Plasmas Rule All

[erich]

Maybe GAUGE will provide the answers we need for gravitons, and the Axions of Dark Matter too, and we willhave all the grist we need to prove or disprove EU:

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/9/1

 

Also:

I thought this would be supportive of EU views on the Big Bang:

 

Hypography Science Forums - Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/8252-big-bangs-afterglow-fails-intergalactic-shadow.html#post130584

[Aireal]

cwes99_03

 

There has been a very, very small redshifting of light that passes near the sun observed. I could try and look up the exact value if you wish, but I am not sure where I ran across it. The value is so small, most dismiss it as irrelevent. Minor as it is, there must be some factor involved. Could gravity be at work, a plasma effect, warping of space. I just thought this minor bit of info. was better known. I am not well read on astronomy, so I did not think to make note of it.

[cwes99_03]

It is gravity at work. Gravity "bends" light in that it causes light to travel in geodesic arcs around a massive body. This could and does cause a small redshift. It is greater for much more massive objects (according to well supported theory) such as a black hole or quasar.

I remember reading about this when I first came upon hypography while looking for more understanding of doppler effect. I'll see if I can find what I saw back then, which made sense to me.

[Aireal]

cwes99_03

 

Thanks, That little bit helped me form a picture of the effect actually.

 

As the light is curved by the gravity, its path over a given period would be slightly longer than if it had continued in a straight line. This would appear as a red shift in the light, the same as if the object emitting the light had moved away from the observer that differance in distance. Given the speed of light, the period in which it is affected by the suns gravity would be brief, and the amount of red shift minor.

 

When I ran across the amount of red shift from our sun, it was only a tidbit thrown in and no explaination for it was given. Thanks for the help.

[cwes99_03]

Quite right, though I will still find the source that explains it, as I read it back then. I'm still not completely clear on GR and SR and all that, but it is attributed to all that, gravitational lensing and what not.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Lets look at the evidence.

 

------------------------------------------------------

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics

National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6

Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

New Verification and Supporting Evidence.

Quote:

Several new papers with experimental proofs supporting the energy loss of photons due to the traces of hydrogen in space have been published more recently. For example, a paper entitled: The Cosmological Constant and the Red Shift of Quasars (27), explains the consequences of a redshift due the traces of hydrogen in outer space. Furthermore, another paper entitled: Non-Doppler Redshift of Some Galactic Object" (2 shows that the difference of redshift between the components of binary stars systems can only be explained by the difference of temperature responsible for the change of coherence of blackbody radiation as explained above. Furthermore, that same paper shows that the K effect and other astronomical observations require that photons are redshifted when moving through traces of hydrogen gas. Also, the solar atmosphere shows a redshift which varies as a function of the radial distance as seen from he Earth. That is explained in the paper(29): "Redshift of Spectral Lines in the Sun's Chromosphere". That redshift remained unexplainable until it was realized that the hydrogen in the solar atmosphere has exactly the correct concentration to explain its redshift (as explained above). Finally, various other descriptions of that phenomena have been presented (30).

 

 

Quote:

A New Non-Doppler Redshift.

 

There are now 109 QSO’s for which the redshift value Z has been determined independently both in emission as well as in absorption. In all 109 cases, the emission redshift is different from the absorption shift (for one and the same object).

This is clearly contrary to the Doppler hypothesis.

Many more observations lead to results, which are incompatible with the interpretation that redshifts are due to relative velocity.

This book shows that taking into account the change in momentum of the electrons of gas molecules scattering light in space leads to bremsstrahlung and a slightly inelastic forward scattering.

This is the first Non-Doppler redshift theory, which when combined with the usual Doppler phenomenon, would explain consistently all spectral shifts observed in astronomy.

 

 

===============================================

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

 

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

 

 

Quote:

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

 

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

 

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work

 

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

 

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

 

6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

 

 

(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform

 

 

( Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

 

(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

 

 

(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

 

 

 

Quote:

Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.

eginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated

 

 

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

 

Quote:

It is widely believed among scientists that the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is described as the Big Bang. Although the primeval soup is thought to have originated at zero volume, quantum physics considerations require that it could not be described before its diameter in centimeter reached about 10-33 (that is, 1-billion-trillion-trillionth cm). This means that the universe, then expanding at near the speed of light, was about 10-43 second old.

After that instant, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe kept expanding and became many billions of billions of times (on the order of 1020 times) larger and older, until it reached the size of an electron that has a radius of approximately 10-13 cm, when the universe was 10-23 second old. During the following 15 billion years, according to the theory, the universe expanded to a radius of 15 billion light-years to the size it is claimed today. (A light-year, the distance traversed by light in a vacuum in one year, is 9.5 ´ 1012 kilometers.)

 

 

Quote:

The author (center) with the organizers of the Feb. 1989 Plasma Universe conference in La Jolla, Calif., Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén (right) and Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory (left).

 

These are the dimensions and time scale required by the Big bang model, a model that has certainly not been accepted by all scientists because it leads to insurmountable difficulties. Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937).

 

In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989).

 

 

 

TQuote:

he Redshift.

A large number of redshift observations cannot be explained by the Doppler theory. Astronomer Halton Arp's 1987 book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" provides an extensive review of them, as does a lengthy 1989 review article by the Indian astrophysicist J. V. Narlikar. A catalogue of 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect was published in 1981 by K. J. Reboul under the title, "Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue". Many other papers indicate that non-velocity produced redshifts have been observed.

A non-Doppler interpretation of the redshift actually leads to better agreement of theory with the actual observations

 

 

Quote:

Light Element Production.

It is not necessary to invoke a Big Bang in order to explain the observed abundances of light elements. A plasma model of galaxy formation accomplishes the task very well (Rees 1978; Lerner 1989). The plasma model shows that the elements are produced during galaxy formation in their observed abundances by early massive and intermediate stars. The nuclear reactions and cosmic rays generated in and by these stars lead to production of the elements. As a recent reviewer of plasma theory wrote, the plasma model: "accounts accurately for the observed overabundance of oxygen in the lowest metallicity stars, and deuterium, and does not over-produce the remaining rare light elements - lithium, beryllium, and boron" (Lerner 1989).

 

 

 

Quote:

Cosmic Background Radiation.

The existence of the 3 K microwave radiation is no longer valid evidence for the Big Bang. There is no need to assume, as Big Bang believers do, that this background radiation came from a highly Doppler-redshifted blackbody(3)at about 3,000. K - that is, from the exploding ball of matter - when its density became low enough for energy and matter to decouple. The background radiation is simply Planck's blackbody radiation emitted by our unlimited universe that is also at a temperature of about 3 K (Marmet 1988).

The inhomogeneity of matter in the universe today means that there should be some inhomogeneity in the cosmic background radiation if it originated in a Big Bang. But no fundamental inhomogeneity in the background has been clearly found, despite tests that are sensitive down to small scales. Matter is concentrated in galaxies, in clusters and super clusters of galaxies, and in what has been called the Great Attractor (a tentatively identified but huge concentration of mass centered 150 million light-years away). These important inhomogeneities in the composition of the universe as we see it today must have first appeared in the early universe (if it exists). In fact, a comparable inhomogeneity must have existed in the matter that emitted the 3 K radiation. That inhomogeneity must appear as a distortion in the Hubble flow(4) (Dressler 1989) and must lead to observable irregularities in the 3 K background. Inhomogeneities in the 3 K radiation have been looked for but nothing is compatible with the mass observed in the Great Attractor. A. E. Lange recently reported that there is no observable inhomogeneity even with a resolution of 10 seconds of arc and a sensitivity in temperature as high as DT=± 0.00001 K (Lange 1989).

Nor can Einstein's general theory of relativity be applied in a consistent manner to the Big Bang model. According to the model, when the universe was the size of an electron and was 10-23 second old, it was clearly a black hole - a concentration of mass so great that its self-gravitation would prevent the escape of any mass or radiation. Consequently, according to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded. Therefore, one would have to assume that gravity started to exist only gradually after the creation of the universe, but that amounts to changing the laws of physics arbitrarily to save the Big Bang model. In contrast, a stable universe as suggested here agrees with Einstein's relativity theory, taking into account the cosmological constant(5) he proposed in 1917.

Recent astronomical discoveries pose an additional and very serious problem for the Big Bang theory. Larger and larger structures are being found to exist at greater and greater redshifts, indicating their existence in the increasingly distant past. (Whether one assumes the Big Bang or the theory presented here, the redshift is normally an indicator of distances, and because it takes time for light to travel, the image of a highly redshifted object is seen on Earth today as it was when the light began to travel.)

In 1988, Simon Lilly of the university of Hawaii reported the discovery of a mature galaxy at the enormous redshift of 3.4; that is, the amount of the redshift for any spectral line from the galaxy is 340 per cent of the line's proper wavelength (Lilly 1988). This puts the galaxy so far in time that the Big Bang scheme does not allow sufficient time for its formation! In a news report on Lilly's work, Sky & Telescope reports: "The appearance of a mature galaxy so soon after the Big Bang poses a serious threat . . ." (Aug. 1988, p. 124).

In 1989 came the discovery of the "Great Wall" of galaxies, a sheet of Galaxies 500 million light-years long, 200 million light-years wide, and approximately 15 million light-years thick, with the dimensions of the structure being limited only by the scale of the survey (Geller and Huchra 1989). It is located between 200 and 300 million light-years from Earth. In an interview with the Boston Globe (Nov. 17 1989), Margaret Geller of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics offered some frank comments on the implications of her discovery:

 

The size of the structure indicates that in present theories of the formation of the universe "something is really wrong that makes a big difference,"

Geller said in an interview:

No known force could produce a structure this big in the time since the universe was formed", She said.

 

 

========================================

 

Big Bang Theory Busted

By 33 Top Scientists

 

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

 

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /

Earthtech.org

 

Quote:

http://www.earthtech.org

 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

 

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

 

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of

Technology (USA)

 

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

 

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

 

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

 

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University

(Russia)

 

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

 

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

 

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

 

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

 

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

 

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

 

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

 

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

 

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

 

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

 

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

 

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio

Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

 

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

 

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

 

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

 

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

 

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

 

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

 

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

 

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

 

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

 

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

 

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

 

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

 

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

 

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

 

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil

 

 

 

Look I can give you hundreds of cosmologists and scientists who do not think well of the Big Bang.

 

==========================================

Paul Marmet and Grote Reber*,

Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics,

National Research Council, Ottawa, On. Canada K1A 0R6

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

 

Quote:

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Abbé Georges Lemaître [1]. Later, H. Hubble deduced the related constant, but as reported by Shelton [2]: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe". Hubble himself in his book states [3]: "The familiar interpretation of red shifts as velocity shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts, avoids both difficulties . . . ." Many prestigious scientists like R. A. Millikan agreed with Hubble when he wrote in a letter [4] dated 15 may 1953: "Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us." Another prestigious scientist, Hannes Alfvén, is also challenging the orthodox view of the origin of the universe [1]. Since its origin, the big bang theory has remained an important controversy that is actively discussed in many specialized meetings [5]. Until a satisfactory model of the universe is found, the cosmological model must be reconsidered every time new observations or new considerations are brought in. It is not possible to achieve a rational choice between alternatives models when only one alternative (the big bang) is considered. We will examine here how some observations involving plasma physics in space are compatible with a recent red shift theory. We will see then how the new-tired light mechanism [6] is in agreement with many reliable observations.

 

===========================================

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

cosmologystatement.org

 

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

 

Hundreds os cosmologists and scientists who do not agree with The Big Bang

 

Quote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

 

 

 

I could go on and on.

 

The Big Bang has no bang.

[Qfwfq]

That's an unnecessarily long list of quotes and names. Quotes should be essential, especially with copyright material, and to the purpose of remarks you make about them.

 

That's not the way to carry on a debate here.

[erich]

Hi Harry:

Nice summation of EU supporters,

 

I sure could use your help over at Baut forum. I have posted everything I have posted here, however the administrator keeps locking my threads saying that all the EU arguments are word salads with no mathematical support.

 

His latest admonishment:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erich

I had not noticed my personal messages, and wish to comply with your rules,

 

Question? If I see some item like this on another forum and post it because I think it very relevant to this discussion is that in violation?

 

Hypography Science Forums - Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

 

 

 

"

In this case, we already have a thread discussing it, in the Astronomy section.

 

In general, if it's to do with astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science, there will already be a thread on it.

 

A good place to start is our own Universe Today Story Comments.

 

You will see that several BAUT members are assiduous in bringing new results to BAUT, in the Astronomy section.

 

Regarding EU ideas, this post deserves repeating (with one edit, in bold):

Quote:

erich, it is, IMHO, impossible to prove, or disprove, any EU ideas!

 

Why? Because no proponent of any EU idea has ever produced anything, in the public domain, that is sufficiently specific, quantitative, etc as to allow any testing - whatsoever - of those ideas (or, to be complete, everything EU sufficiently specific or quantitative that has been produced has been thoroughly debunked, or has long since been part of mainstream astrophysics).

 

Of course, you will find lots of papers by Peratt, Alfvén, etc, cited on websites promoting EU ideas.

 

However, if you take the time to check these out, you will find that:

a) they are clearly inconsistent, internally, with well-established observations or experimental results, or (shock!) textbook plasma physics, or

:) they are thoroughly mainstream, or

c) they are too vague to be tested.

 

BAUT has an extremely long thread devoted to EU ideas, in its ATM section.

 

That thread, and its children, are as close to open and shut cases as you could ask for concerning the null scientific content of EU ideas .... and the pro-EU posts in those threads were written by some of the most ardent EU supporters!

 

If you, or any other BAUT member, wishes to present an EU case, in any specific domain, then you are more than welcome to do so. Please read this for guidance on how to go about making such a presentation. "

 

 

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46493

Thanks for any help,

[Aireal]

Harry Costas

 

Hello, I do not know anything about EU theory, but most of what you posted I am already familier with. I was asking for the classical explaination for the red shifting of light near the sun, as I thought there was a flaw in the treatment of it in current cosmology. But I needed to know the accepted reason for it first, which cwes99_03 provided.

 

The only thing that bothered me was you are not aware of work outside of the E.U.community that offers explaination for the red shift. W.S.M. has been around a long time and Dr. Milo Wolf came up with a non-doppler explaination for all red shifting many years ago.

 

In your defence, you probably never heard of W.S.M. and I have only recently heard of E.U. so I guess it boils down to, it's hard to be aware of everything out there, espically when many anti mainstream theory are refused publication in professional journals.

 

So in the future, I will try to read up on E.U. so that I at least have a grasp of it.

[LaurieAG]

I do not believe I have ever heard anyone say whether a thought experiment (or a long term study of the stars) has been accomplished to show whether, since the light from some of those redshifted objects is thousands of years old, the highest red-shift objects are actually accelerating in a direction away or towards the earth.

 

You must go a lot further than thousands of years before you reach the next galaxy.

 

It's interesting when you think about how light travels from a distant galaxy to our own when you consider that both the observer and observed galaxies are rotating around their respective centres.

 

If we were to observe another solar system in another galaxy whose center was 500k light years away from our own galactic center and the other solar system took the same amount of time to rotate at the same distance as our own solar system, we can make some interesting observations.

 

A simple ice cream cone type shape illustrates where the light from the distant solar system will appear to the observer depending on its location with the observer being at the bottom point. The light from the sun (and planetary reflections etc) will take two rotations to reach the observation point and the points where light will appear can be plotted over time.

 

These plots look very much like half of a spiral galaxy when viewed in end elevation and appear exactly like a spiral galaxy when there are two diametrically opposed point sources of light (solar systems).

 

Now obviously the ligh paths plotted are over 500k years so why do they look very much like what we call galaxies?

[cwes99_03]

Laurie, I like your thinking, but I think your background is weak.

 

1) the light from all points of the galaxy leave at the same time, though as you have understood, some reaches earth before the rest. However, the best views of spiral galaxies we have are from on edge.

On edge means that the time delay caused by being 30,000 light years out from the center (thus having hypotenusal distance instead of horizontal) is minimal when compared to being 5 million light years (horizontal distance) away from earth. So we see all those stars at nearly the same time in relation to each other.

 

2) The next thing to understand is that objects revolve around the center of a galaxy at a relatively low speed compared to c. Thus by the time a star moves a tiny bit around that galaxy, you and me will be dead and gone for thousands of years. Thus we know that the positions of stars is fairly stable when we compare two stars that are in the same galaxy but light years apart.

 

3) When discussing red-shift of stars in a galaxy not on edge with respect to our viewing angle, they do know the direction of objects moving about the galactic center because they have millions of other stars as reference points. Thus the stars revolving on one side around the center will all be blue shifted, while the stars revolving around the other side of the center will be red-shifted. Stars on our side of galactic center will not be red or blue, neither will stars on the other side of galactic center.

 

I'm hoping I addressed your concerns as I didn't quite understand all of your posts.

[erich]

Is supernova (SNLS-03D3bb) more trouble for the standard model?

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/9/12

[erich]

The standard model stands up. At least this simulation is trouble for Plasma Cosmology supporters:

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/10/16

 

"On the case of the "missing" helium

27 October 2006

 

Astrophysicists may have solved the embarrassing problem of why there is so much less helium-3 in the universe than predicted by standard cosmology and star-evolution theories. Peter Eggleton of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US and colleagues at Monash University in Australia have calculated that when aging low-mass stars swell to become "red giants", the large amount of helium-3 they have produced is pushed down into the stars’ hot interiors, where it is then burnt up. The result suggests that our understanding of the Big Bang is correct after all (Sciencexpress 1133065)."

[LaurieAG]

I'm hoping I addressed your concerns as I didn't quite understand all of your posts.

 

It seems that the only KIS way to reconcile all of your points with my posts is to consider that when two solar type systems 'meet' they appear to do a fast step waltz around their common center of gravity and, in many situations (unlike pulsars etc), release each other for a bit of a rest, a confrontation or maybe wait for a turn with another partner at a 'later' time.

 

The attached image shows the top and end elevations for a physical 'plan' of the uninterrupted straight line light paths that are produced when two solar systems perform two rotations around a common 'galactic' center, within the time that the light takes to get to the observer. There is no side elevation shown as it represents the light projected when the other systems rotation path is tilted at 45 degrees away from the observer.

[cwes99_03]

I shall have to examine your graphs there. It has been a while since I posted to this thread, but I seemed to have thought that you were asking why when a galaxy is viewed somewhat on edge does light from one star on on side of the galaxy appear to be in its place at the same time a much nearer star appears to be in it's place (since the time it take the light to travel from the first star is a few thousand (or hundred thousand) years).

 

I have thought about this and thought I had an answer for you, though sitting here right now I can't remember all of my unposted thoughts. Give me a bit of time to come back to this one, ok LaurieAG?

[LaurieAG]

I shall have to examine your graphs there. ....

Give me a bit of time to come back to this one, ok LaurieAG?

 

No worries, though the following might help.

 

Notes on the plotting methodology used for the diagram etc.

 

(1) plot the points where the light will appear on successive 1/4 rotations from the start system(s) (use different colors for each system) i.e. 1/4 rotation will go 1/8 of the distance from the start point (to the observation point) and 2/4 rotation will go 2/8 of the distance from its rotation start point etc because the time it takes for 2 rotations is the time that the original light takes to reach the observer.

 

(2) Join the points together for each path.

 

As this plot displays the points in reverse order to how the light path will come in to the observation point another step is required.

 

(3) Reverse the light paths along the central axis to reflect how they will be seen by the observer.

 

Also, there was a show on galaxies on TV the other night that had a very remarkable image of a solo light path that conforms closely to one of the diagrams light paths. There must be some sort of non light emitting 'system' that acts as the partner for the light path to appear on its own.

 

IMHO, it seems that we can say goodbye to 'black holes' at the center of all observed galaxies as when 'galaxies' display a solo light path their 'dark' partner is not at their common center of gravity. Non conforming double (or more) light paths would seem to indicate that one (or more) of the dance partners is also non light emitting.