Chapt16.1 Ring in galactic mapping in 3rd layer of Caltech's mapping suggests the electron lobe of a Plutonium Atom Totality
I did not think that I would blend the New Physics with the Atom Totality text as well as this. I thought I would reach page 1300 and abruptly stop New Physics and re-start the Atom Totality but it looks like a well knit blending is occurring.
I have thought about Chapt16.1 in that the Doppler shift is nonexistent for light waves and so the shift must be some other physical phenomenon. I believe it is curvature of space that causes light waves to diffract. Now if the Cosmos were the surface of a sphere then the curvature would correlate exactly with distance and the redshift would be an accurate measure of distance. But, if the Cosmos were a ellipsoid such as a long slender cylinder then many redshifts are going to be close by as we look over the "sides of the cylinder". If we look along the axis of the cylinder we have no redshift of light but we have a terribly huge distance. So if the Cosmos were a cylinder shape, then our mappings of galaxies would be in terrible error because the most redshifted galaxies could be our nearest galaxies and the least redshifted galaxies could be along the axis and very very far away.
Now in my previous post I asked for the mathematics community to look over the Jarrett mapping:
--- quoting --- ?http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/ The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster ?(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the ?ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) ?disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or ?chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the ?southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown ?whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the ?cosmic web or an artifact of projection. --- end quoting --- To mathematically look over that mapping because if the Cosmos were a sphere then there would be many rings reported by Jarrett. But if the Cosmos were a cylinder that was tear drop shaped, shaped like a lobe in the Schrodinger Equation of a electron, then with the redshift not as a Doppler but rather the redshift as curvature of Space, then what happens is that at least one of the Jarrett mappings must end up being a ring structure.
This is the mathematics that I requested the math community to consider. When you believe the redshift is a Doppler redshift and do a mapping that Jarrett has done then you end up with at least one ring structure. But if you realize that redshift is due to curvature of space then the redshift is not at all indicative of distance but curvature, and so if we re-plotted all of Jarrett's galaxies with the idea of placine galaxies in terms of curvature, what we end up with is not Jarrett's giant sphere with one ring structure, but rather with a giant lobe shaped ellipsoid that is a cylinder with a tear drop shape and where there are numerous ring structures.
Now, why is the Cosmos a tear drop shaped cylinder? Because that is the only figure that would have one ring when we assume redshift is Doppler redshift. If we assume redshift to be curvature only, then it cannot be a cylinder but a tear drop shaped ellipsoid.
Also, there are a few reported blueshifts. If I recall, all of them are tiny tiny blueshifts and only a few stars or galaxies demonstrate a blueshift. So does curvature also provide an explanation for blueshift? Well, it does. It does so in that the blueshift is over a Electromagnetism of Space, for if you carefully look at a dipole magnet into a closed loop wire, some lines of force are only slightly curved opposite to a positive curvature and this slight negative curvature would account for blueshift.
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine- bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: