<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But I don't want to argue about these things. I just want to know if electric fields shift the electro-magnetic spectrum; and if they do, then they cannot be excluded from hubble's conjecture about recessional speeds or distance calculations. <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Your question is still a bit imprecise, but I will try to reformulate a bit and give it a try. First, except in a static case electric fields occur in combination with magnetic fields, in an electromagnetic wave, or a equivalently a flux of photons. The spectrum is simply a characterization of the electromagnetic field. So in a sense the fields ARE the spectrum.</p><p>Electromagnetic fields add vectorially, So if you have one field and add in another the spectrum that you get will be the sum of the two. But that is not a shift.</p><p>I think you are actually asking whether there is some other mechanism that might be producing the observed red shift. The answer is that physicists do not think this is the case. Photons, unless they interact with something, scattered, maintain a fixed frequency, with the exception of general relativistic effects. In general relativity both gravity and an expansion or contraction of space can also affect frequency. One would not expect scattering to produce a consistent clean and simple shift. So the short answer to your question is a resounding NO. The observed redshift is not caused by electric fields permeating the universe. </p><p>From your other statements I think that you may have run across a series of e-paper by Ari Brynjolfsson on "plasma redshift". Those papers have been around in different versions for a number of years. He has been unable to get them published in a refereed journal. They are confusing and the theory appears to be seriously flawed. No such mechanism has been demonstrated in the laboratory. If it is your intent to start a debate over these papers then we are done. They have been around, been reviewed by competent prople, and have been rejected. There is not point in flogging that dead horse.</p><p>With regard to the electric sun hypothesis you might want to take a look at the thread "Why is electricity the forbidden topic in astronomy". In there, fairly early on, you will find a crude calculation that will show you that if the sun were actually electrically powered you would see a magnetic field at the surface of the earth that is many millions of times greater than what is actually observed.</p><p>By the way, there is no 'bull" to the big bang. The understanding of that phenomena is certainly not complete. But the foundations of the theory are extremely well grounded in just two things. The first is the observation that the universe is expanding, as was discovered by Hubble and published in 1929. The second is Einstein's general theory of relativity, which has been tested experimentally many times in many ways. In 1973 Hawking and Ellis showed that as a logical consequence of general relativity a universe that is expanding now, must have in the past been in an extremely compressed state. The mathematics actually predicts the origin in a singularity, a single point. The prediction of a single point is questionable, because in such a compressed state the effects of quantum mechanics would be very important and general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Hence the theory actually breaks down at that stage. Nevertheless, the predictions are reliable up to a very short period after the big bang itself.</p><p>Before you reject the accepted models you need to understand what you are rejecting. They are, after all, accepted for a reason. Unfortunately that will require you to go through some rather complicated physics and mathematics. Ths stuff is in many cases counter-intuitive, so if you rely on your day-to-day experience, so-called common sense, you may find yourself going down a nonn-productive path.</p><p>Let me offer you this. The notions of the electric universe and plasma cosmology proponents have been taken seriously and have been evaluated objectively by mainstream astrophysicists. You can find discussions in Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles or in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. Those notions have been set aside and are no longer pursued because they did not meet good scientific criteria. One problem is that these theories, while proclaimed loudly by their advocates have not made a single non-trivial correct prediction and have made a myriad of predictions that are completely at odds with what is observed. The apparent inability of EU proponents to accept objective obsrvational data and the implications of well-supported physical principles is the reason that their theories have not been firmly relagated to the wacko bin.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram