I thoroughly enjoyed reading this essay. The graphics added at the end of the essay are truly exceptional. I was mesmerized by the feat of the astronomer Halton Arp, who just happened to notice that pairs of Quasars regularly were ejected at high velocities from Seyfert galaxies every 7.5 billion years or so.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #7

Hello James,

Congratulations with your very interesting ideas about redshift.

Perhaps you also found out that my essay has about the same subject, which is the reason that it took me some time to study yours and react.

I would start simple by telling that we predict the same results on redshift by dark matter influences, however originated by a different physicsl process !!

Your idea is that dark matter is the origin of more particle density and rdshift just as in your laboratory.

My proposal is that Dark matter is based on black hole densities mostly outside galaxies and "eating"the vacuum lattice.

doing so the vacuum lattice is thinned with holes in it. (see attachment)

Thus photonic information is streched out getting longer wavelength and thus redshift.

see my essay fig 1 and 6,7.

I also put it partly as attachments.Attachment #1: 2_dark_matter_BH_diluting_of_the_vacuum_lattice.jpgAttachment #2: 2_vacuum_lattice_and_particle_wave_duality.jpg

Leo Vulk:

I appreciate your comments on my paper.

As a premise to my thoughts I assume that we are all promoting our own agenda and are only reluctantly pulled away to openly review someone else'e ideas.

But I did read your paper and was unable to fully comprend all that you worked through, so I'll reserve comment for now.

My approach was/is to use the evidence at hand, that collected by the astronomers over the last few centuries, and to "keep it simple".

The Cosmological Redshift (CRS). This is hard evidence and tells us that distant galaxies have redshifts and that their redshifts increase as distance increase, but at an accelerating rate. It says nothing about 'receding galaxies'.

The Dark Mass (DM) was found to be present in and around galaxies and to respond to gravity. To substitute Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, is to infer something that is not proven. To infer that it fills the whole of the Observable Universe (OU) should be obvious. To infer that light must travel through the DM is obvious. To infer that the DM is the medium that develops the permeability and permittivity of 'the vacuum' is logical. From this last, to infer that it affects the speed of light is logical. Even to speculate that the equation in my paper is applicable is not illogical.

The Galaxy Cluster (GC) was found to be spread throughout the OU was a feat of the astronomers that astounds me, and to determine that the gravity of their central Seyfert galaxy was steadily at work, was even more astounding. To infer that as the galaxies and DM is being compressed is logical, and then of course, to recognize that this compression of the DM is just what is needed to give us the CRS, as observed, a redshift that seems to follows the equation cited above.

The Black Hole (BH) is an exotic invention that was needed to get rid of accumulating masses without having to account for where it goes (except to posit a white hole, or even evaporation, etc.) But, in an infinite and eternal Existance we can't afford to throw away even so much as an atom. All must be preserved to make eternity possible.

So I believe that the massive central Seyfert galaxy contains a mechanism that is doing wonders in transformin these masses back into new galaxies (called Quasars intially), at a 100% efficiency, and that these new galaxies are then gobbled up by its parent GC, or even by adjacent GC's.

Where have I gone awry?

Jim Wright

    • [deleted]

    • Post #9

    Dear James,

    I reserve my comment for a while.

    What I would point at is that indeed Halton Arp suggested that quasars are spittedt out of several galaxies.

    If these quasars are in fact SN black holes , then in my view they seem to be able to stabalize outside the galaxy and form together with other BH a dumbbell system which is able to accelerate star formation like Cygnus A and eventually DWARF galaxies.

    see my dwarf galaxy essay at:

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0050v3.pdf

    see you soon.

    7 days later

    Hi James,

    Your response to Leo post was: 'I assume that we are all promoting our own agenda and are only reluctantly pulled away to openly review someone else's ideas.' Oh yes, unfortunately you are absolutely right!

    Your mission is to discover what is known for sure, hypothetical and what is pure speculation. You expect deep insight into your essay so let us take a look at two of your main candidates for misinterpretation. I will propose you a different outlook.

    1. DM (and also DE) are highly speculative ideas and their goal is mainly to save the Einstein equations (Philip D. Mannheim, Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. arXiv:astro-ph/0505266v2 1 Aug 2005.)

    2. CRS. There could be another possible cause of the CRS. I agree . But better to find a concept without any pipes, air or air pressure increasing as there is no evidence of their existence far away from the Earth. E.g. acc. to my concept the cause is the spacetime elasticity that slows down the waves approaching the Earth. Of course assuming that the waves are made of the spacetime itself and not the spacetime is a background only. (http://vixra.org/abs/1006.0005)

    Practically every essay in the contest is speculative however more or less anchored in the official physics. But that is the contest idea. I like to cite Einstein and for this occasion his wisdom is: 'I think that only daring speculation can lead us further and not accumulation of facts.'

    Jacek Safuta:

    Re: No. 1. The Dark Mass (DM) is known to exist although just what it is is not known. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are "pure speculation". The DM, presumably, fills the Observable Universe (OU).

    Re: No. 2. In my redshift experiment I used air as a medium with which to cause a 'hands on' experiment, to demonstrate that a perfectly plausible and alternative means of redshifting is available. Under "The Medium" I proposed that the DM was that medium, and discussed how it could do the job under "Galaxy Clusters".

    But stand back, Jacek, and look at the Cosmological skeleton I've devised:

    The Milky Way is a part of our local Galaxy Cluster (GC). That cluster is one of perhaps 20 million such clusters in the OU and, presumably, of far more in the unobservable space beyond the edge of the OU.

    Each GC is busy drawing into its center all its galaxies and DM and, after a suitable period of gestation, gives birth to Quasars, ejecting them at a great velocity. The Quasar is an extremely compressed mass containing the mass of a galaxy and, in time, expands this mass to form a new full-fledged galaxy. Nothing is lost, and the process goes on forever. Just that simple.

    We live in an infinite and eternal Existence.

    Jim Wright

    Dear James,

    I am very impressed by your air pipe experiment redshift relation.

    I am convinced that only experiments will show us the way to the real base for our existence.

    10!

    Leo Vuyk

    • [deleted]

    • Post #13

    Leo Vuyk;

    Re yours of 5/4, yes, the experiment with the pipe and pressurized air as a medium led me to the Dark Mass as a medium in space that does exactly what is needed to develop the Cosmological Redshift.

    And, if you haven't already done so, I urge to call up CalcTool-Solenoid calculator, on Google, and do what I did under 'The Earth' on Pg.3 on to 'Mars' on Pg. 4 of my essay. This will lead you down all sorts of interesting avenues, one of which is to find that the Dark Mass is the negative energy mass (NEM) that is leaving the Sun, and all stars in the Universe. Also, it will tell you why the Earth's North/South poles also reverse positions every million years, or so.

    Jim Wright

    9 days later

    Friends:

    In my Essay I spoke of the fact that light would travel at different speeds within a Galaxy Cluster caused by its Gravitational Lens. If we use Fig. 6, in the Essay, and consider only one Source, its Observer would be at infinity. If we bring the Observer far closer to the Lens the original Source would be pushed farther away, which depicts what we would likely observe. Now, if we placed a second Lens adjacent to the first and have the light wave traverse both we could get a rather convoluted paths; possibly two or more.

    Reiterating this story, as the light travels from its Source to the Observer through the Lens it would be refracted and so follow a curved path that is longer than if there were no Lens. And, as it travels closer to the center of the Lens it would travel more slowly due to the increase in the dielectric constant of the Lens, and more rapidly as it travels out of the Cluster beyond the Milky Way. (See Fig. 4 of the Essay.)

    To reach us (the Observer) it would traverse through our own Lens but (most likely) the Lens's of adjacent Galaxy Clusters. Should it travel through several Lens's it would most likely travel a convoluted path (in that the Lens's are unlikely perfect, equal sized spheres, as I've depicted them, and therefore, while their Redshift would be an indication of the time of travel of the light wave it would not be related to the straight line distance from Source to Observer.

    There is another effect that might be noticed in the Redshifts read from galaxies from several Clusters, and that is a "grouping" of those Redshifts. This would occur if the Clusters were in a pattern of circles all around us. The first "group" would be tightest, the second less tight, the third even less tight, until the "grouping" effect disappeared.

    Jim Wright

    15 days later

    Friends:

    In the beginningof my essay I suggest that one may argue that out Observable Universe is actually an infinite and eternal State of Existence. Supporting this are some thoughts about the Observable Universe (OU).

    We are in the middle of the sphere that contains the OU. I have a distant cousin who lives in a galaxy at the edge of our OU who has an OU of his own, which is comprised of some galaxies from my OU and some new galaxies found farther out. Another cousin lives on the opposite side of my OU but farther out still and she has her own OU which uses all new galaxies.

    Is there any logical reason that these OU's cannot continue on to infinity, and remain there eternally, churning about a bit in the effort to regenerate themselves in their own galaxy clusters?

    Jim Wright

    6 days later

    Leo:

    A second experiment that I just concluded was intended to verify T. T. Browns' results to see for myself that a "Thrust" was possible. It failed to produce a measurable thrust, although many others since Brown's time have actually achieved a thrust, so I know that it is real.

    In my studies of those tests that worked, one thing they had in common: They all used a tiny capacitor and a very high voltage. I also decided that the cause of the thrust was the charges developed in the capacitor and that one should be able to use a much larger capacitor and a much lower voltage to achieve an even higher charge and thrust.

    My capacitor used two 24" square pieces of sheet aluminum (about 20 mil thick) separated by 0.004 Mylar dielectric with 48 volts applied. It weighed about 3.2 lbs. It was suspended from an overhead rafter at about 4 ft. No movement could be seen as the voltage was applied to the uncharged capacitor, even though I believe that there was a movement, but it was just too small to be seen with my relatively massive capacitor. The gravitational force on my capacitor just overwhelmed the forces that were obtained by a separation of the charges.

    My conclusion was that in the tests done by others their "Thrust" was seen by offseting gravity using a balance_beam approach, and that even though the thrusts were exceedingly small, but real, nevertheless.

    Jim Wright

    Friends:

    I want only to point out that the Galactic Clusters are the Motive Power for the entire Universe, on out to Infinity, and are Eternally so.

    Jim Wright

    6 days later

    Friends:

    Should any of you wish to correspond with me directly, my Email address is: jamesburtonwright@gmail.com

    Jim W.

    5 days later

    Dear James B. Wright

    Your deductive very interesting, but it would be difficult to can be prove.

    Give you 3 points as score you are .

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

    Hoangcao Hai:

    Can I prove it? No, but neither can anybody else, as an absolute, but that doesn't prove that it's not absolute. We are at the mercy of our astronomer/physicist who collects and analyses the information obtained through their marvelous telescopes. All is electro-magnetic energy, with its frequency and spectrum studied. But these folks can not see beyond the Observable Universe. What is out there? And why must it be out there?

    This is where philosophy is required, and where it should be an integral part of physics, particularly one of objective reality such as I mentioned briefly at the beginning of my paper. We can work what we've learn backwards through ever lower levels, step by step, until we reach the concept of Existence, which is the starting point for philosophy as well as for physics. We may then work our way foreword past our initial starting point (into the future, so to speak) and on to the edge of our Observable Universe and beyond philosophically, giving our scientist an overall goal to describe, via their tools and mathematics.

    Proof? No. A very strong hypothesis? Yes.

    My best to you.

    Jim Wright

    12 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #22

    Hai.Caohoang:

    Re: "Absolute".

    My understanding of the adjective "absolute" is as a declaration by mankind that something is 'absolutely evil', or 'absolute zero', or an 'absolute lie', etc., etc.

    In that in Cosmology we are studying the Cosmos as "Objective Reality", does this not rule out the 'Subjective', i.e., mankind's input? If man were not around the Universe would continue to 'do its thing' forever.

    There is only one absolute and that is the axiomatic concept of "Existence", and its corallaries of "Conciousness" and "Identity", as identified in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Existence Exists.", and cannot be refuted without using existence in the process of attempting to refute.

    All else is hypothesis based on evidence that seems to be true. Or else based on magic.

    Hello James,

    I think you have looked at this question with an open mind and the result is very original.

    Your conclusion that there is no need for Black Holes sits well with other essays in the contest. The conclusions in my essay seem to allow singularities to be skipped over, from an information viewpoint while still capturing the characteristics of Black Holes. I wonder if our two ideas are compatible?

    Kind regards,

    Antony

    Antony:

    Thanks for your Post, and comments.

    I have read your Essay and most of the others and find them all to be beyond my ken, mathematically, so I cannot comment on, nor rate, them with any degree of comprehension. So I don't. In that all are discussing the same Universe, most should have some degree of compatability because all are interpretations from the same evidence (from our astronomers).

    But we each seem to interpret this information differently, most not looking at the whole picture initially, except for many accepting the idea of a Big Bang as a foregone conclusion, not open to rebuttal.

    My goal, however, is to try to see what the what the "whole" is (or might be), and then to proceed to interpret the evidence with that "whole" in mind. This I did by a brief excursion into philosophy (in the first page of the essay, and in my Post to Hai, just above).

    If we start from the Universe as infinite and eternal, and subject to perpetual 100% renewal of its galaxies, etc., we will have automatically exclused all that is incompatable with such a Universe, including a Big Bang, or Black Holes, and anything else that is not reasonable, with "---reason being (the) only absolute.", to quote Ayn Rand.

    In my essay, I start with the Galaxy Cluster, which includes not only galaxies but also the Dark Mass, a medium responsive to gravity, and analyze what happen to these ingredients under the continual force of gravity feeding them into the central Seyfert galaxy over billions of years. From this come the quasars, and then new galaxies and more Dark Mass, both of which are fed more Galaxy Clusters. From the continual compression of the Dark Mass comes the Gravitational Lenes, and the effect seen as the Cosmological Redshift.

    My major disappointment is not having been able to describe what happens within the Seyfert galaxy that transforms the ingredients into Quasars and ejects them at a high velocity. I believe that all else that I've presented to be perfectly plausibe, but am open to argument.

    Jim Wright

    Hi James,

    That's the beauty of the contest - looking at the Universe in different ways and sharing ideas.

    Hope you're enjoying the essays as much as me.

    All the best,

    Antony