Prev: I am the Comet Isaac Newton, I must stop spamming to the Internet now!
Next: Xaustein is dead, the levitation is not a possibility
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 25 Apr 2010 14:46

Looks like my 4th edition of this book will not attain a high degree
of organization but
only a "more organized" than the 3rd edition. But I am happy because
in this edition
I focus on redshift which was almost absent of attention in prior
editions. Seems like
in every new edition I focus on something else, and something new. In
the 3rd edition
I focused on MECO theory, and in this edition I focused on redshift.

First Postscript: this belongs in Chapter 3: Redshift

Chapter 3
Subject: low mass electron-positron states, and a bit of history of
Halton Arp

plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com wrote:

(snipped)

> Also ran across a website of Arp's dated 2002, but a website
> has no reliable dating and who mentions low mass electron-positron
> states.
> http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/is_physics_changing
> Now I wonder if that was connected to Dirac's Ocean of Positrons as
> Space? Or
> where this fascination for low mass electron-positron states came
> about?

> For me, the fascination is of course that in an Atom Totality, gravity
> is the
> attraction between ordinary matter (which is the electrons of the
> Plutonium
> Atom Totality) for the attraction by Space which is positron-Space. So
> space
> attracted by matter yields gravity as the lowest Coulomb attraction.
> And then,
> of course, when matter is concentrated, it forms a MECO with matter-
> antimatter
> annihilation and we see it as a quasar.

Here is a quote from Arp's website listed above:
--- quoting ---
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.
--- end quoting ---

Okay, I begin to see why Arp is harping about low-mass-electrons as a
means
of explaining redshift and how Arp seemed to focus on Narlikar's 1977
work on
the field equations for particle-mass changing with time.

---
The above was in the 3rd edition and this is the 4th edition. I
decided
to include Arp's mechanism of low-mass-electrons. It is an alternative
mechanism for having redshifts. And I prefer Arp's mechanism over that
of the ludicrous Big Bang of a speeding expansion causing a Doppler
redshift. Rather ridiculous and preposterous to think of Space as
independent
of Matter and speeding along faster than the speed of light. So, Arp's
mechanism is far better than ever was the Big Bang mechanism.

---

Second Postscript: I departed the chapter 3 on Redshift, probably far
earlier
than I should have departed that chapter.

Slowly I am beginning to think that there are very easy tests of
experiments that
can be performed to prove which of these three possible Redshift
mechanisms
are true:

(i) Big Bang mechanism of speeding away expanding Space as Doppler
redshift
(ii) Arp's low mass electrons producing a redshift
(iii) Atom Totality's 3D Elliptic geometry curvature of a lens surface
causes refraction
of all white light at a distance.

There must be some astro objects for which there distance is known to
a high
degree of confidence, and for which the redshift of those objects can
be analyzed
and picked apart as to favor one of those three mechanisms.

I suspect (i) is not uniform whereas (iii) is totally uniform in that
experiment of the
fiberglass window refractor. So if we analyze the Cosmic redshifts in
detail, we
will find that they are too uniform and thus eliminating (i) as a
viable contender.
As for (ii) I sense it is too weak to be a Cosmic redshift and just
the opposite
of (iii) in that it is too strong of a redshifter since it is the
geometry curvature
of the Universe itself.

So I think if the astro community sets itself up as a strict and
serious analyzer of the
Cosmic redshift, in an attempt to credit or discredit the three
mechanisms listed.
That they should be able to eliminate two of those contenders without
much difficulty.


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: I am the Comet Isaac Newton, I must stop spamming to the Internet now!
Next: Xaustein is dead, the levitation is not a possibility