Cosmology View

My views on Cosmology and Physics

site navigation menu


Electric Universe Principles

Wal Thornhill defined several principles of the Electric Universe Cosmology.

one principle is conforming to classical physics, which could be: evidence is required.

Experiments are important. Those gave Alfven credibility.

A second principle is recognizing the importance of electricity, which is charged particles in motion, and the electric force between charges.

This presentation departs from the principles.

 I gave Thunderbolts my explanation of the red and blue shifts on January 5, 2020.

At 1:10, Wal says anyone can submit a topic and it should be discussed rationally.

I will do this by sending this post to Thunderbolts info.

When I use classical physics but EU does not, then a discussion is in order, as suggested.

At about 21:56, Wal says an electron and proton do not have a fixed mass. This contradicts the structured atomic model and experiments.

I suspect this statement was the consequence of an explanation of a quasar red shift which followed. A basis was needed for particles having  a variable mass.

At 35:06, an image has a high red shift quasar is in front of a low red shift galaxy.

Arp correctly concluded something is wrong with this particular set.

However, his subsequent conclusions were wrong because he did not understand they are very different mechanisms.

Wal sometimes talks of quasar high red shifts implying great distance.

EU must accept quasar red shifts are never a velocity or distance
Galaxy red shifts indicate the hydrogen density in the IGM through the line of sight.

As I recommended in my books, the use of Cepheids enables the calculation of an IGM factor having units of z divided by distance (from a Cepheid). This factor is similar to the misnamed Hubble's constant which resulted from the IGM. That constant and this factor cannot have a universal value because the IGM is not consistent throughout the universe.

Arp used sets of low red shifts for both the quasars and galaxies.

A combination of high red shift quasar in front of an even higher red shift galaxy is likely, given the highest galaxy red shift (11) is greater than the highest quasar red shift (7). Arp used a set of too few.

One must note the highest red shift quasars use a different red shift mechanism than in Arp's set.

Caltech studied many quasars. Their "typical" had z=1.34
Its prominent emission line is a Lyman-alpha line.

This line results from a proton capturing an electron.

Quasars in random locations like in this study are capturing high velocity protons with some even at a velocity of z > 7. The z value indicates the proton velocity at the moment of electtron capture.

The intensity of the emission line indicates each quasar is getting a stream of many protons sharing a velocity. This is a plasma behavior.

At 36:15, A pattern is noted in values.

Wal says the red shift value decreases due to increasing mass over time.

The actual red shift mechanism must be considered before such a conjecture.

That statement of changing mass in particles conflicts with classical physics, because that behavior has never been observed.

At 36:45 the display has a bullet point:

Edwin Hubble was right! Something is wrong with physics!

This statement is a disservice to Hubble.
He stated in one of his books in 1936, his conclusion the Local Group was separated from the Hubble Flow.

He recognized those distant galaxy red shifts were related to their distance. He also knew M31 was blue shifted. In 1922 he had calculated a distance to M31 usng a Cepheid, the first person to do so. About the same time, Vesto Slipher proposed stating a velocity for a z red shift value, not Hubble. This was a terrible mistake with units. I expect Hubble's observation in 1936 was never noticed by other astronomers. The 1936 statement points out the importance of the inter-galactic medium beyond our Local Group. That is why galaxy hydrogen red shift roughly increases with distance.

Early cosmologists made a few mistakes based on insufficient data and their wrong conclusions were never fixed.
I noticed the 1936 quote in a paper published by an astronomer in 1999 and this paper is now gone from the original site.

I must point out Wal used  Arp's mistakes without a proper review despite the data requiring a "new" behavior having no experimental evidence to justify it.

I hope to help correct this wrong path of EU.

I completed a trilogy, in August 2020,  about cosmology including red shifts, quasars, and more. For example, there are galaxies which eject plasmoids, not quasars, because the plasmoids lack the clouds of metals which characterize a quasar.

Arp often noted BL Lac objects. They are different than quasars because they lack the many emission lines in their spectrum.

At 37:18, Wal says despite its blue shift the Andromeda galaxy is not coming toward us. "It might be older, who knows?

This rhetorical question following "might be" reveals this is conjecture. Any blue shift is a problem for cosmologists and their expansion because none of them identified the mechanism.

My conclusion:
Suggesting a red or blue shift is related to the mass of the 2 fundamental particles is beyond classical physics.

Arp jumped to conclusions because as an astronomer the probably did not understand the actual mechanisms for red shifts in quasars nor for those in galaxies.

At 36:00, Wal presents a story of a quasar's life, from Arp.

Because this story misses critical data, conclusions from this story are wrong.

A BeppoSAX study of many quasars and BL Lac objects around 2008 concluded all had a source of synchrotron radiation. That explains their spectrum spanning from X-ray to radio. The M87 plasmoid has the same distribution.

Quasars are known to be bright in X-ray but dim in optical. The clouds of gas and dust affect different wave lengths that way.
Quasars in the Arp collection are marked by many metallic ion emission lines.

Seyfert galaxies were the consistent parents of Arp's quasars. Seyferts are LINER  galaxies. These are marked by many metallic ions around their core.

Though the respective atoms  in the quasar have different masses they share the same velocity, which is a plasma behavior.

As ions capture electrons from the plasmoid, they emit their characteristic emission line which is red shifted by the ion's velocity.

The electric field of the plasmoid decreases in increments so the red shift of the ion velocities drops also.
When all the ions become neutral or leave the line of sight, the quasar's red shift from the ions goes away.

The following is the most likely story of a quasar.

1) The Seyfert ejects a pair of plasmoids in opposing directions.
2) Each gets the same collection of metallic ions from the core.

This results in the same initial red shift for the pair. When the respective plasmoids follow the same electrical capacity reduction in increments, the pair follows the same red shift pattern.

3) IOn captures of electrons create neutral atoms which drop out of the electric field pull.
The cloud will disperse. This could cause smearing of a red shift over time.

This story addresses all observations. No new theory only for quasars, of incrementally changing masses is required.

This non-Arp explanation of a quasar follows the EU principles.

At about 39:00 Wal says an electron and proton mass are quantized as one would expect.

No:  that conflicts with classical physics which has both with a measured mass.

Wal also proposed the M31 blue shift indicates an older age. This reveals no check of its spectrum or the mechanism.

The few blue shifted galaxies are spirals.

The blue shift comes from a calcium ion moving away from the galactic corona.

The ion velocity is like that of calcium ions moving away through the solar corona.

A galactic corona is not understood but by observation it repels ions.

The motion of ions indicates nothing of the galaxy's age, distance, or velocity.

After dropping a new quasar-only theory, EU conforms to its principles.

date posted 09/04/2020