Plasma Red Shift

[@SeethePattern]

Thank you for watching I hope you found it useful. Please let me know if you can make any more sense of Ari's equations. Links to his paper are also in the description. Also, remember this is part 3 in the series. I have linked the other videos in the description.

[@alexandrekassiantchouk1632]

check "Time = Quantum Fluctuations. Gravity = Time Dilation. Strong Force = Gravity."

[@zyxzevn]

My reply seems to disappear. Am I shadow banned by youtube or something?

[@1Meter]

@@zyxzevn I only see this comment from you..

[@user_unknown1488]

Love you G. x x x x x I hope you're keeping well Buddy! ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@setlist9811]

You forgot to equate for fairy dust 6

[@mybirds2525]

This Plasma Red Shift is how we tune lasers. The reduction in frequency is quantized and follows RMS ratio for sine wave to energy sum as a measured potential

[@jamesweninger3679]

That brings up my major complaint about the academic world. We already accept that we are a bit too specialized, with with people in one field not knowing enough about another. It's worse than that though, in that even an astrophysicist of renown, doesn't know enough about plasma, and especially lasers, or enough about acoustics and fluid flow. So we get even professional physicists in one specialty saying things another physicist would know is wrong, except they don't read each other's work anymore. Back in Newton's day, things were different, and it's not surprising how many errors have crept in since then

[@bonsang1073]

@@jamesweninger3679 yes but compartimentalised knowledge is great for school that charge by the speciality and/or Marxist that thrive out of desorganisation. we are due for a good purge.

[@SeethePattern]

@Paul Noel. Doesn’t that shift in frequency also come with a scattering effect. In other words it’s Compton scattering. So laser beam does not continue on in a straight line?

[@jamesweninger3679]

@@SeethePattern is this where the “self healing”, “self repairing”, of a Bessel Gaussian beam (like a laser?), fits in?

[@psychotrixAVMC]

​@@jamesweninger3679 it is called compartmentalization. It is purposefully existent as it is a great means for people to keep looping around ever growing holes of intellectual complexity while ignoring the simplicity of the bigger picture.

[@Wakssbm]

The only channel that I found that challenges the most basics of our understandings in astronomy the right way. Great stuff!

[@SeethePattern]

Wow, thanks!

[@gregsmith1719]

You are on the frontier of discovering how our universe works, which may never completely be understood, but, being human, you are compelled to proceed. If any advancement can be made, it is worth the effort. I fully agree. So much is in the measuring and the math and both are fraught with approximation and assumption. But, we keep on! Because we must! We MUST understand! I agree and champion you completely, Matthew. Keep it up!

[@wesjohnson5204]

Very unbiased and informative as always thank you! It's common to claim that classical physics cannot explain whatever, and quantum mechanics is needed. For the math. It's called, peer flagging. Who wants to admit any other kind of medium and still get published?

[@thedarkmoon2341]

“I consider this extremely important,” said Mr. Tesla. “Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.”

[@jamesweninger3679]

Anyone interested in this theory should check out the Local Chimney, the solar system's orientation and motion in that chimney, and the "Axis of Evil" problem in astrophysics. In a nutshell, the Local Chimney is a region of hot, sparse plasma (addressed in this video), with the ecliptic plane nearly edge on to the center (near the Pleiades, with the Pleiades just off the ecliptic), and the cosmic dipole of redshifted and blue shifted lobes oriented to that plane. In short, it points to plasma redshift of the cosmic microwave background having at least a local component. That's not what you learn in school, but the CMB dipole doesn't have a cosmological explanation, does it?

[@Dismythed]

Not that you're wrong (I have no idea), but as someone well versed in physics, your words lack connectivity. The axis of evil that you hang it on has nothing to do with the subjects you are connecting to it except through the generalized subject of cosmology. The redshift plasma just seems drawn from the video, and the "Local Chimney" or "local bubble" is a very local effect that does not likely affect the CMB detection as found in the article "Can the Local Bubble explain the radio background?" If you wish to give more clarity, I'm happy to listen.

[@redshiftdrift]

Good review! My understanding of Brynjolfsson's "plasma redshift papers" is similar to yours. The pole he finds in his equation (6) [7:34] is a classical effect, and the classical derivation doesn't say if the absorption of energy is through the 'rare absorption of a complete photon', or through the 'absorption of a small fraction of the energy of a photon'. Note that nowhere in Eq. (6) does the Planck constant appears, indicating that no quantization is necessary for an interpretation. The 'third pole' of his equations turns out to be an expression of the classical Kramers-Kronig relations, which say that for any system where there is frequency dispersion there is a corresponding absorption. (Engineers should be familiar with this.) But nowhere does Brynjolfsson quantize his equations to derive the quantum version of his 'plasma redshift'. In this case the classical absorption of 'plasma redshift' turns out to describe a decrease of the amplitude of the electromagnetic field, which is equivalent to the very infrequent total absorption of a photon by an ensemble of electrons. The 'plasma heating' in Brynjolfsson's classical calculation may, even in the classical approximation, explain *some* heating of the solar corona. However, his effect is more efficient near plasma frequencies, and that corresponds to the _already studied_ heating effects of the solar corona. The current understanding is that these effects exist, but they are too small to explain the hot solar corona. As an explanation of the cosmological redshift, Brynjolfsson's "plasma redshift" fails for many reasons. Brynjolfsson predicts that an average of 200 electrons per cubic meter would be necessary to produce the intergalactic redshift. We know (from FRB dispersion) that the average density is about 0.3 electron/m^3 in intergalactic space, so again 'plasma redshift' is way too small of an effect. As you say, proper quantization of the effect would result in scattering that would blur images, a second reason why 'plasma redshift' doesn't work. I have known Ari personally and discussed at length all of this with him. His maths is not wrong, the effect does exist but is too small by a factor of at least 1000 to explain observations. Understandably, Ari was blinded by the possibility of explaining the cosmological redshift with a photon-electron interaction. He never abandoned his quantum interpretation of the classical 'third pole of equation (6)'.

[@asdf3568]

"We know (from FRB dispersion) that the average density is about 0.3 electron/m^3 in intergalactic space". What if it passes through plasma that is 1000 times thicker?

[@linkin543210]

I love this channel, such a unique perspective.

[@benwatson8244]

Beyond my grasp, but I nevertheless enjoyed seeing you reveal how scientists allow themselves to hop between paradigms when it suits them so it feels like a stopgap solution. This is familiar to me in other academic realms - eg sociology and cultural studies - and I always find it less than convincing.

[@ddp4923]

Great video! Thanks, I learned some things!

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. Thanks. Are we here to discuss redshift for the sake of redshift and not discuss redshift under the context of galaxy redshift and expanding universe? Remember, the most important factor that galaxy light can form an image in our retina and deliver signals to our spectrometer is that it arrive to us in a plane wave format. When a plane wave is used to excite an intermediate plasma medium, the medium become a transponder (frequency shifter) and each intrinsic dipoles of the plasma medium becomes an independent new light source producing spherical wave(s) and hence scattered / fragmented the galaxy image. Being scattered, we’d not be able to pick up our object galaxy’s image in the first place, let alone conducting some spectroscopy experiment. See also page 5:48.

[@nine9s]

Back in 2007 there was a paper about how cold plasmas cause redshift in photons passing through it. They said the redshift is proportional to the electron density of the plasma. The paper is titled "Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas" published by Elsevier.

[@mythicscholar8055]

Nice video. A mix of effects would explain redshift better than one mechanism on its own.

[@SeethePattern]

Totally agree there

[@GamesBond.007]

This is A GREAT ideea, and coupled with my discovery of refractional redshift perfectly explains why almost all galaxies appear redshifted.

[@andrewmurray6352]

There are some very important comments here. As always, very excellent work Gareth 👏

[@swainsongable]

Thank you, this was one of my first questions when I came across the EU theory.

[@chrisweatherley9587]

what was?

[@swainsongable]

@@chrisweatherley9587 ...was how to explain the red shift doppler effect without the one "miracle" of a big bang. Having other theories makes the universe that much more mysterious and interesting.

[@mathoph26]

This is really interresting once again thanks

[@brucelind3678]

Check out SAFIRE project. In one of their presentations, they alluded to red shift in what would be relatively cold plasama. Ari Brynjoffsson was probably on to something; It’s just that the brain is limited to describing in language it knows, which is usually different than how nature works. Perhaps treating plasma as a type of matter would help explain a frequency decrease instead of the usual speed-of-light decrease.

[@JenkoRun]

Could you do an analysis of Goethe's theory of color? It's very simple and calls newton's model into question.

[@swainsongable]

That's what I did my MA thesis on in 1987! (And yes, nobody paid any attention to it then either :) but there is a good documentary on the doc channel that covers it quite well and is worth searching out. You're welcome)

[@chrisweatherley9587]

colour (to our perception) doesn't exist. studies into colour blindness and age have proven this. its puelt a human experience.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I don't think we fully understand Gravity Yet. ~i know that's random but ur video's make me contemplate. Made me think of our current state of physics. If u look up "what is Gravity" right now, you get all sorts of science videos explaining that gravity is not a force, & they mostly talk about time dilation. ~i think there is more we have yet to understand & perceive about Gravity. (Sorta like something we've all seen a million times, but finally someone finds a new way to look at it and notices things most people have overlooked.) *in no way am saying this because I think I have the answers. No. This is just a gut feeling that I hope people way smarter than me discover. I got this gut feeling after observing the state physics has been in for a long time now. Something is telling me we have to look back on things and see if there is anything we may have overlooked? It happens all the times in discoveries and progression. There's Nothing embarrassing or to be ashamed of. It's natural. It's a part of growth and inventions. My gut tells me that gravity is greatly intertwined with electrodynamics, density, and all the factors that make up many things in our Cosmo's. Just that gravity is this unique property of our universe in multiple scales. Small form, mid form, mega form. Think of large Filaments throughout the Cosmo's/multiple galaxies/black holes/nebula's that span many light-years across • then • Stars/planets/ asteroid's/solar systems/orbits/atmosphere's/magnetosphere/cosmic bubble around our solar system/then all the effects on our planet that gravity plays a role in. •Lastly• the small factors of matter/static charges that cause things to start sticking to each other/ particles/magnetism/density/temperature/velocity/pressure (probably many more things I'm leaving out but hopefully u get the point, these factors all play such a crucial role in our Cosmo's and I really think we have further to learn about it.) *But that's just my personal opinion

[@keithmcgarrigle2653]

The Cosmic web which is plasma +ve ions flowing in a circuit between Galaxies, at different potentials. The gaps between the filaments of the web can charge up like a capacitor. The vacuum of space would act like the dielectric of a capacitor storing a steady DC electrostatic field. Electromagnetic waves (light) might use this electric field to propagate though (aether)? The larger the gaps between the plasma filaments, there would be a weaker electric field, and the propagation speed of light could vary?

[@jesterlead]

We've been on a 95 year detour with this expanding universe notion. Never should have bet against Albert!

[@KittyBoom360]

Regarding the math, personally, I'm not convinced by theoretical mathematical models anyway. Like the cosmological redshift model using expanding space is logically sound, however, being logical doesn't make it scientifically valid. So I prefer to look for scientific demonstrations, of which there are none for redshift due to expanding space. But for redshift due to plasmas, the more I look into it, the more I feel overloaded with a plethora of experiments and articles from '78 to present, such as the following: "Polarisation shift effect in high-density plasmas" by Volonte, S., 1978. "Plasma broadening and shifting of non-hydrogenic spectral lines: present status and applications" by N.Konjevic, 1999. "Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma" Ari Brynjolfsson, 2004 "Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas" by C.S. Chen in 2009 "Laser red shifting based characterization of wakefield excitation in a laser-plasma accelerator" S. Shiraishi, et al, 2013 These possibly suggest mechanisms that we've theoretically modelled such as redshift from things like electron density of plasma environments or electric fields to wakefield acceleration, AC stark effect and on and on it seems, stopping only when I stop researching. Though I'm too amateur to be able to judge any of the mathematical models, it's the scientific results which I find most interesting anyway.

[@jamesweninger3679]

You are actually reading more than most astrophysicists do on this, (I know, because that was my field), and you are also right that getting the picture first, is more important than the math. Not any different than in the days of epicycles, where the Earth centered solar system was a flawed concept, but the math for the epicycles was brilliant, and would actually work, given enough circles in circles. Kind of like you can model any wave motion by Fourier analysis, but still not understand fundamentally why a particular wave is shaped the way it is.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@jamesweninger3679 Thanks! And speaking of Fourier, the uncertainty in the Fourier transform is actually my favorite example of why the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics is actually just a subset of a more generally and perfectly classical phenomena found with all waves of all forms in any medium and of all scales.

[@jamesweninger3679]

@@KittyBoom360 elaborate?

[@KittyBoom360]

@@jamesweninger3679 Sure. The Fourier transform demonstrates that for any signal, like a sound wave for example, it's not possible to concentrate both its function and its transform. As we squeeze one, the other stretches, and vise versa. In simplistic terms, there's a natural tradeoff between the time and frequency of any wave function, both macro/classical and what we today call quantum. For full elaborations, see: "The more general uncertainty principle, regarding Fourier transforms" on 3Blue1Brown's channel who use wonderful graphics to help explain things. Or see: "The Uncertainty Principle and Waves" on Sixty Symbols' channel who is obviously musically inclined and passionate about the topic.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

Can we make multiple cosmic microwave background images & measurements? +is there anything that could alter red shift? Say tons of gas cloud's? Black holes, galaxies, the type of Light the star is giving off? So how would you find a "reliable measuring system from super nova's? It seems variable?"

[@johnlord8337]

aether fabric density is variable across the galactic core to galactic mid-arm and (where we are) at the galactic end. Galactic end shows red-shift (expanding universe). Mid-arm shows netural and steady state. Galactic core shows blue shift (collapsing universe). All are bogus and the reality is that the whole cosmos is already manifested - and neither expanding or collapsing. It is steady state. Changes up the whole Hubble constant, Einstein constant and other said astronomical "laws" as not valid.

[@RebelSyntax]

So i would like to know if there are any examples of 'blue shift'? Red shift seems to be a well studied concept. Its described as the sound pitch changes that a train makes coming and going. Except, ive only ever heard mention of the train going, or the cosmological red shift. We hear that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are on a collision course. Wouldnt that mean that all objects in Andromeda, inuding the light from the entire galaxy be blue shifted? 🤔

[@Ryan_Harkin]

You are correct, there are Galaxies that are blue shifted. Mainly in our local group. Although there are many anomalies with red shift that indicate our understanding isn't very accurate. If I'm not mistaken there's a Star in our own Galaxy with a red shift that contradicts the whole theory, along with many other Galaxies with high red shift. Thus the reason for these well presented and researched videos by Gareth.

[@roylofquist]

There is observational evidence that the velocity of photons vary by wavelength. In the radio astronomy of pulsars the signals (photons) of shorter wavelangth arrive before those of longer wavelength. This delay is called the Dispersion Measure. It is proportional to the distance to the pulsar and appears to be isotropic. The same phenomenon is observed in Fast Radio Bursts from nearby galaxies.

[@DrDeuteron]

Rayleigh scattering is classical, the electron cloud is polarized by the incident, oscillating, electric field, so the orbitals are perturbed, but no electrons are transitioning between states.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

Math can describe reality or fantasy. quantum physics is just a fantasy. Does not mean some parts of quantum physics is not based on reality but how can you tell when it is all scratches on paper.

[@magnitudematrix2653]

The Universe is a liner curve magnet. Ken Wheeler has a book on magnetism to extrapolate out the force vector, essentially its saying that magnetism is a compressive and refractive force vector that makes all the elements with mostly hydrogen.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

@@magnitudematrix2653 If you have magnetism you have current flow or is he suggesting the universe is a bar magnet? Ultimately if it's something from nothing or has always been here: Where is all the energy coming from? I think we missed something in the laws of thermodynamics.

[@JanicePhillips]

The aether!

[@atlasnetwork7855]

Have you looked at all into Dean L Mamas's research / papers / articles ? Essentially there's an alternative explanation to stella limb darkening, an explanation for the pioneer 6 red shift anomaly as the spacecraft transmits radio waves through the plasma, as well as the horizon problem, not to mention a quantification of how many electrons per cubic meter would explain hubbles results without any big bang and has been influential in a number of other physicists writing papers on this topic.

[@uileam161]

Keep it up!

[@mathoph26]

For the computation we can try a single photon multiple compton scattering (just using energy conservation) on several électrons, obtain à sort of telescopic séries... incuding electron density and maybe averaging with boltzmann distribution to take into account température. That being said I dont know if we have a clean formalism, I mean quantum mechanical equation as electron atom scattering, for this kind of process with an associated cross section or probability.

[@4n2earth22]

Yeah, I'll get right on that.... ⏳

[@claymore609]

Hello, been a while. Lensing Effect as an aid for observation? A red shifted object as seen from 2 or more locations would make for interesting an observation, but finding the right conditions for a Lensing to see a red shifted object with a large enough angle to be sure, would be rare or difficult to find? Besides don't Lensing effects only work for long distances?

[@thomaskoscica7266]

If traveling through space caused a gradual random energy loss in photons, as suggested by the plasma red shift idea, then all spectral lines would be both 1) red shifted, and 2) broadened in spectral line-width. As far as I know, there is a lack of evidence for broadening of spectral line widths, even at extreme red shifting. Redshift by expansion fits the data better.

[@efdangotu]

Bump this for participation!

[@db5837]

Why not something like the Lenz effect? A photon has an electric and magnetic field and would interact in some manner (change in energy) with all that crosses its path, be it other photons, gas molecules, dust etc.

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

Interesting you mention that this effect can account for the high temperatures found in the Sun's corona. Does general science agree as well with this effect on the corona? I remember them being baffled about this high corona temperature, but haven't heard news if they came up with an explanation. For the sun it seems like a valid explanation, probably it causes severe deviations in some redshift calculations as well, but I wonder if would cause such large scale errors as you seem to hint at sometimes, of course it depends through how much plasma these photons go before reaching earth and how much shift a plasma cloud causes in general 🤔

[@UT99scratch]

yup...i was just about to say that!

[@葉齡微]

One quick question. Why will the photon give all the energy it has to an electron pair at an appropriate distance away from each other an scatter them away as they behave in the tests of photo-electricity effect? The light beam loses some photons after hitting the electons plasma. Why wouldn't the light beam reduce the strength instead of lowering the frequency?

[@GamesBond.007]

4:15 Is that an actual photo or a drawing /CGI ?

[@mossig]

As I watch a distant star my eyes have no problem with a remaining burning spot when I turn my head away. Yet even a tiny light bulb has this effect. If light has no mass how can it retain energy and transfer it to an impacted atom over wast distances! Yet it's not visible at just a few degrees of an angle. We only see surface interactions. So an invisible mass less particle. That sounds like fantasy to me. If you hold up a metal sheet no light can penetrate but you can feel the radiant heat in the shadow that sheet radiate. I have made an experiment this spring. I took a black metal frame and placed it on the ground where Dandelion's groves. The amount of sunlight is the same outside as inside the frame yet the Dandelion's inside the frame is twice as high as outside now after 14 days. The radiant heat made them grow better so it's not only the light but also energy that makes plants grow. I wonder if a plant could grow in darkness with no light, but only radiation and heat as a energy source? It's obvious we are dealing with electricity when it comes to light. It's also invisible in vacuum. This is why your eyes are burnt when looking into strong light, because of the connection and the capacitive effect.

[@philoso377]

Following Page 6:36 theory on photo interact with plasma causing redshift should be taken as transponder effect. What transponder do is output a frequency deviate from its input. It filtered out images required by the spectrometer. We have no way to tell this hypothesis is true or false.

[@bonsang1073]

that theory being proven right would be a confirmation that the universe is growing accordingly to his energy circulation. a 'slow', steady, balanced growth fostered by the creation of new matter in galactic nuclei and the active stars.

[@n8allan]

Gareth, I suspect the missing piece from quantum mechanics here is better explained via the Threshold Model. If you are unfamiliar with that I can dig up some references.

[@davidwilkie9551]

No. Aether solution of reciprocation-recirculation Singularity-point positioning..

[@DrDeuteron]

Look into Kramer-Krönig relation to get idea what these scattering poles are all about.

[@theeddorian]

The trouble with any theory of cosmological red shift is that it has to address the reported energy loss of the photon. That violates the Second Law. The photon is emitted with a very characteristic energy, depending on the emission medium. Arp's approach asserts that younger matter emits redder light because it has not become fully coupled gravitationally with the dominant gravitational masses in the local region of the universe. Until we can observe a quasar form as it is ejected from an active galactic nucleus, that remains a hypothesis. However, if you look up Ashmore (2011) _Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory - a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light_, laboratory experiments have shown that light passing through plasma is redshifted, and the degree of red shift is proportionate to the electron density of the plasma. Ashmore presumes, in his New Tire Light theory, that intergalactic space is filled by a body-centered Wigner lattice of cold (not hot) electrons. Because intergalactic space is saturated with this plasma, and it is cold, electrons have assumed a lattice structure spaced by the electrons assuming maximum distances from each other in the lattice. Photons, encountering electrons in this cold plasma, excite the electron. Both when absorbed and re-emitted, the photon loses energy to the electron because the lattice is elastic. This would lead to a red shift proportional to the distance traveled by the photon and the density of plasma encountered. It also offers a source for the CMB - if that is really a thing, and it provides a sink for energy that is consistent with the demands of the Second Law.

[@DrDeuteron]

500 nm (~1/2 eV) is not considered Compton scattering, which is relevant 1 keV - 1 GeV....but I guess you said that at the end, (1 keV = 12,000,000 K)

[@SeeTheWholeTruth]

The distance between photon and electromagnetic energy and influence is necessary to break the issue with planetary tilt cycles and the sun and its being influenced by the micronova events between systems. Further the separation of fields like Astrophysics and Geology gives deep pause to a leap of his on magnetic tilt and resets outside his sphere of knowledge or outreach to it. Excluding a geomagnetic or magnetosphere strength and waxing and waning cycle as well due to the exterior cycles of transference, fails out his theory posit. Its meaningful, what he has done, but it clearly needed further work to its conclusion. But.. its better in overall value than attempting to say CO2 or man made emissions is the reason for the failing ionosphere, or to dare to attempt to claim "The Climate System" is an unshakeable enough science as to reshape the world over it. It doesnt include the sun, the cycles, or the magnetosphere.. and yet claims to have a full "system" to make leaps over.

[@eclipse369.]

What is waving?

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

Although I might have learned some of the mathematics used here then it is too long ago for me to remember it so I will not say any thing about it. I would just put in a few thoughts though. Wouldn't it be possible to test the theory by sending light through a collection of molecules denser than Plasma. I am thinking about glass or gases where light will shine through. I have read somewhere that it has been possible to slow light down to a very very slow speed in a gas so that may make it possible to see if it gets red shifted or just weaker in intensity from interaction with matter. After all although plasma is not very dense then there is probably a lot of it in space so that it could make the influence on light comparable to denser matters.

[@NeoSim76]

My mum used to read this to me at bedtime when I was a kid

[@SeethePattern]

So I should ask her then ;)

[@franklinmiller5430]

Is it not true that light can be bent into different colors? So what is in space that can bend light so that it turns a different color?? And what color does light turns in hydrogen?? But hydrogen is not alone in space what other materials are in space?? And what effects do they combine have on light?? 🙉🙈🙊🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@Critter145]

What if, and I mean IF, the simplest explanation are interaction that don’t require photons or electrons to be particles, but oscillations in the magnetic/dielectric field around atoms and in space?

[@jamesweninger3679]

Right. Neither photons nor electrons can be fundamental particles as we currently envision. Do you care to share more here?

[@Critter145]

@@jamesweninger3679 let’s put it this way, if you were to go out on the water and observe a wave, you might reasonably conclude that water is made of waves. But since you can interact with the constituent component of water, you can find out otherwise. We cannot interact with the fundamental scale of the electromagnetic medium, so we’re left with mathematical descriptions and concept reifications that accurately describe phenomenon, but that don’t accurately explain them. Also, you could lay off the asshole tone in your question. If the standard model were so great, we’d have figured out gravitation and all sorts of other things by now. Our philosophical conceptualization is lacking in some key ways which is impeding our scientific progress.

[@jamesweninger3679]

@@Critter145 Sorry if you got an asshole tone, and I see it now. I’m actually seriously interested in what you are saying, believe that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, and really liking the aether based pushing gravity model that fits more with what you are saying.

[@jamesweninger3679]

As I believe (could be wrong for sure), the universe is infinite in scale, and treating either electrons or photons as fundamental particles would be wrong for sure, on that basis alone. Now, I had a friend who told me a photon wasn’t a particle at all, but a “threshold event”, and I’m only now figuring out what he meant. Also, I’ve worked on the scaling idea, where if an atom were really like a solar system, then the scaling of sun’s diameter to heliosphere is more like in size to proton to electron orbital in a hydrogen atom. Not like some might envision as planets are like electrons. Yet this alone gives a completely different interpretation of what an electron is. Again, I might be fundamentally wrong, but please don’t misinterpret my interest in what you are saying, as a mainstream cocky dismissal. Please continue?

[@Critter145]

@@jamesweninger3679 apologies for my harsh tone. Because we’re not talking in person, I’m. Ore prone to assume somebody is being a troll.

[@willyjensen8595]

Why would photons be exempt from entropy.

[@GlenLittle95]

If there is any scattering, we would not be able to see precise details of distant objects. I still like TVF's model for redshift.

[@SeethePattern]

what is TVF's model?

[@pyropulseIXXI]

The idea the 'space' can expand and stretch is beyond stupid. The entire point of the concept of space is that it has no properties and 'stuff' happens inside it. GR equations don't say space expands; the equations are field equations. Some id**t then decided to claim that that field is now 'space' (or spacetime, when _ct_ is included as an axis), thus claiming space can expand and stretch. I could do this with an EM field; make the EM field a manifold and put my coordinates on that; would a changing EME field then be space stretching and expanding? Absolutely, in this 'dumb' version. This is why physics divorced from philosophy has went so far off the rails. This is why they say nonsensical and contradictory things n QM, despite perfectly valid and logically consistent interpretations of QM existing, most physicists, for some reason, choose the nonsensical version. It is so strange Again, the entire point of space is that it has no properties; that is how it is defined. Spacetime isn't space; it is something else (a field is literally the best concept to explain it). Accepting nonsensical things is why cosmology is in such a state as it is right now, yet everyone in that field just repeats and repeats and doesn't seem to be capable of independent thought I majored in physics, and, at first, I was utterly amazed at what we knew and how we knew it. Then, the more I learned, the more I realized how disingenuous many of these 'studies' were, vastly over-stating their claims, etc. I learned it is very political to get into good positions, and what research is chosen isn't based on desire for truth, but what benefits the 'system,' and that is also how funding is secured. Null results are not wanted despite being incredibly important. But not only that, but entire theoretical frameworks that are just as valid, if not better, than current theoretical paradigms are just utterly dismissed, and you are called a quack for even suggesting there could be something there. That is the definition of being anti-science. Ironically, modern 'science,' modern academia.... is incredibly anti-science RANT OVER PS I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS

[@debyton]

His credentials make it an interesting concept, really? I often wonder why none of Einstein's professors or directors of institutes and departments and universities or even his friends that went on to take these positions figured out relativity. It's a miracle that we ever get anywhere scientifically.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

If both paradigms are corroborated with testing and evidence, no reason why they can't interact

[@universalprinciple9033]

I can't comment on the math, but isn't it essentially demonstrated that light moving through plasma reduces in frequency? I would be more encouraged to share if you reminded viewers that the mainstream explanation for cosmological redshift is rediculous quackery, and that's why wer'e looking down this path for a reasonable explanation.

[@SeethePattern]

That was covered in the first 2 parts

[@jonaswox]

that is my univeristy :) Niels Bohr institute and Ørsted Institute housing both math and physics next door.

[@jesperandersson889]

now that's great workz... (giggles)

[@KaliFissure]

Or is an artifact of geometry , without expansion.

[@BAMHEIDSPINKWORKS]

Earth is not static in the cosmos. It has moved a great deal over time. We are like egocentric observers...

[@KaliFissure]

@@BAMHEIDSPINKWORKS I'm not suggesting this at all.

[@dexter8705]

You Never thought how gravity stretches the wavelength?

[@timothy8426]

Infrared hunting sights show red shift.

[@t00by00zer]

The idea of a photon being a particle has to be discarded. The photon is related to system resonance. Radio is light, but who thinks radio travels as photons? Light is the medium vibrating.

[@madincraft4418]

Working on a sci Fi idea as suddenly stumped by wondering if the time to fly from Earth to Mars is really the same each way. Isn't the solar system constantly moving at 18k @ thru the arm of Orion? And isn't Mars further from the sun than Earth? So wouldn't there be some lag time traveling from Mars back to Earth? Kind of chasing it down? Tried to Google it but only getting Earth to Mars time. Or the same amount of time each way. Sorry to ask were, but this is where the smartest people hang out.

[@madincraft4418]

Here. Sorry to ask here...etc.

[@madincraft4418]

Or maybe it's a relative thing since the whole system of planets is traveling as one. But isn't a trip from LA to New York actually longer than from NY toLA?

[@SeethePattern]

There are certainly more optimal times to travel out based on where Mars is in relation to Earth. The same would hold for the return journey and would mean if you wanted to return within a short time window the return journey would have to be longer. If you look at solar system scope www.solarsystemscope.com/ you can alter the day and see when Mars and Earth are closest. You would obviously have to leave before this point. Depending on how long it takes by the time you get there Earth would have moved much more in its orbit meaning the return journey is longer. There would also be times at which it would not be possible (i.e when Mars is on the opposite side of the Sun)

[@madincraft4418]

@@SeethePattern I was considering that the planets are chasing the Sun, as I understand it, we are never on an exact plane with the other planets, unlike solar system models from science fairs. In my mind, if one could move horizontally out to the diameter of Mar's orbit and then just wait there Mars would bump into you as it moved thru the Birkeland current chasing the Sun. Conversely, if one moved from Mars horizontally on the orbital plane to the distance Earth is from the Sun and stopped one would just watch Earth pull away. Have I got that ALL wrong? Is it like dropping a ball point pen on an airplane, the forward momentum of the plane stops the ball point from slamming into the back of the plane?

[@madincraft4418]

@@SeethePattern Thank you for your reply and your amazing videos

[@philoso377]

If plasma cause redshift, sunlight leaving solar the plasma ball has gone through redshift. Otherwise sun light originates blue shift.

[@eu29lex16]

Imagine thinking that a redshift(basically light scattering) can be caused by something invisible and impossible to see/detect and is not even a substance(space)/(which should not affect light much at all) and not by some actual substance, like a gas or plasma. And imagine thinking hat plasma doesn't obstruct LIGHT AT ALL ! I mean, that could only work if its made of nothing and I know it can go through plasma but saying it affects nothing is too much. Also there is this "Matter and energy are the two basic components of the entire Universe. An enormous challenge for scientists is that most of the matter in the Universe is invisible and the source of most of the energy is not understood. How can we study the Universe if we can’t see most of it?' -"t Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian" So they KNOW that most MATTER in the cosmos is INVISIBLE and they make PIKACHU faces when they see REDSHIFTS and LENSING and other effects ! I mean, you gotta have a pretty inactive and non-living brain to not be able to see this easy link. Yeah, these people call themselves scientists ! Sure they have lots of raw information(some is junk and other is not) but that certainly doesnt make them very logical thinkers if they see thigns this way. There are "scientific" theories out there which are so illogical that it makes you wonder if these people think at all when they say something.

[@JamesHolben]

Perhaps an intuitive leap, perhaps not...time will tell.

[@geekbeard4896]

You state that in QM, energy loss implies a reduction in the number of photons. This is totally false. E = hf is the photon energy formula. As such, red photons each have less energy and red-shift is a per-photon energy loss. I haven't read the paper, but I can only assume this is central to its argument.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

Light doesn't travel through space as a light particle or photon. Light when it leaves the star travels at c and no longer exists in our frame of space, time, distance and mass. According to special relativity when something is traveling at c time is zero. So because light is traveling at c it doesn't experience time. Because it doesn't experience time then it doesn't experience distance. Light can travel the length of the universe in an instant because it experiences zero time. Therefore any object traveling at c, including light doesn't experience time or distance. The only portion of the field that experiences time is the front of the EM field as it is traveling through our slow mass space and time. The photons in the field become a potential when comparing it's motion to our slow frame of reference, IE matter, space, distance and time. This explains why we are unable to see light particles as they travel through space. Light is traveling outside what we refer as reality, matter, space, distance and time. Light doesn't exist until it comes to a rest by interacting with matter or is observed. Thus Compton scattering cannot happen to the light particles traveling at c because light becomes but a potential in our reality. The shift occurring to the light wave occurs between the relative motion of the observer and distant body being measured. I highly doubt the sift in the wavelength has anything to do with the conditions of space light is traveling through. This becomes apparent when measuring the Doppler effect happening to the stars in the Andromeda galaxy. The stars located on one side of the galaxy produce a redshift and the stars on the opposite side produce a blueshift. The shift occurring to the light is due to the motion of the stars relative to us, not temperature, distance, particles or plasma the light is traveling through.

[@tomrobingray]

Somehow it sounds just too obvious to be true: a literal filter causing red shift. Also what I find suspicious in allot of modern physics is the alternating of classical and non-classical paradigms. Finally if the effect did exist it would be easy to demonstrate in the lab: even if the effect is slight it should be detectable using interferometry.

[@dalecavallino4029]

😼

[@hereticsunited4628]

Plasma on steroids; What if every high velocity particle collision creates a mini gravitational moment. Does such exist? No one has looked for it. I've spent 30 years browsing journals and papers.Never seen such an experiment.

[@mathewk2961]

"If the mathematics is to complicated to understand, it's Bullshit!" Wal Thornhill.

[@ЄвгенПритула]

The red shift of light from distant objects is caused by the tripling of photon energy due to the generation of gravitational waves. Law of conservation of photon momentum/law of relativity.

[@jonaswox]

credentials dont make a concept any more or less relevant

[@JoeDeglman]

They baffled us with the Einstein nonsense. Now continue on by rolling out this dude.

[@GamesBond.007]

Wave-particle duality is a non-sense, just like space-time.

[@tngtacticalmiata1219]

Um.... I like puppies...

[@thundercatt5265]

No ..dark energy red shift ....and my credential's are the stars themselves dark energy is consciousness ,it's alive ,you see how it's growing faster than the speed of life........don't chue???