New Science

Lemaitare also predicted the universe as starting from a 'primeval' atom. Of course, this idea was discarded. So the BBT started from what? It is cosmoGONY. Not science. The BBT is just a lot of questions with NO answers. NS

Has this spin been measured within the HA or as a separate particles? My guess is that it was measured as a sparated particle. NS

OK, I'm back. What bothers me is that when I say a photon has a dimension, this was refuted as not true. It is widely known that wavelengths are a characteristic of the nature of light. These wavelengths have dimensions . Therefore, my conclusion is that photons have dimensions. That is the way you can only differentiate one photon from another. Photons have a frequency of just 'one' since they are just a Quanta of energy. This distinguishes them from the 'standing' waves when the HA is not radiating any visible light although there are photons out of the visible range also. Standing waves do not transmit any intelligence unless they are modulated by the magnetic component. My formuls has given Plancks quantum energy an actual wave pulse that has a dimension. It is .02697 meters long. This is 26.97 millimeters long that is equal to aboiut 1+ inches (US) long. OK, I will listen to any honest critics that are serious. NS

Freidmans equations do not predict an expanding universe. They just postulate that space can be open, closed or flat. My guess is that he derived his equations from the way you slice a cone by the angular cut such as 90 degrees to the axis for a flat circular orbit and angular cuts for open and closed orbits of solar orbitting bodies. This is true of the orbiting bosies around the Sun that approaching bodies can spiral into the SUN if the angle of direction and velocity will determine the type of orbit that would be closed or open. I am sure Lemaitrae was aware of the Slipher observations as well as Hubbles and Humasons. His ideas were coincidental to the Slipher observations IMO. NS

I am not familiar with that site. Will check it out later. Thanks. NS Regarding the first paragraph, the BBT did not predict it. It was the result of Hubbles observations and his association with the observed redshifts as increasing with their reducing magnitudes or angular diameters. So these observations instilled the idea of space expansion as Lemaitrae proposed. Hubble, himself, did not accept the idea of expansion. NS

My idea of spin is that it does not have spin. The spin that applies to the HA is not a literal meaning but a word used to identify an electrons location that no other can use. My use of the electron magnetic field in the HA is based on the electrons orbittal movement around the proton. It does not spin. I use here the fact that in our solar system, none of the major satellites do not have spin. Intriinsic spin, that is. My conclusion is that the much less density of the electron in relation to the proton is a slight warp of it spherical shape just as the solar satellites are due to the gravitational pull. In the ground state of the HA, the proton has a synchronous spin caused by the coulomb force between the two and the elecrons motion around it.. NS

The Bohr model (BM) of the Hydrogen Atom is classical physics using Quantum theory. It shows how photons are created as pulses. The energy levels of the BM has been confirned by the Schroedinger equations. All the physics books have this included in their contents. Need I say More? NS

You are right. That is what I am trying to explain. So how do you explain the cosmological red shift as a space expansion in the BBT? NS

To All With all these different critics and long posts, I cannot answer each one individually. The claim of the anti-Bohr faction that the HA is replaced by the Schroadinger version of orbitals in not true, The HA is a planetary binary as Bohr has shown. S'sE's are correct for the higher elements and do not apply to the Universe in general but to molecular chemistry(?) All we need to know is that the HA is THE atom of importance that creates the stars and 95% of the energy in the universe. The concept that the HA would collapse with the Newtonian math is not true. The HA is 'stable' and does not collapse and we do not need Quantum math to tell us why. The ground state of the HA is the normal state in space because of the balance between the coulomb, magnetic and the electrons orbital momentum that results in this perpetual state. The HA radiates only after it absorbs a photon. I explained why the HA does not collapse with the right and left hand rules regarding the magnetic interactions that contribute to this HA stability. This is probably overlooked when using Newtonian math. There is an interaction between the two magnetic fields of these particles. I thin I said enough. New Science

Do you understand what the M-M Inter experiment says? It refutes space as an ether for light transmissions. For your information, that experiment had the light source and the EM fields moving with the experiment and the Earth. That is why space has nothing to do with light transmission. What math? My redshift data was based on the HDFN photo that has detected redshifts of 7+. I concluded that those distant objects were about at least 25+ billion light years distant. This was on the basis that M87 as a model would be at that distance comparing angular sizes to the small specks. 4 ly RS's at every 4 Bil years adds up to red shifts of 6 for a distance of 24 Bil lys. This is just a crude extimats. Can you provide some math for the BBT size? Can you provide what is driving the current expansion of the universe? I would like to see your logic here? NS I plan to eventually but the truth does not sell. NS

What units? Plancks constant (PC) is given in Joule-seconds Weins constant converts to wavelength from temperature. Just two units. Rayleighs formula at the low end of radiation uses only 2 units . Frequency and temperature PC represents a tiny bit of energy. So I substitute PC for E sub pc. As far as I know, this is the smallest known energy source. A photon is a single quanta of energy with a frequency of one. There are many sources of energy so I wanted to find the soiurce of the PC quanta. Both deBrogliev and Einstein used matter as a component. So I decided to use the electron as the matter reprentative because it is used by deBroglie. The electrons also generate the photons. So with 2 known values, it was easy to solve for the 3rd (photon quanta). Sothe reult is shown above. NS

Whats a solid state universe? Never heard of it. That statement is applicable to electronic circuits. How is that? We do not see the centers of stars. We can only imagine what goes on by using our basic knowledge of physics. The central regions are high energy plasmas. So here, we imagine the electrons bypassing the protons at high velocities in open orbital passages. Outside the stars in ground state orbits, the hydrogen atom (HA) does not collapse. So it is stable in the ground state. This is known physics. I explained this as an intrinsic magnetic field between the electron and the proton that oppose each other to give the orbital momentum of the electron a boost to prevent this collapse. This can be easily proven with the right and left hand rules. The proton spins symchroneously in the same direction as the electrons orbital motion So you can prove this to yourslf. Just cup your hands into fists and bring them close to your body with the thumbs pointing outward that indicate the direction of motion of the particles. The fingers point upward and outward to indicate the direction of the magnetic field lines. Both fields are moving upward and outward to show that this alignment creates expansion. The right hand represents the electron motion and the left hand represents the proton direction of spin motion. This opposition boosts the electrons orbital momentum to prevent the collapse of the HA. This is fusion, not energy reduction to form a helium nucleus. New Science

EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE LIGHT WAVES The ‘expansion of the light waves has real evidence for its support. Examples: The magnetic field patterns where the central portion is expanded by an ‘intrinsic’ force between the magnetic poles and field lines. This is also true of the electric fields between the opposite charges (+, -) by similar (real field charged particles (RFCP) that mutually repel each other between the major electric charges. The electric motor makes use of the magnetic component repulsive forces within the EM fields to generate the power for its use. The photons are primarily a compressed congregate of 'negatively charged RFCP' that result from the magnetic pulses of radiation during the electron transitions in the hydrogen atoms. These magnetic pulses are directional and at maximum when the observer is perpendicular to the electrons orbital transitional movements and in line with the electrons plane of movement. When the electron is approaching or receding from the observer, the energy level is zero. The electric fields surrounding the electrons are the carriers that transmit the photons. The photon energy (momentum) uses this field for its transmission by the mutual repulsion between these RFCP. In a tranquil state, they disperse themselves equally around the electron and throughout the surrounding area and the spaces widen as the distances of the field increase from the electron inversely reducing its strength The photon congregate pushes against the particles in front to transmit their momentum through this field as a line of dominos transfer their falls through the aligned dominos. In other words, they just 'wobble' to transmit the momentum. Naturally, this photon momentum is transmitted at the velocity of light. The Arp redshift anomalies show that these RS’s are temperature related and therefore intrinsic to the light being emitted by these objects and their radiating temperatures. Quasars radiate at much higher temperatures than the nearby galaxies. The intrinsic forces in these higher energy photons cause a greater expansion per unit distance. That is why they have higher redshifts at the same distance than the adjacent galaxies. It is known that the higher frequencies and therefore higher temperatures have greater energies It takes billions of years for these photons to increase their wavelengths. My estimate is a length of about 4 - 5 billion light years for a photon to increase by one wavelength. This expansion would also gradually decrease as the photons widen. However, this decreasing expansion per unit distance would be very small because at a RS of 6, the intrinsic force would be reduced by the inverse square law to 1/25th of its original strength. The BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses because they are not the transmitters of these pulses. The Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment has refuted the idea of a spatial ether. So the cosmological redshift cannot be a product of the space expansion. New Science

Quote NS "The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus." Are you taling about the sky being totally lighted at night because of the satursation of the space with stars? Can't recall the idea of the author for this? Well' date=' my FS also has a Cosmological Redsdhift and that is the 'Expansion of the Light Waves'. This has more evidence for its support than the 'expansion of space' that was based on the Doppler RS's but still refuted and replaced with the EoS. . What I write about the central regions of stars requires the imagination as science teaches it. Electrons cause protons to spin because of the Coulomb attraction. Magnetic fields will align themselves to attracr always because one of the conponents will 'FLIP' to form an attraction. Try this with a couple of bar magnets with one freely hanging on a string. So, you believe in 'ceationism? Ha ha. NS

The formulas below are corrected as follows: Lambda sub photon = Square root of h / m sub e h = m sub e x Lambda^2 m sub e = h / Lambda^2 Lambda = .02697 meters or 26.97 millimeters Values below are for the CMBR temperature of 2.73K. Weins value is determined to be about one millimeter. Rayleighs value, I determined to be 73 millimeters in a modified revision of his formula. Frequency squared x T Since photons have a frequency of ONE, I replaced the 1 with the wavelength of .02697 x 2.73 = .0736 or 73 millimneters NS

To All: I do not see any specific criticisms to my article. Just an attack on my general character. I said I am a FREE THINKER. I have books written by the experts. So there is no need for me to forage the web. That criticism about me believing in perpetual motion is taken out of context. I am promoting a Flat Space (FS) universe that had no beginning and will have no end. I originally was calling it a SSU but Hoyle is credited with that ID. So I had to change it to a FS concept that is not expanding or contracting. That means it refutes the BBT because that theory is not science. It is cosmoGONY because it promotes a 'creation out of NOTHING'. Have you creationists ever heard of the CONSERVATION LAWS? New Science

When it represents a wovelength, it does. NS That x10 can be misleading when using a calculator I use the ^ arrow for the exp. One million has six zeros. When you use x10 to indicate a million, it gove 7 zeros. 1 x10^6 = 1,000,0000 We think of million with 6 zerios and billion with 9 zeros. NS I am just trying to spread the truth in science around so others may be aware of alternative views. Arp's Anomalous Redshifts has been suppressed by the establishment in the USA. Believe me, his theory is real. Of course I do not accept his idea of galaxies ejecting the Quasars. NS

Theory of Everything http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13911-theory- everything.html A Theory of Everything Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one. So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled 'Introduction to Atomoc and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed. On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond the last stable element that is bismuth at 209. Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing. There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of a nucleon! The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters. So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency. Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not function as it should. So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF. The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus. However, these fusion binds do not create any energies! The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because of the high velocity variations that the electrons have, to create the photons in these CRs and then work their way up to the surface of the stars to radiate the light that we see. The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus, explains why a 5th particle is not involved . A 5th particle here would not fit along this combination as it has no where to be attached to. Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other. So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only. So a new Grand Unified Theory is the result because of serendipity. This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion. See URL below for a Grand Ubified Theory.: http://hypography.com/forums/astrono...ied+Theory\par New Science

So, I am an amateur astronomer and cosmologist. I may not have a college education because I do not want to be dumbed down to be a follower. I believe in 'free speech' and see flaws in the current teachings of the establishment I have studied the subjects mentioned above for 20+ years. So I do not swallow the BBT and some other such teachings. New Science Did you read my reason for developing this formula? deBroglie started the matter wave concept and also developed a formula for light. Einsteins formula also uses matter in its M/E formula. As A result, I thought their should be a physical source for the Planck Constant. So I introduce the electron mass as a component in my formula. Plancks Constant represents the smallest unit for energy The photon represents a single wave unit with a frequency of 'one'. Waves have a dimension. So photons do likewise. Example: the red light wavelength is 6.56^-7 meters. So I did not just dream this up out of thin air! New Science

Yes, that should have been 'divide'. There was another mistake I made about the placement of the decimal point Thanks. Must be my old age. New Science

A MAJOR Discovery: I was thinking about the Planck Constat as having a real physical substitution for the mathematical expression that appears to be the smallest unit of energy in the universe. I FOUND IT. Working on the principal of modifying the deBroglie’s wave formula and Einsteins M/E formula, I decided to use the following components where h replaces E for the energy source, m sub e as representing matter and Lambda (L photon) replacing 'c' for light as the smallest unit of energy or photon. Since the unknown here is the wavelehgth (photon), I worked the formula to solve for L. m sub e=9.109-31=electron mass. So: L = square root of h x m sub e or 6.626-34 x 9.109-31=SR(7.274^-4)= 2.697^-2 meters Rearranging the formula for solving the Constant, we have h = m x lambda^2. Thus L = the CMBR wave length of .02697 meters that = the temperature of 2.73K. Weins formula reduces the temperature to a wavelength of 1 millimeter but at the low end of the radiations, it errs to lower values. The Rayleigh formula is considered accurate for the low end of the radiation and reduces to 7 millimeters. My value falls in between the two. So my solution for the smallest source of energy in the universe is 2.697 millimeter photon representing the Planck value with a single physical photon source. This value (2.73K) than represents the 'equalized' space temperature in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynalics where heat redistributes itself to create one uniform themperature. From this photon, we can deduce the frequency as c divided by the photon length and that equals 1.1^10 and the elapsed time as 8.99^-11 seconds. This page did not reproduce as pasted, si I had to use the components the best I could. New Science Mike Cyrek

I just registered today and have a lot of 'new' science posts in Cosmology and Astronomy. I am an amateur cosmologist but thouroughly familiar with what I write and studied. I have a personal library of one large bookcase filled with scienc, physics and astronomy books as my references.. I belonged to the now disbanded Detroit Astronomical Society and was a member of the Warren Astronimncal society this year. I have studied, discussed these above subjects in our local club groups for more than 20 years and on the internet for about 5+ years. I welcome criticisms of what I post and will post my best article here now. Thank you for your comments. New Science