About the James Webb discovery... Perhaps it has again vindicated Dr. Halton Arp's refutation of the red shift? Why is the truth being misrepresented and rigged in these ways?
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science Paperback – June 1, 1997
Hey there bro. You stumped me. Not a scientist, but an artist with an aptitude for science and interest in it since childhood. I understand the science I report on to the degree I write about it. Never heard of redshift before. I write to develop my unique skillset into some kind of product(s) and to learn stuff from my readers. So thank you for the question. I had to look it up. If you understand it please expound for me in a reply or with a high school-level, junior college explanation link. I found this; http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_high_redshift_galaxies_to_the_blue_pacific
and spent abo 10 min. scanning it at my understanding level. Math is not my long suit. But I can research the symbol meanings to understand concepts in equations.
I understand why interdisciplinary science is difficult. Everyone has a specialty and has to learn a new skill set to understand the other. My specialty is space/earth weather, in an electromagnetic environment. The research required for me to understand the article fully at my junior college level seemed a little off-subject. But it is interesting. So I have a question.
I got that redshift has to do with viewing distance. But Halton Arp seems to be suggesting other rules apply. Rules associated with new terms, which require me to do research. So my question is:
What does this have to do with the Webb telescope?
The Webb sees distant objects which were formerly shrouded by the dust around everything. Electric dust. Is Halton saying that viewing ability as well as distance is a factor in redline shift? Or did I totally miss it?
Thank you. This is an excellent reply. I had to really struggle with the math. It did not come easily for me.
Arp questioned the red shift upon which much of cosmology is based. Redshift is taken as a measure of distance and velocity away from us (blue shift would indicate objects are coming towards us). Arp showed connected galaxies undergoing gravitational effects with different red shifts that made their assigned distances impossible. Arp detailed many such anomalies that called into question the absolute validity of the redshift. Arp got ignored, lost positions, and suffered for daring to call the status quo into question in what I view as valid ways that could and should have been embraced, not punished.
The Webb article did not discuss Arp, but it should have? How are the distances the Webb article describes derived? Probably the red shift? The Webb article indicated to me that, perhaps, they will continue to ignore what Arp has been saying since the 1960's? Astronomy and cosmology are passions of mine. I am an engineer, not a cosmologist, so I too am not an expert. But I was a PHD candidate in an area of complex mathematics and I saw how that worked from the inside of academia and decided to walk another path in life. Professors like Dr. Arp, who refuted common models and assumptions, who got blackballed and lost much of their status due to this, always were extremely rare, are even more rare these days? Most just make compromises and parrot the status quo?
That is my best attempt to explain what this has to do with the Webb telescope article. My writing abilities are not great. Your writing skills are incredible. We gain by sharing. Thanks again.
Well, I was close. So does the Webb use the red shift to gauge the distance it sees, like everyone else? I have seen a number of reports on the Webb, but no mention of the red shift. My next question is does it matter relative to the significant need to adjust the timeline of the universe, beyond our present ability to calculate it based on the new observations, even if the red shift reference is used? Perhaps not. That already seems like a lot to chew on scientifically. I'll keep my eye open for any anomalies cited by Arp, regarding distance, that may have been adjusted by Webb if any. Webb telescope tech innovation may require a measurement formula not bound by the red shift model. I'll look for more detail on the Webb innovations and measurement methods.
If you have any thoughts, feel free to follow up. Otherwise, thanks for the thought provocation.
I am not current on what is used by present day cosmologists to estimate speed and distance. My best guess is that they are still using the red shift at great distances, and can still use things like parallax for closer objects. If there was a better, newer way to measure distance than the red shift, why is it not discussed anywhere (I looked and could not find such a thing). Note how the articles are written? No mention of how the claims of distance, etc., are arrived at, they are simply presented almost like indisputable facts, implied in ways that distract from questioning. It reminds me of the authoritative way the mainstream media presented other "facts" like "the COVID injections are both safe and effective". Google searches are still lying about these injection "facts".
You are probably right. You have identified an omission or disinformation tactic in the wording of these articles. Google is professional disinformation. I'll keep the red shift in mind as I continue to get my head around the magnetic excursion we appear to be in at this time. I just don't want to blow it when I write about it. Science especially. It takes a passion for the mechanics of math to fully understand the details. I don't have that. My math skills are musical and artistic. Music, dance, and movie production is all math, all the time. I don't care about the mechanics of math. The mechanics of playing an instrument, building an audio studio, etc. that's the math I know. I don't care what math it took to build my delay unit. It just has to work on the right beats per minute at the right tonal interval on the pitch of the money note. Happily, the laws of our electromagnetic environment apply to both and all.
It is then just a matter of learning new terms to describe familiar conditions that apply to everyone's experiences and now increasingly our database as well. If this is so, then it is something that can be communicated fundamentally at the junior high to junior college level. So that's the level I try to understand and write at. It's a gold standard, for a host of reasons.
So now, when you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I use the word distance in a sentence unless I apply red shift, well; If that just don't beat all. As my grandma used to say.
Thanks a lot bro. Just what I needed, something new to learn. OK in that case.
How can I more easily reference it?
Instincts say... ding ding ding. It's somewhere in the modeling for the study data. In the description of and in a study or a mission, they always say this is modeled or based on blah bla bla, and blaah. and when you look at those they reference summations and studies etc. It's somewhere in there, right?
Instincts say again that a dozen or so of these will show up time and time again that apply to red shift modeling. If all or part of this is true, I could easily reference and follow this in my articles, if I know better what I was looking for.
You may have a keener eye for this if any of my instincts are correct. Now that you have forced me to see the error of my ways, can you offer suggestions?
Or if my instincts are wrong, where would I find it?
I admire musical and artistic math skills. Some, like me, had to put a lot of effort into trying to learn the math of physics. And I have forgotten much of what I thought I knew at one time. For me, it questionable whether it was worth it when doing retrospective introspection. I often wish I had done what my dad suggested, and followed my music passion instead.
Our enemy gets its math experts to work with its media to publish what our enemy wants us to know. It creates diversions to mislead us under the cover of math. That is, of course, just my opinion. But it jives with my experiences in the math intensive PHD program. Really, all that is needed is a healthy skepticism? Read so called scientific articles being skeptical of the assumptions? Question all of the premises. EG. How are the distances and velocities of the cosmological objects obtained? What is the probability those distances and velocities are wrong? Are there others who dispute the distances? What is the nature of those disputes? Etc.? A great writer like you can skillfully and concisely alert the readers to these kinds of things in time effective ways without bogging down in boring challenging mathematics that often leads nowhere?
I do not see any error in your ways. Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding. The red shift issue is probably only significant at very large distances. I doubt it applies to the magnetic excursion. In my opinion, no adjustments are needed for you. You are doing great. It is me that needs to adjust for errors in my ways. Right now I can't put my finger on where I went wrong here. Maybe you can help? I love constructive criticisms. I was so thankful when engineering colleagues caught bad typos and other mistakes in drafts before I spread them to a wider audience.
The experts choose to ignore Arp. Maybe they have good reasons I simply cannot understand. I have looked at their invoking things like gravitational lensing and considered them inadequate to refute Arp's ideas. If consensus of experts wins and that is how truth is decided, then I am wrong? I find it an interesting debate. But I find music much more interesting. Music is a hobby and I was exploring some challenging sound design and music creation projects when the problems in today's world became too large to ignore anymore. I myself would prefer to spend time on music creation and not on the red shift thing.
Again I apologize. I see no error in your ways.
And I would love to hear some of your music if possible.
Excellent article. Thanks for writing it.
About the James Webb discovery... Perhaps it has again vindicated Dr. Halton Arp's refutation of the red shift? Why is the truth being misrepresented and rigged in these ways?
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science Paperback – June 1, 1997
by Halton Arp (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905
Hey there bro. You stumped me. Not a scientist, but an artist with an aptitude for science and interest in it since childhood. I understand the science I report on to the degree I write about it. Never heard of redshift before. I write to develop my unique skillset into some kind of product(s) and to learn stuff from my readers. So thank you for the question. I had to look it up. If you understand it please expound for me in a reply or with a high school-level, junior college explanation link. I found this; http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_high_redshift_galaxies_to_the_blue_pacific
and spent abo 10 min. scanning it at my understanding level. Math is not my long suit. But I can research the symbol meanings to understand concepts in equations.
I understand why interdisciplinary science is difficult. Everyone has a specialty and has to learn a new skill set to understand the other. My specialty is space/earth weather, in an electromagnetic environment. The research required for me to understand the article fully at my junior college level seemed a little off-subject. But it is interesting. So I have a question.
I got that redshift has to do with viewing distance. But Halton Arp seems to be suggesting other rules apply. Rules associated with new terms, which require me to do research. So my question is:
What does this have to do with the Webb telescope?
The Webb sees distant objects which were formerly shrouded by the dust around everything. Electric dust. Is Halton saying that viewing ability as well as distance is a factor in redline shift? Or did I totally miss it?
.
Thank you. This is an excellent reply. I had to really struggle with the math. It did not come easily for me.
Arp questioned the red shift upon which much of cosmology is based. Redshift is taken as a measure of distance and velocity away from us (blue shift would indicate objects are coming towards us). Arp showed connected galaxies undergoing gravitational effects with different red shifts that made their assigned distances impossible. Arp detailed many such anomalies that called into question the absolute validity of the redshift. Arp got ignored, lost positions, and suffered for daring to call the status quo into question in what I view as valid ways that could and should have been embraced, not punished.
The Webb article did not discuss Arp, but it should have? How are the distances the Webb article describes derived? Probably the red shift? The Webb article indicated to me that, perhaps, they will continue to ignore what Arp has been saying since the 1960's? Astronomy and cosmology are passions of mine. I am an engineer, not a cosmologist, so I too am not an expert. But I was a PHD candidate in an area of complex mathematics and I saw how that worked from the inside of academia and decided to walk another path in life. Professors like Dr. Arp, who refuted common models and assumptions, who got blackballed and lost much of their status due to this, always were extremely rare, are even more rare these days? Most just make compromises and parrot the status quo?
That is my best attempt to explain what this has to do with the Webb telescope article. My writing abilities are not great. Your writing skills are incredible. We gain by sharing. Thanks again.
Well, I was close. So does the Webb use the red shift to gauge the distance it sees, like everyone else? I have seen a number of reports on the Webb, but no mention of the red shift. My next question is does it matter relative to the significant need to adjust the timeline of the universe, beyond our present ability to calculate it based on the new observations, even if the red shift reference is used? Perhaps not. That already seems like a lot to chew on scientifically. I'll keep my eye open for any anomalies cited by Arp, regarding distance, that may have been adjusted by Webb if any. Webb telescope tech innovation may require a measurement formula not bound by the red shift model. I'll look for more detail on the Webb innovations and measurement methods.
If you have any thoughts, feel free to follow up. Otherwise, thanks for the thought provocation.
I am not current on what is used by present day cosmologists to estimate speed and distance. My best guess is that they are still using the red shift at great distances, and can still use things like parallax for closer objects. If there was a better, newer way to measure distance than the red shift, why is it not discussed anywhere (I looked and could not find such a thing). Note how the articles are written? No mention of how the claims of distance, etc., are arrived at, they are simply presented almost like indisputable facts, implied in ways that distract from questioning. It reminds me of the authoritative way the mainstream media presented other "facts" like "the COVID injections are both safe and effective". Google searches are still lying about these injection "facts".
You are probably right. You have identified an omission or disinformation tactic in the wording of these articles. Google is professional disinformation. I'll keep the red shift in mind as I continue to get my head around the magnetic excursion we appear to be in at this time. I just don't want to blow it when I write about it. Science especially. It takes a passion for the mechanics of math to fully understand the details. I don't have that. My math skills are musical and artistic. Music, dance, and movie production is all math, all the time. I don't care about the mechanics of math. The mechanics of playing an instrument, building an audio studio, etc. that's the math I know. I don't care what math it took to build my delay unit. It just has to work on the right beats per minute at the right tonal interval on the pitch of the money note. Happily, the laws of our electromagnetic environment apply to both and all.
It is then just a matter of learning new terms to describe familiar conditions that apply to everyone's experiences and now increasingly our database as well. If this is so, then it is something that can be communicated fundamentally at the junior high to junior college level. So that's the level I try to understand and write at. It's a gold standard, for a host of reasons.
So now, when you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I use the word distance in a sentence unless I apply red shift, well; If that just don't beat all. As my grandma used to say.
Thanks a lot bro. Just what I needed, something new to learn. OK in that case.
How can I more easily reference it?
Instincts say... ding ding ding. It's somewhere in the modeling for the study data. In the description of and in a study or a mission, they always say this is modeled or based on blah bla bla, and blaah. and when you look at those they reference summations and studies etc. It's somewhere in there, right?
Instincts say again that a dozen or so of these will show up time and time again that apply to red shift modeling. If all or part of this is true, I could easily reference and follow this in my articles, if I know better what I was looking for.
You may have a keener eye for this if any of my instincts are correct. Now that you have forced me to see the error of my ways, can you offer suggestions?
Or if my instincts are wrong, where would I find it?
Any clues appreciated if possible.
Thanks
I admire musical and artistic math skills. Some, like me, had to put a lot of effort into trying to learn the math of physics. And I have forgotten much of what I thought I knew at one time. For me, it questionable whether it was worth it when doing retrospective introspection. I often wish I had done what my dad suggested, and followed my music passion instead.
Our enemy gets its math experts to work with its media to publish what our enemy wants us to know. It creates diversions to mislead us under the cover of math. That is, of course, just my opinion. But it jives with my experiences in the math intensive PHD program. Really, all that is needed is a healthy skepticism? Read so called scientific articles being skeptical of the assumptions? Question all of the premises. EG. How are the distances and velocities of the cosmological objects obtained? What is the probability those distances and velocities are wrong? Are there others who dispute the distances? What is the nature of those disputes? Etc.? A great writer like you can skillfully and concisely alert the readers to these kinds of things in time effective ways without bogging down in boring challenging mathematics that often leads nowhere?
I do not see any error in your ways. Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding. The red shift issue is probably only significant at very large distances. I doubt it applies to the magnetic excursion. In my opinion, no adjustments are needed for you. You are doing great. It is me that needs to adjust for errors in my ways. Right now I can't put my finger on where I went wrong here. Maybe you can help? I love constructive criticisms. I was so thankful when engineering colleagues caught bad typos and other mistakes in drafts before I spread them to a wider audience.
The experts choose to ignore Arp. Maybe they have good reasons I simply cannot understand. I have looked at their invoking things like gravitational lensing and considered them inadequate to refute Arp's ideas. If consensus of experts wins and that is how truth is decided, then I am wrong? I find it an interesting debate. But I find music much more interesting. Music is a hobby and I was exploring some challenging sound design and music creation projects when the problems in today's world became too large to ignore anymore. I myself would prefer to spend time on music creation and not on the red shift thing.
Again I apologize. I see no error in your ways.
And I would love to hear some of your music if possible.
Thanks for bearing with me.