noted some paradoxical object with a high
redshift, but
which in fact, the astronomer knows the object is moving towards
Earth.

Maybe that object was all the Supernova to date reported, since the
explosion of a
supernova is a stream of particles moving towards Earth, yet all those
supernova
were reported as highly redshifted, in contradiction to Doppler
redshift.

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:  A 396 dollar dual·core, Win7 PC that can play High·Definition videos.
Next: Manipulating neurons in living animals with light