Yesterday I was watching the science channel. They were showing the unexplained phenomena of Gamma Ray Burst(GRB).

They set up the problem:
1)GRBs occur anywhere on the celestial sphere.
2)GRB's Redshift was to the far red.
3)The amount of energy released by a GRB is tremendous.

Let's take point 2 first.
The redshift of these explosions is to the far red. This means they occurred outside our galaxy, in a galaxy far, far away. These explosions occur outside our best detectors range. This means they are more that 15 billion light years away. They are outside our known data of the limited expanse we call the universe. We only see 15 billion light years, so according to mainstream astronomers that is it. The universe is only 15 billion light years across.

We can only see the explosion for a short period of time. In that time the astronomical community pointed all available detectors at the explosion. They captured all wavelengths of the explosion. The science channel showed a composite picture of all the available wavelengths.

Point 1)
GRBs occur anywhere on the celestial sphere. This means to me that there are massive explosion occurring outside the known bounds our universe. They are not on the galactic plane. They are not close to where astronomers have found our great explosion. They are everywhere.

Point 3)
The energy needed to create gamma rays is immense. The fact that these photons have not reduced to radio waves over the distance traveled shows that there is more energy then just the range of gamma rays. The GRB reduced their energy to be gamma rays over the distance traveled. They started out much more energetic.



This is a small galactic super cluster. It is analogous to any super massive explosion. These fireworks explode an object of tremendous density producing millions of galaxies.

These explosions are trillions of light years away. They are big bangs occurring everywhere in this dark matter/ dark energy universe. Several hundred thousand a year.

This tell me that the universe is larger than currently described. More importantly there are many big bangs per hour.

Aaron

This phenomenon is explained quite easily by the electric universe theory.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/081021rayguns.htm

If your religion demands black holes, Dark matter/energy, Big Bangs and what not, you will not be able to comprehend the evidence brought up here, however.

"This tell me that the universe is larger than currently described. More importantly there are many big bangs per hour.
Aaron"

As I understand it Aaron, the universe is described as being infinite, and you have reason to think it is "larger"? When you say "there are many big bangs per hour" are you suggesting that GRBs are the beginnings of new (or parallel) universes'?

Bob,

I see the space/dark energy of the universe extending far beyond what we can see. It is arrogant to say that the universe is only what we see. The concept that the baryonic explosion that we call the big bang created all the matter and the space is incorrect.

With a environment that is so vast that baryonic explosions the size of our big bang pop off frequently. The vast space can be understood as a hilbert space that extends and exists before the baryonic explosion. The reimann manifold we call the big bang exploded 15b years ago.

This means there can be many manifolds in the space.

Parallel universes stem from the concept that gravity attracts. It is needed to describe information loss in the mathematical constructs of gravity. Gravity produces weird sci-fi; Black holes, Parallel Universes, Zero point mass, Worm holes... These may be good for SG-1 or StarTrek, but they fail as models.

Aaron

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/29/astronomers-observe-formation-of-largest-bound-structures-in-the-universe/

This X-ray source is 1.3b ly away. It is currently (on our end) 91,000,000 c. It probably was much hotter when it exploded. It would have produced gammas.

Aaron

"It is arrogant to say that the universe is only what we see."

It is even more arrogant to claim that the universe is larger than what we can see.
Of course, I assume that the verb "see" for this Aarogant is more than seeing with our eyes and that all interactions can be used to probe the universe.

Aarogant also forgets about all what we know for the extreme red shifts, specially the CMB.

Not even good sciene fiction, more like science confusion.

Pay attention folks: This stuff is easily explained: As "Anonymous" points out; this is old science.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

Explaining only electricity is only part of the puzzle. According to the smash-em labs, there are 4 bosons; Photon, Z Boson, W+/- Boson and the Gluon. In a simple statement 3 of the 4 bosons are not charged. The W Boson is the only charge. The electron receives charge data from the Z Boson.



Modified Newtonian Dynamics is just that. A modification of a 400 year old system. I know there are extreme modifications. But I hope they are not using gravity. At this time I am not willing to spend money on a book that I will probably find issue with.

I hope this describes the electric universe in a nu light.

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

a

Scientist have always said this is all and thats a fact. Except the facts change under examination. The only axiom in science is change.

Anonymous
"It is even more arrogant to claim that the universe is larger than what we can see. Of course, I assume that the verb "see" for this Aarogant is more than seeing with our eyes and that all interactions can be used to probe the universe. "

Aaron,

It is through scientific history that everything has been discovered. Then something disproves that. Shall I point out how many time the moon's distance to the earth has been recalculated. How about the known universe. First its just the heliocentric solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe...

Anonymous, you have no idea how Aarogant I am. I built a model of the interactions of the universe. It may have errors but I doubt that you could find them. Go for it. Disprove my work. I am tired of you. Put up or shut up!

a

Bob,

In most models of the universe, the universe is not infinite. That universe and its matter popped out of a single event. It is either expanding, shrinking or static. This is incorrect.

Aaron

Any model of the Universe must acknowledge the intrinsic red shift of QUASARs. When this is done, the visible Universe is much smaller, and relatively static. If you have not read Halton Arp's works, you are not a cosmologist, nor an astronomer. No, he does not have all the answers. Yes, mainstream astronomy flows off to fantasy land.

You are correct in your assessment. I am neither an ists or an onomer. I am an epileptic. No I have not read every scientist's work.

But much over the recent years have gone on to show the baryonic universe in an aether. The scientist of WMAP and COBE have produced maps of the universe as best we can detect. They have been able to pinpoint the location of our baryonic big bang. From there they have mapped the energy of the explosion.

These GRBs are so far away that they do not even appear on those maps. They are so energetic that we have never seen anything of that size before.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html

Aaron

Aaron, my friend, I don't ask you to read all, or every scientists work. Halton is the authority on QSO's and 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.

Here are some links:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles

http://www.haltonarp.com/bio

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041101arp-galileo.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies-Halton-Arp/dp/0941325008/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905

Jose,

I would like to know if you have read my model? I have areas of my model that can explain these events. Although I have not fully explored these areas.

I can explain baryonic magnetism through the spin of the baryon in my model. This allows for extreme magnetic events. Which could be Quasars. I understand the desire to find a simple solution for these events. But I seriously doubt that these Quasars are only magnetic events. They produce photons in many wavelengths. A W boson cannot produce a photon. Only an electron can produce a photon. If the electron is ejected as in plasma, then a photon cannot be emitted.

Also I don't think we have enough information to produce a complete model of magnetism/plasma. We need to gather data on the Earth's magnetosphere and the Solar magnetosphere. Until then we will not have a solid model on these interactions.

I will finish reading his work tomorrow. Thanks for sending me there. Now I have new things to think about. This is good at destroying the doldrums. If I have to change parts of my model, so be it. But I think I have a solid description of baryonic electricity and magnetism that will help in describing these events.

Again Thanks
Aaron

Aaron said: "But I seriously doubt that these Quasars are only magnetic events."


Jose comments: Aaron, maybe you didn't catch the main point: They are NOT "only magnetic events." It is the electrical nature of electric plasma that shapes the events and radiates in all EMR frequencies, from microwave to gamawave. It is the obvious filaments; intra and inter planetary, star, and galactic.

By analyzing the same area in various frequencies, the interconnections are obvious. Arp's evidence destroys mainline astronomy. The explanation of the evidence is open territory. Mainline astronomy's method is to depend on gravity and invoke new and imaginary physical actions and forces. Whereas, an understanding of conventional plasma physics does a quite nice job on most of it. No dark matter/energy, no black holes, no neutron stars, no gas gravitating to itself is needed.

Here is what I'm referring to:

From:http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090525seeing.htm

M87 is a large, bright galaxy in the Virgo Cluster, which is the apparent center of the Local Supercluster. With the advent of radio astronomy in the 1960s, M87 stood out as the brightest radio galaxy in the cluster. To the south of it lies the brightest radio quasar in the sky, 3C273, with 40 times the redshift of M87. Almost exactly between them is the brightest galaxy in the cluster, the active elliptical M49. Along the line connecting these three bright objects are smaller galaxies, compact clusters, and quasars with higher redshifts. When x-ray telescopes came into use, they revealed an s-shaped filament of x-ray emission connecting M87, M49, 3C273, and the discrepant high-redshift objects sprinkled between them.

I encourage you to read the whole article.

I hate to be Johnny one-note, but the logic here is unassailable:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090526presume.htm

You start with the wrong assumptions; you immediately move to fantasy land.

Sorry to keep whacking you with these links, but I just can't resist.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090527truth.htm

I'll know by your comments, (I think, . . .been surprised before) whether you bothered to actually read them.

Jose,

I will read the links today. I understand the importance of plasma and I have taken the time to try to figure out how it works. If I was wrong, oh well. I will rethink my model.

Thanks
Aaron

I have been reading Dr Arp's work. I agree that galaxies can eject large volumes of matter that are producing high-energies. This actually makes sense to me. Especially in my model.

The galaxy is kinda of stable in its rotation. Yet it has these areas of high energy and density. In my model these areas would easily exit the galaxy and maintain orbit around the parent. I will have to describe this in more detail.

The other point is that these active galaxies are continuous emitters of gamma rays and x rays and other frequencies. NASA tried to show a pic of only the low frequency vibrations to do a slight of hand to shut up Arp. Tacky.

Whereas GRB are bursts. They last from seconds to minutes. They are not continuous. The amount of gamma rays are overwhelming. The fact that they cool quickly shows that these are explosions not galaxies. The burst is not found in the Gamma ray range after the cooling.

Dr Arp's work is very interesting and thought provoking. But I don't see it as a disprove to what I said at the top of the thread.

Curt has been sending me Dr Arp's work for some time now. I was just afraid that it would trash my model.

I wrote to Dr Arp. I want to understand more on the interactions of high density galaxies.

Aaron

Gama ray bursts are radiation from gigantic lightening bolts. That is why they are so short duration, and their source is not apparent.

Zeus, your weapons are sharp and charged.

Sounds good to me. You would need gases colliding to cause that kind of static. Why has there not been a picture of these Giant lightning bolts in our nebulous gas clouds? We should see the close ones. We see variable lightning bolts on the earth when thunderstorms are present. But we don't see lightning when the air is dry and calm.

The question I pose is space humid enough to allow a lightning bolt to fire off?

Plasma is cool. It is not everything!

Aaron

Aaron said : "Zeus, your weapons are sharp and charged.

Sounds good to me. You would need gases colliding to cause that kind of static."


Jose says: No, Aaron all it takes is gigantic Plasma Sheaths shorting out. Earth lightening is far more complex that the scenario you just presented.

http://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/sprite.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090521coolhot.htm:

"Clouds of ionized gas and dust in space are not heated up by gravity, they are compressed by electrical forces and emit synchrotron radiation."

Jose,

That link is broken.

I agree that electrical and magnetic forces do cause some of these compression issues, but not all of them. I cannot concede that there are giant plasma sheaths that break and cause lightning.

We can tell the object's identity by its spectra. We cannot tell the original object's identity from magnetism or electricity. So we cannot dismiss heat. On earth electrical discharges (lightning) cause the atoms around the charge to heat up and release photons.

I have difficulty with electrical discharges in the absence of baryons.

Some Experiments On The Electric Discharge In Vacuum Tubes

By Prof. J.J. THOMSON, M.A., F.R.S.


FIG. 1. - Coil of Glass Tube for Vacuum Discharge Experiments. The primary coils are filled with mercury, the secondary coils form continuous closed circuits.

The phenomena of vacuum discharges were, he said, greatly simplified when their path was wholly gaseous, the complication of the dark space surrounding the negative electrode and the stratifications so commonly observed in ordinary vacuum tubes being absent. To produce discharges in tubes devoid of electrodes was, however, not easy to accomplish, for the only available means of producing an electromotive force in the discharge circuit was by electromagnetic induction. Ordinary methods of producing variable induction were valueless, and recourse was had to the oscillatory discharge of a Leyden jar, which combines the two essentials of a current whose maximum value is enormous, and whose rapidity of alternation is immensely great.

********************

How is this a vacuum if it is filled with Mercury? If it was a true vacuum it would be a true insulator.

Now magnetism, that is an entirely different animal.

Gravity is not relevant.

Aaron

These guy seem to ignore fusion plasmas obtained either by magnetic confinement or inertial confinement.
They discovered a new toy and believe it will be the source of all knowledge, but they ignore most of the topic.

Thunderbolds reject to prove anything.
They just argue to put the burden on the proof on others.
In short from their propaganda-physics:

"The burden of proof is on gravity theorists to explain some mechanism that suppresses the large initial electromagnetic energies and then enables the weak force of gravity to build them back up again. "
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090526presume.htm)

Where, on their propaganda web, do they simply compare electrostatics forces in our galaxy to the gravitaional force? Are electromagnetic fields not the proof they must provide? DDo they never do an experiment to prove their point? Don't they know there are simple means to detect electric fields in astronomy?

In the end, do they want ME to prove THEIR point?

Just PROPAGANDA PHYSICS, from christians extremists.

A good introduction reading for these thunderbolts ignorants:

Plasma astrophysics By Boris V. Somov

The burden of proof is incumbent on the speaker. Show me the proof.

In this thread, I have shown the proof of only one Boson has a charge. Unless the giant smash labs are lying. I described the space and the manifold. I have disproved gravity and zero point mass.

Gee, when something is 90,000,000c. It produces Photons not electricity. Gamma rays, X-rays and radio waves are all Photons. They have nothing to do with plasma.

If your logic is perfect, then why don't you write your logic in statements.

Lightning bolts are proven by Jose, but they cannot be found. There is some new form of radiation called synchrotron. Never heard of it. Prove it. And don't pass the burden of proof to your citation. They are not in this discussion.

An Aether is needed for electricity to conduct. That is what a conductor is. A medium for electrons to travel. A vacuum is not an Aether.

anonymous, You have yet to show a valid proof or even evidence of a proof. When you fail at dissuading me with one group of vile comments you try another. Even if those comments are antithetical to each other. You can't even put you name to your vile comments.

And what is this calling me a Christian. Have I tortured you or your family? That, unfortunately is the historical and present modus operandi of Christianity. Just ask a Bush.

AAF, Please shut off anonymous postings. I don't care if anonymous reads what is posted here. He needs to grow some balls and put his name to his vile attacks.

Aaron

Anonymous said: "Thunderbolds (sic) reject to prove anything.
They just argue to put the burden on the proof on others.
In short from their propaganda-physics:

"The burden of proof is on gravity theorists to explain some mechanism that suppresses the large initial electromagnetic energies and then enables the weak force of gravity to build them back up again. "

"Where, on their propaganda web, do they simply compare electrostatics forces in our galaxy to the gravitaional(sic) force? Are electromagnetic fields not the proof they must provide? DDo (sic) they never do an experiment to prove their point? Don't they know there are simple means to detect electric fields in astronomy?"

"In the end, do they want ME to prove THEIR point?"

"Just PROPAGANDA PHYSICS, from christians (sic) extremists."

Jose says: Yeh, right. If this is propaganda, so is the malarkey that you are in love with. You don't have to prove anything. You can go on your way in ignorance. If I had any respect for you I would try and change what little mind you have. If you can't get the principle that plasma currents form in space and draw matter to them, I'll not waste my time trying to explain anything to you. Good riddance.

Anonymous said: "A good introduction reading for these thunderbolts ignorants(sic)": Plasma astrophysics By Boris V. Somov

Jose says: A good place for "All Knowing Anonymous" to go soak his brain is:
http://plasma.lanl.gov/

Probably a bunch of "christians" there too. Anonymous didn't fall off the turnip truck, he got hit with Roundup when he was a baby.

Please point out the error here, Mr. Knowitall Anonymous:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/mgmirkin.htm

Thanks for pointing out the errors, Anonymous. Nice short list!

JR,

I doubt that you could understand by yourself the fallacy by Michael Gmirkin (1).
So I give you some hint.

Michael Gmirkin, spoils half of this web page (1) claiming that other physicists (2) have forgotten a basic law of physics and made various other mistakes. Have you observed that he never gives a reference to prove his point? (3) This should make suspicious any honest reader. Gmirkin will continue on the same vein, tutoring the world about plasma physics:

"As such, magnetic fields cannot be 'frozen in' to plasma and carried along with it."

Again and always, he blames others, while he is himself repeating elementary notions from introductory textbook on plasma physics (4) anf offering not any other useful information. He can only convince the uninformed. And this is probably the intended audience. I ignore his real motivation.

There is nothing I could learn from this paper and I can only observe a physicist lamenting and calling for attention. An empty pot, a bit noisy and very selfish.

But maybe, JR, you can explain more?
Maybe you can explain at least what he is talking about and what his point is?

And, please, don't tell me that "the universe is electric".
You would be more useful telling people to be careful with electricity!


(1)http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/mgmirkin.htm
(2) no reference provided
(3) Well, what is his point actually, apart for the mistakes of others?
(4)http://books.google.com/books?id=ToAtqnznr80C&printsec=frontcover&dq=chen+plasma#PPA4,M1

Aaron,

Now with an information-provider style:

From wikipedia (1):

"The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang."

From Nasa (2):

"The September 4 burst, named GRB 050904 for the date it was detected, had a redshift of 6.29, which translates to a distance of about 13 billion light years from Earth. (The Universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old.) The previous most distant gamma-ray burst had a redshift of 4.5. The most distant quasar known is at redshift 6.4. "

"(Redshift 2 is about 10 billion light years; redshift 5 is about 12 billion light years. Star formation began about 200 million years after the Big Bang, at a redshift between 20 and 10.)"

Therefore the GRBs do not indicate that the universe is older than previously thought.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
(2)http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/sburst05_pressrelease.html

Anonymous said: "(Redshift 2 is about 10 billion light years; redshift 5 is about 12 billion light years. Star formation began about 200 million years after the Big Bang, at a redshift between 20 and 10.)"

Therefore the GRBs do not indicate that the universe is older than previously thought."

Jose says: Only if all red shift is due to receding motion. This is not true. Intrinsic red shift is observed in QUASARS. Just because this fact demolishes your religion, you refuse to acknowledge the fact.

Gama rays are easily produced by high amperage electrical short circuits.

Math does not trump observation.

Anon;

From Nasa (2):

"The September 4 burst, named GRB 050904 for the date it was detected, had a redshift of 6.29, which translates to a distance of about 13 billion light years from Earth. (The Universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old.) The previous most distant gamma-ray burst had a redshift of 4.5. The most distant quasar known is at redshift 6.4. "

"(Redshift 2 is about 10 billion light years; redshift 5 is about 12 billion light years. Star formation began about 200 million years after the Big Bang, at a redshift between 20 and 10.)"

Therefore the GRBs do not indicate that the universe is older than previously thought.

---------

Being that GRB 050904 is located in the direction of Pieces (I cannot find its RA and dec) and is 13b ly away. Then there is GRB 080913 located in the direction of Leo (RA 4h 22m 54.7s, dec -25° 07' 46.2) There is also GRB 090423 RA: 09h 55m 33.08s; Dec: +18° 08 58.9)

None of these are near the big bang, the so called origin of all matter and space/time. Each of these is 13b ly away in different directions. If all matter and space/time came from one massive bang then they would all be in a tiny area of the sky.

Aaron

Anonymous said: "And, please, don't tell me that "the universe is electric".
You would be more useful telling people to be careful with electricity!"

Jose says: I don't need to tell you anything, Mr. Abstract Math Is Physics guy.(AMIPguy) The Universe speaks for itself. You think several pages of goofy mathematical symbols describe the universe or plasma. You have never been in a laboratory and played with electrical plasmas. Your criticism is worthless.

Aaron said: "None of these are near the big bang, the so called origin of all matter and space/time. Each of these is 13b ly away in different directions. If all matter and space/time came from one massive bang then they would all be in a tiny area of the sky."

Jose says: Right on, Aaron. There was no "Big Bang." Little "bangs" happen all the time. Seyfert, and other active galaxies eject material all the time, (from time to time.) These become the highly red shifted QUASARs, which drop through "quantum" changes in the red shift, to eventually evolve into conventional galaxies.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040716eta-carinae.htm

I have tried to get data on GRBs. What I have found is confusing at best. I can always find the RA and Dec of the GRB, but I don't see any information on redshift.

Swift Results

Here they have data on multi-telescope readings of GRBs. Nice, But I can't make heads or tails of how they are getting redshift, for that matter any spectral data.

I would like to map these GRBs in Celestia or Google Sky. It is public data.
Here is what they make available. For this event they got 15 telescopes to point at RA(J2000) = 11h 54m 45s Dec(J2000) = +07d 47' 58"

I am only going to show one set of data because 15 sets is too much. Click the link above to see more data
++++
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
TITLE: GCN CIRCULAR
NUMBER: 9454
SUBJECT: GRB 090531: Swift detection of a burst
DATE: 09/05/31 01:56:55 GMT
FROM: Scott Barthelmy at NASA/GSFC

M. Stamatikos (NASA/ORAU), S. D. Barthelmy (GSFC), C. Gronwall (PSU),
S. T. Holland (CRESST/USRA/GSFC), V. Mangano (INAF-IASFPA) and
D. M. Palmer (LANL) report on behalf of the Swift Team:

At 01:45:17 UT, the Swift Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) triggered and
located GRB 090531 (trigger=353627). Swift could not immediately slew
to the burst location. The BAT on-board calculated location is
RA, Dec 178.687, +7.799 which is
RA(J2000) = 11h 54m 45s
Dec(J2000) = +07d 47' 58"
with an uncertainty of 3 arcmin (radius, 90% containment, including
systematic uncertainty). The BAT light curve showed a single-peaked
structure with a duration of about 50 sec. The peak count rate
was ~1500 counts/sec (15-350 keV), at ~10 sec after the trigger.

Because of a Moon constraint, Swift could not slew, and there
will be no XRT or UVOT observations until June 3.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Aaron

From:http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040716eta-carinae.htm

"However, in 1968 Dr. Charles Bruce of the UK Electrical Research Association proposed that planetary nebulas, such as Eta Carinae, are electric discharges. Because the discharge is part of a galactic current feeding power into the stars, the nebula will take on the characteristic bipolar form along the axis of the current with a toroid around the equator. In the case of Eta Carinae, most of the power is intercepted by the surrounding dust. This "electric furnace" effect explains both the high temperatures far from the star and the diminished radiation of the star. The onset of such a cosmic thunderbolt would have been heralded by just such a galaxy-illuminating flash as was seen in the 19th century."


This same shape is formed in laboratory electric discharges, along with gamma ray emmissions.

I can't find the pictue right now, but it's out there somewhere.

Meanwhile, check this out:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040820gamma-ray-burst.htm

Yep, It is anelectrical Universe! Can't be denied.