Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Cosmological Redshift Theory

I would immensely appreciate it if fellow colleauges can examine a decade or so of studies by R.M. Santilli (See his CV: http://www.world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv) establishing that the redness of the sun at the horizon is due to an apparent new mechanism for direct sunlight losing energy to a cold medium (or gaining energy in the case of a hot medium.) I feel that Prof. Santilli is correct with his mechanisms and am looking for additional comments to point out any holes.

More specifically, to my attentive understanding, part of sunlight is lost due to scattering resulting in the colors of Earth's atmosphere that are beautifully represented by Rayleigh scattering and others.

Santilli's new mechanism called IsoRedShift (IRS) deals with the remaining part of direct sunlight that has not scattered but reaches us along a straight line. The numerous measurements which have been conducted on two continents established the apparent existence of an IRS for the entire spectrum of direct sunlight from the zenith to the horizon of about 100nm.

In particular, the blue light at the zenith completely disappears at the horizon and the red light is shifted into the infrared frequency not existing at the zenith. In view of these numerous measurements now available for both sunset and sunrise, it appears that all of the above is an experimental reality.

See here: http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

Also see:
http://phys.org/news190027752.html

Thanks

Hi, Gman77, It's always good to welcome a new member, especially now, when posting seems to be at quite a low ebb.

Lots of reading and little time, but a look over the abstract suggests that further investigation might be interesting.

I guess that anything that involves Zwicky's ideas could ruffle a few feathers.

If Bill 6 is still about, this could bring him back into the fold, which would be a plus.

Bill S. I think it might be interesting, but keep in mind that the current theory seems to be fully adequate to explain everything that has been observed. Adding more "special" ideas doesn't necessarily improve any thing. There needs to be a pretty good reason to add this new idea to the existing theories.

Bill Gill