Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Hodge: on 7/26/14 at 9:56am UTC, wrote John Thanks for the link. The Scalar Theory of Everything suggests Scalar...

Steve Agnew: on 7/22/14 at 13:29pm UTC, wrote I get a kick out of these sorts of discoveries...dark matter is a patch for...

Peter Jackson: on 7/22/14 at 11:25am UTC, wrote John, That's as predicted by the 'kinetic decoupling' model in the...

John Merryman: on 7/22/14 at 10:21am UTC, wrote Another mystery. "Everywhere we looked we saw this strangely coherent...

John Merryman: on 6/12/14 at 1:10am UTC, wrote Another small crack in the shell: With computers, the researchers...

John Merryman: on 3/11/14 at 21:05pm UTC, wrote Another "(Phys.org) —An international team of astronomers have...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Georgina said, "Personality can be altered by alteration of the balance of..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Georgina Parry: "Hi Johnathan, our posts crossed but I put mine in the wrong place, so did..." in Faster than Light

Georgina Parry: "I'm not sure about the original experiments but have found that experiments..." in Faster than Light

Georgina Parry: "Jason, that was a reply to your Quote"all biochemicals give you is some..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Akinbo Ojo: "Peter, Just had a look at the Planck satellite link. The problems of..." in Why Quantum?

Peter Jackson: "Akinbo, I'm not sure how you still concluded the opposite to the evidence..." in Why Quantum?

Vladimir Rogozhin: "Dear Eckard, The problem of UN reform and especially the Security Council..." in How Should Humanity Steer...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?


FQXi BLOGS
July 30, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Quasar Cluster that Kills the Cosmological Principle? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
Credit: R. G. Clowes / UCLan
Thanks to John Merryman for suggesting the topic of this post. Earlier this month, a team of astronomers led by Roger G. Clowes at the University of Central Lancashire reported the discovery of the largest structure seen in the universe, a clump of 73 quasars spanning 4 billion light years across, in data taken by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. (Our Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years across for comparison). The results were published in MNRAS.

The cluster has been dubbed the “Huge-LQG” (Huge-large-quasar-group), and neighbors another large clump, the “CCLQG” (where the CC stands for the names of its discoverers, Clowes (again) and Campusano). This corner of the sky is apparently where all fashionable quasars want to hang out, and that’s a problem for modern cosmology, which is founded on the “cosmological principle” that

the universe should look pretty much the same in every direction, on large scales.

The image shows the occurrence of quasars (darker colors indicate more quasars) in the region. The HUGE-LQG is marked by the chain of black circles, while the red crosses mark its smaller neighbor. The map covers an impressive 29.4 by 24 degrees on the sky. (Credit: R. G. Clowes / UCLan.)

The story has been reported a lot in the news, and you can listen to a nice NPR podcast about it here. Taken alone, it’s a nice story about a puzzling thing that seems to defy our current theories of cosmology. But there’s a wider question: Cosmology is a relatively new science (there’ll be a bit more about that in this month’s forthcoming podcast, which I am about to upload). Cosmologists and astronomers don’t have the luxury of being able to carry out experiments to test their theories and so models are built based on the relatively small amount of data available at the time. So should we be surprised that as we push the observational boundaries, the data calls our models into question? Or do you think that each apparently startling result will eventually be brought into the fold?

Please feel free to add in other links to recent results that have been puzzling astronomers and cosmologists and to discuss what they ultimately mean for our standard model of cosmology.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Thanks Zeeya!

Adding some other links to recent...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

Does "light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" mean "light will lose SPEED as it is escaping a gravitational field"? In other words, is the gravitational redshift a measure of the reduction in the speed of light? In 1911 Einstein said light loses speed just as cannonballs do, then in 1916, in the final version of general relativity, he informed the world that light loses speed even faster than cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Photons slowed down by the gravitational field of the emitter:

"In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen's Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away. As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Pentcho,

I don't think it's an issue whether light slows in various mediums and fields. The argument is that since ultimately any clock is composed of light, it will also slow in the same situation and so the measure will remain equal. The issue, as I see it, is that measures of time and space/distance are considered equivalent and are part of some foundational mathematical geometry that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 11:41 GMT
If the Universe wave function is a continuous function, then the variation of the wave function on a small scale (in terms of Universe) is small: I think that the Universe of the simultanei events is locally homogeneous: it is weaker than the cosmological principle but it is certainly valid.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
John,

It's not quite true that no theory predicts these findings, including the high z quasar and complex CMB anisotropies.

Those who read my last two essays, particularly '2020 vision' (2011) may recall the simple cyclic model proposed, which predicts an axial flow in the CMBR, no great attractor but a 'great emitter' in the other direction, the helical morphology found (also in the paper I've endlessly posted links to here) and also indeed the full suite of anisotropies identified by Smoot and in this very comprehensive analysis;

Copi C. J., et al. Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB., Adv. Astron.2010; 2010:847541. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/847541/fig4/

http://m
nras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/07/mnras.sts49
7.full#ref-5

I've just posted some lovely recent quotes on my essay blog, explained the basics and invited falsifications. The problem is that, as Joy has found, although all claim that major changes are needed, as soon as any are proposed all, even in supposedly fundamental forums, run and hide or group together like the 3 monkeys shouting; "nonsense - it must be wrong as it's not what we learnt at school!"

In the above essay I estimated it would be around 2020 before the reactionaries died off or matured, so physics could finally release the chains and move on. I haven't yet changed that estimate. How DO we get people to think differently? And if fQXi has now reverted to reactionary old boy 'science by beleif' what hope is there?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:15 GMT
Peter,

I think it's evident in this forum the extent to which social and political realities are very much a factor in what happens. The best I can say is to keep chipping away at the foundations of the ivory tower. Maybe it might fall one day. Maybe we are just scratching graffiti. Maybe both. There are so many bubbles in the world today, that seem ready to burst, but only keep getting bigger, that I've learned to not get emotional about any of them. Just keep scratching away at whatever catches my attention. The world doesn't take us too serious, so don't take the world too seriously.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
John,

Gold is one of the things you must bite to test but still don't have to swallow. Yet people seem too afraid to bite. So here we are, finally found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - but nobody's interested.

I now picture myself at a dusty market sitting on the pot with a pile of gold on the table as people pass and turn away whispering their belief that the pot's cracked and the wares just fools gold.

Few bite it to test, and even those that do back off and wander away as they're not familiar with such wares so don't trust what they find.!. It's human nature really. Our current state of evolution.

No worries. Most will be grabbing at it eventually. My seat's comfortable, the sun's shining, I have a good book half written and the people are very interesting to study. If you need a hand with the mallet and chisel, or perhaps the odd nugget, just let me know.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Peter,

Gold is a bit like a quantum particle. Its value is generally a function of context, rather than absolute. The point you make is valid, but is it one more symptom of a deeper disconnect? For example, how much of the current dust up over non-locality, that seems to be going on over Joy's disproof of Bell would be moot, if physics considered the wave as fundamental and the particle as simply a property of it, like a wave crest, as opposed to the current belief that particles are fundamental and waves are just statistical? Then the "entangled particles" are different crests of the same wave. Even the Higgs seems to have some extension, given the two detectors measure it at slightly different energies.

I keep making my point that time is not a vector from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past and I think it is fairly foundational to why we misinterpret physics, but it doesn't get much notice from others equally convinced their particular views are more foundational. It's as much a matter of the physics of subjective knowledge as anything. We are observers of the circus.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
John,

"We are observers of the circus." So it seems, but I'm a 'do'er not a spectator. I don't expect or live off applause either.

Presenting more evidence of an AGN based recycling model, this today; Black Holes Grow Faster than Predicted

This lenticular galaxy should be about to start jetting on it's perpendicular axis any moment now (in astronomical terms, which means it probably did so about 20 million years ago and the light from that will reach us in just another 8 million years time).

It also of course derived our pre 'big bang' state, pretty well as the picture.

Considered along with the CMB anisotropy data link I posted, Does that really sound so ridiculous?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 09:40 GMT
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum

NATURE: "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, but its speed passing through any given material depends on a property of that substance known as its index of refraction."

The hint made by the journal NATURE leads to an extremely dangerous (for both relativity and cosmology) conclusion: since the vacuum is filled with some material, the speed of light coming to us from distant astronomical objects may not be constant, and this explains the cosmological redshift:

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

"At present it is ascertained that vacuum is not an "empty space" - rather, it is a certain material continuum with quite definite although still unknown properties. This has been confirmed by observation of vacuum effects such as "zero-oscillations", vacuum polarization, particle generation by electromagnetic interactions. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that physical vacuum could have internal friction due to its own small but real viscosity, which in the end produces redshift. (...) ...the differential equation for the speed of light dc/dt=-Ho*c(t)"

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 08:10 GMT
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all"

"...even frigid intergalactic space is awash in microwave photons that would gradually slow a drifting space traveler. The friction occurs because the moving object absorbs more photons at its front surface than at its rear. The object slows from the flow of photons, just as a cyclist is slowed by the wind she feels in her face. (...) In intergalactic space, the slowing of a macroscopic object would only be noticeable over billions of years. In a 1000-degree-Kelvin oven, on the other hand, a water molecule would need less than five months to slow to a standstill, assuming it started out at the oven's temperature."

How about a photon emitted by a distant astronomical object and travelling towards Earth? Will it be gradually slowed down by vacuum friction? Yes it will, and this explains the cosmological redshift. Any redshift or blueshift is due to a shift in the speed of light.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Pentcho,

It seems you've derived cosmological blue shift. Unfortunately there isn't any. The effect you cite is the reverse of what is found. If photons (or waves) slowed down approaching the Milky Way they would 'close up' giving shorter wavelength (higher observed frequency) which is the inverse of z.

There are of course real mechanisms able to give the cosmological redshift which are not currently allowed for. In fact I've recently found one of Eckards favourites Shtyrkov guilty of anticipatory plagourism by copying one (of 5) I derived and termed expansion shift, and publishing it in Russian 10 years before I even thought of it! Link below, as recently translated (I'm writing to him to complain!).

In Coherent Forward Scattering, which is how light is transmitted by electrons, the energy of propagation comes from the particles, all re-emitting at local c, not from the emitter! Massive bodies are slowed down by interactions, as the report says, light is not.

Shtyrkov. E.I., The Evolved-Vacuum Model of Redshifts. 1999( 2008).

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
"...even frigid intergalactic space is awash in microwave photons that would gradually slow a drifting space traveler. The friction occurs because the moving object absorbs more photons at its front surface than at its rear. The object slows from the flow of photons, just as a cyclist is slowed by the wind she feels in her face. (...) In intergalactic space, the slowing of a macroscopic object would only be noticeable over billions of years. In a 1000-degree-Kelvin oven, on the other hand, a water molecule would need less than five months to slow to a standstill, assuming it started out at the oven's temperature."

Note that the concept of vacuum friction implicitly introduces an absolute reference frame. This has nothing to do with the old absolute reference frame based on the concept of ether. Friction presupposes a particular case in which the traveler experiences no friction, that is, the speed of the traveler relative to what causes the friction is zero. In that case the traveler belongs to a special reference frame which can be called "absolute".

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
The Dark Matter halo surrounding Huge-LQG should be darker than the halo of smaller surrounding galaxies, as the gravitational pullback on light in Huge-LQG slows it down to a greater degree than the smaller galaxies will, and it therefore the newly created space manifests itself as denser "New Heavy Dark Matter Space". Is the technology avaialble to confirm this?

CIG allows for the quasar cluster as it offers a vaying cosmological non-constant. These occurences (i.e. the grouping of large galaxies) are no different than the presence of a large molecule in a sea of hydrogen.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 10:25 GMT
Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

Desperate Einsteinians refuse to answer the question.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 09:51 GMT
Pentcho,

Does the water in a spa pool move? of course. So as c/n for water is a constant; For an observer outside the pool, is the speed of a light pulse c/n passing through water flowing one way not DIFFERENT to the speed c/n through the water in flow heading the OTHER way?

Think carefully. Here be the pot of gold to defrock thine enemy. Yet this Holy Grail can only be seen and understood by the intelligent (and Harrison Ford).

Space as a medium was indeed the theme of my essay, and then with discrete 'fields,' each with states of motion (DFM).

Much ado about nothing. Consequences Assumption of space as a medium

Peter

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT
One more "anomaly;"

"With a better handle on the star's brightness Bond's team refined the star's age by applying contemporary theories about the star's burn rate, chemical abundances, and internal structure. New ideas are that leftover helium diffuses deeper into the core and so the star has less hydrogen to burn via nuclear fusion. This means it uses fuel faster and that correspondingly lowers the age. Also, the star has a higher than predicted oxygen-to-iron ratio, and this too lowers the age. Bond thinks that further oxygen measurement could reduce the star's age even more, because the star would have formed at a slightly later time when the universe was richer in oxygen abundance. Lowering the upper age limit would make the star unequivocally younger than the universe. "Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-hubble-birth-certificate-oldest
-star.html

They are unabashed about skewing every parameter toward a younger age. The power of belief is very strong. Objectivity can't get in the way.

While it isn't mentioned, the ages presented seem to refer to how long a star has been burning, not how long it took to coalesce out of cosmic gases. Not to mention this is a second generation star(metals) and those first generation stars had to coalesce as well. According to inflation theory, the universe expanded to larger than what is visible, in the inflationary stage, so the process of enough gases being gravitationally accumulated wasn't something that could have happened in the week or two these theories seem to allot for it.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
another

"Marrone, who is the principal investigator of the gravitational lensing portion of the project, explained that because only those super-distant galaxies can be discovered that happen to lie in perfect alignment with another galaxy that can act as a lens and the Earth, it is likely that they are much more abundant than previously thought. "It has been thrilling to be among the first to use ALMA to study the very early universe," added Spilker. "We are now trying to use the molecules we see to explain how and why these galaxies were so active, so soon after the Big Bang."

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-alma-monster-starburst-galaxies
-early.html

With ALMA fully up and running, this should get interesting.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 12:54 GMT
I realize I'm beating a dead horse or a very stubborn mule here, but reading through the various postings on the Planck results, I can't help but comment on the primordial thermodynamic processes at work here and how time is a function of how they evolve. Thus if we insist on some form of blocktime reality, while it provides a necessary narrative structure to our ability to comprehend, it also has to somehow freeze the very processes at work here. Now most people/physicists considering this seem to compartmentalize this divergence quite instinctively, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me and all the browbeating I get for raising the issue hasn't cured my skepticism. To quote Galileo, "Yet it moves!"

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
John,

Planks findings; "challenge the very foundations of cosmology." You're not shouting in the dark. Things move. but only ever relatively.

I paste my post from the IOP Computational Astronomy & Astrophysics blog below;

And ~20% more Dark matter than assumed!!

This has greater implications as it finally proves or fundamental assumptions and the concordance...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT
Peter,

That seems a long way off, but in reality it might still be too quick. Unfortunately.

It's not that their heads are buried in the sand, but in the math. There seems to be a quote of Hawking, floating around various conversation, about what "breathes fire into the equations." The foundational belief being in the Platonic/deistic nature of the math, with the physical reality as a redheaded step-child, rather than the math emerging from the "fire."

In my more pessimistic thoughts, it occurs to me that epicycles might not have lasted for 2000 years, had the dark ages not occurred. Given the eventual implosion of this current historic financial bubble, the current physics might end up being locked in place until long after our generation is gone.

As for the current round of anomalies, I'd like to think there is one to break the camel's back, but considering the patches already applied, these will only take a dab or two of plaster.

I'd like to be more optimistic, but the psychological realities are as unforgiving as the physical realities.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 22:10 GMT
The idea that light interacts with the "vacuum" and so its speed changes is getting more and more popular:

"Speed of Light May Not be Constant (...) Two separate studies by scientists from the University of Paris-Sud in France and from the Max Planck Institutes for the Physics of Light in Germany are disputing the long established belief concerning the nature of a vacuum. (...) A vacuum,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
"Speed of Light is Not Constant, Say Scientists. According to two new studies, speed of light referred by Albert Einstein as a constant in vacuum is not actually a constant. The speed of light in vacuum was said to be 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186, 282 miles per second, back in 1975. However, the studies say that the vacuum is not actually a vacuum as it comprises ephemeral particles with...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Lubos Motl comment:

Speed of light is variable: only in junk media

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/03/speed-of-light-is-var
iable-only-in-junk.htm

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 08:50 GMT
The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light, M. Urban, F. Couchot, X. Sarazin and A. Djannati-Atai: "When a real photon propagates in vacuum, it interacts with and is temporarily captured by an ephemeral pair. As soon as the pair disappears, it releases the photon to its initial energy and momentum state. The photon continues to propagate with an infinite bare velocity. Then the photon interacts again with another ephemeral pair and so on. The delay on the photon propagation produced by these successive interactions implies a renormalisation of this bare velocity to a finite value."

This is not very reasonable but still it may generate an extremely heretical thought:

If photons coming to Earth from distant astronomical objects constantly bump into vacuum constituents and slow down as a result, this could explain the Hubble redshift without recourse to universe expansion, Big Bang etc.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 21:50 GMT
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum

Prof. E. I. Shtyrkov: "At present, vacuum has been experimentally established to be not a void but it is some material medium with definite but not so far investigated features. It was really confirmed by observation of several vacuum effects, for instance, zero oscillations and polarization of vacuum, generating the particles in vacuum due to electromagnetic interaction. Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that this real matter-physical vacuum can possess internal friction due to its small but a real viscosity to result in variation of light-matter interaction. That is, vacuum can affect on the light wave because of certain resistance. This may be a reason for the redshifts observed. (...) The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down... (...) The frequency perceived by observers at any point on the light path depends on the light velocity being at the observation time."

"Paradoxalement, Hubble n'admit jamais cette théorie du Big-Bang et de l'expansion de l'univers. Il défendit la théorie de "la lumière fatiguée" reprise par Pecker, Vigier et Alton Arp. Dans cette théorie, la lumière en parcourant de longues distances perd une partie de son énergie ET DE SA VITESSE, et se décalent vers le rouge."

Einsteinians and cosmologists.

Clever Einsteinians and clever cosmologists.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum (II)

E. I. Shtyrkov: "That is, vacuum can affect on the light wave because of certain resistance. This may be a reason for the redshifts observed. (...) The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down..."

Paul Davies: "The quantum vacuum may in certain circumstances be regarded as a type of fluid medium, or aether, exhibiting energy...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 22:10 GMT
The gravitational redshift has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe but mainstream cosmologists are not very impressed:

"The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."

In contrast, the anomalous quasar redshift acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing it, mainstream cosmologists get petrified and remain in that state for long periods:

Cosmology Quest - Debunking Quackademic Cosmology - Part 1 of 4

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
Another "anomaly;

""Massive, intense starburst galaxies are expected to only appear at later cosmic times," says Dominik Riechers, who led the research while a senior research fellow at Caltech. "Yet, we have discovered this colossal starburst just 880 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was at little more than 6 percent of its current age." Now an assistant professor at Cornell, Riechers is the first author of the paper describing the findings in the April 18 issue of the journal Nature.

While the discovery of this single galaxy isn't enough to overturn current theories of galaxy formation, finding more galaxies like this one could challenge those theories, the astronomers say. At the very least, theories will have to be modified to explain how this galaxy, dubbed HFLS3, formed, Riechers says."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-massive-galaxy-intense-star-for
mation.html#jCp

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Another;

here

more on the same

Could it simply be two galaxies colliding?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
John,

It sure could. But collisions are a much overrated feature due to the lack of any accepted evolutionary cycle. (You'll recall the cycle I proposed the evidence suggests?)

Analyse how many galaxies are found 'near' collision, and most of the collision thing is falsified. Quasar jetting stellar production rates are just as high.

Anyway I've just read your essay and commented. Good stuff, Well done.

Good to be back around.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Peter,

Maybe just the jet pointing in our direction. Safe to say, I am not buy the whole bubble universe thing.

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:51 GMT
Another interesting theory:

"Just such a signature might already have been found. Astronomers struggle to account for the distribution of dwarf galaxies in orbit around both the Milky Way and Andromeda. The dwarf galaxies could be explained if they were born from gas and stars ripped out of the two parent galaxies during their close encounter.

Pavel Kroupa sees this as the 'smoking gun' for the collision. "Given the arrangement and motion of the dwarf galaxies, I can't see how any other explanation works", he comments.

The team now plan to model the encounter using Milgromian dynamics and are developing a computer code at Bonn University for this purpose."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-andromeda-milky-billion-years.h
tml#jCp

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
Another interesting finding. This related to the limits of our understand of how light relates to matter:

"In these experiments, it has been observed that light (photons) emanating from the collision zone varies in intensity depending on the direction of light emission (Fig. 1). This uneven distribution of photons is similar to the pattern expected for a quark–gluon plasma, which has...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 02:01 GMT
Another galaxy, very far away

"The galaxy, known by its catalog name z8_GND_5296, fascinated the researchers. Whereas our home, the Milky Way, creates about one or two Sun-like stars every year or so, this newly discovered galaxy forms around 300 a year and was observed by the researchers as it was 13 billion years ago. That's the time it took for the galaxy's light to travel to Earth. Just how mind-boggling is that? A single light year, which is the distance light travels in a year, is nearly six trillion miles. Because the universe has been expanding the whole time, the researchers estimate the galaxy's present distance to be roughly 30 billion light years away."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-universe-distant-galaxy.html#jC
p

Somehow, even though the very fabric of space is expanding, we still have good old, stable lightyears to measure the distances. Doesn't it bother anyone that "space expands" but the speed of light remains constant to a stable distance? Which is Einstein's "ruler?"

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 19:05 GMT
John M,

In order to possibly support your doubts, I would like to ask the auditory how the radius of the universe has been measured. I imagine that only in case of not so far remote sources of light there are spectral lines of some elements which can be identified as to safely separate the Doppler effect. What about the accelerating expansion of the universe, I wonder if the experimenters are not happy if they found something rather imprecise that can be interpreted with good will to agree with theories and religious beliefs.

Your argument that we are perhaps in the middle of what we can observe is more convincing to me. Augustinus explained the creation of the world. What did God do before? Mockers meant: Then he made the hell for those who rise such questions.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Eckard,

Generations have built their cosmology on these ideas. Tradition is its own argument.

It is like fighting small fires, only to create the conditions for a large fire. Anytime a small fire breaks out, such as observations that don't match theory, there is quick settlement on whatever patches the anomaly the best and the little fire is put out, before it raises too many questions.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 09:07 GMT
John M, Peter,

May I compare the CMBR with the warming effect of clouds or a foggy atmosphere? As a bloody layman in cosmology, I could even speculate that the putatively gravitational effect of a star on the direction of light could possibly also be explained by matter in the vicinity of that star, e.g. the sun, which makes the refraction index n a bit larger than one.

The more distant a source of light is, the higher I expect the probability that it gets deflected out of its path to us. On the other hand, the effect that is similar to the effect of tiny droplets of a liquid could reflect light to us. Let me stress again, I am not an expert in optics.

However as someone who dealt a lot with spectral decomposition, I feel a bit ashamed because I confirmed Schroedinger's reasoning as reasonable. Was he really careful? In case of 14/16 years young Itha he promised utterly cautious sex. He treated his lover respectfully. Itha was even introduced to Einstein. Anyway, she got nonetheless pregnant.

Is it true that the universe must be finite because atoms correspond to discrete frequencies? I don't think so. On the contrary, spectral analysis yields absolutely discrete lines of frequency only if the assumed window extends infinitely. Look at the spectra delivered e.g. by MATLAB. They always show bellshaped spectral "lines" with nonzero values around the peak as a consequence of the finiteness of the chosen width of window.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Astronomers reveal contents of mysterious black hole jets

"Until now it wasn't clear whether the positive charge came from positrons, the antimatter 'opposite' of electrons, or positively charged atoms. Since our results found nickel and iron in these jets, we now know ordinary matter must be providing the positive charge."

Positively charged atoms are much heavier than the positrons astronomers thought might make up the jets, and therefore the jets can carry away far more energy from the black hole than previously confirmed."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-astronomers-reveal-contents-mys
terious-black.html#jCp

It seems much of what falls into these vortices is being shot out the poles. Doesn't leave much to accrete into any other dimension, etc. More likely one part of a larger cycle, not a singularity.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
John,

Cyclic model verification keeps pouring in, fractal, so at all scales including the universe. I noticed recently that Friedmann's 1922 paper supported and pointed out that GR allowed a cyclic universe cosmology. The most consistent model, of a 'big blast' is now becoming very well developed and evidenced.

I have a stack of interesting papers, such as this; Akzenov et al, MNRAS 2013.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 16:21 GMT
Peter,

How do you explain the point I keep raising, that if space is expanding relativistically, wouldn't the speed of light have to increase proportionally, in order for it to remain constant to this expanding space? Otherwise the theory just seems to use a stable speed of light to measure the increased distance between galaxies, which is not expanding space, only increased distance in stable space. As Einstein said, space is what you measure with a ruler and it seems the ruler/denominator is based on the speed of light, not on the redshift/numerator.

We do appear to be at the center of the universe, but if redshift is some form of as yet undiscovered optical effect, this would make sense, since we are at the center of our view of the universe.

As an optical effect, it would compound on itself, creating a parabolic curve of redshift, which would explain the shifting frequency that dark energy is inserted to explain. The background radiation would be the light from sources redshifted over the horizon line of visibility.

As of yet, inflation and dark energy raise more questions than they answer.

Regards,

John M

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
John,

Schrodinger's 1939 paper re expansion is fascinating. I don't agree with a 'relativistically expanding' or accelerating universe and have pointed out the evidence is pretty weak, is based on many assumptions, and 'accelerated' expansion is a self defeating proposition (waves must expand with space).

The Proper Vibrations of the Expanding Universe. Physica, 6, 899. 1939

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
John,

I agree; patches on patches, beliefs on assumptions. But I feel I've now removed all patches and exposed a beautifully simple reality, but one which seems invisible to everybody else! As a level headed non-indoctrinated guy could you tell me if it's me going crazy or if this is as logically impeccable as I think;

1. Fist, we must remember we're considering 'rate' of time...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 12:17 GMT
Peter,

I don't have any problem with that. The issue is the expanding, finite universe and given I see time as effect, not part of the 'fabric of spacetime,' there is no conceptual basis for this expanding universe. The fact is that I only came into this idea about time, when considering that if space is overall flat, with expansion balanced by gravity, it is logically some form of convection cycle and we are just missing an expansion factor in the naturally expanding nature of radiation, that creates the opposite effect of gravity contracting mass. We know mass turns back into energy, so the cycle is pretty much there, its just a few gaps that need filling in.

Aeon magazine did an article by Tim Maudlin, in which he brings up the issue of homeostasis as an explanation for why we miss ways of making sense of situations we don't have a clear view of and it quite aptly describes this situation. I wrote on comment on it, in the comment section.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
John,

Having sifted through the 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle pile for many years I did find a way it all fitted together. It may be wrong, in the same way a solution to a Rubics cube with all sides the same colour may be wrong, but it is a beautifully simple picture. The exact process we see happening to stars and galaxies is a fractal process that also happens to universes;

The matter is accreted to the central AGN ('SMBH'), is rte-ionized, blasted out in two opposed jet outflows, then the 'column' starts to rotate again on a new axis, gradually blending the arms into a disc, and building the central bulge.. The cycle repeats eternally, possibly also at many other universes, and even at greater scales!

Once we know what to look fro we can see the Milky Way is in it's 3rd iteration, the last one being with most others during the 'quasar era' peaking at z=1.7.

There would then be both directional expansion and contraction. I'm trying to squeeze all the unique evidence into a paper but it's hard to get it all in! i.e. We know galaxies have 'grown' by 4-10% in the last 11Gyr, assigned to 'mergers' but few can be found! It's because new matter is ionised from the QV by the outflows.

As I say, the solutions appear as simple and very apparent once we know what to look for. The real problem is showing those blinded by 'science' how to see nature.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Peter,

I'm not questioning whether there are fractal levels larger than galaxies and galaxy clusters. My argument is against those other universes and structures being in some alternate dimension of space. They are simply out there somewhere else. I see space as elementally neutral, so the opposites are positive and negative energies in space. As I see it, space is absolute(inert) and infinite.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
John,

'Elsewhere' agreed, 'Absolute' not as it implies an 'absolute' state of motion which is the assumption which caused all the problems in the first place. A different word is then needed to avoid misunderstanding.

From my observations the 'Dark Energy' background (2.7 degrees with known permittivity/permeability etc.) exists and acts as the condensate for condensed matter. (This pair production process is perfectly 'visible' and we may now popularly call it the Higgs mechanism.) The most important aspect of this is at first more subtle; It is that the particles condensed are condensed WITH A 'STATE OF MOTION' (Rest frame) with respect to any and all OTHER condensed matter.

I agree this is in a 'ground state' with positive and negative fluctuations.

Considered locally this is what CANNOT BE 'ABSOLUTE' (i.e. the particle systems can move, which is as observed). Once that fundamental kinetic hierarchy is visualised the rest is then easy. The dark energy field may indeed have some ultimate centre of mass for each universe, but that has no direct relevant to local relative states (frames) wrt local backgrounds. Propagation of light and time signals is c in all, so is changed by the interactions when moving between them.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Peter,

It's not that 'absolute' is a ground state that can be physically reached. We can't 'reach' infinity either.

It is just that it is a state of reference, like infinity, that makes sense of those other ambiguities, such as there being no universal center of mass, but that anywhere can be a center of mass, depending on all forces affecting that locality. In essence, the basis of locality.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT
Eckard,

What if the 'boundary' is more immediate and universal, that space is elementally inert?

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Eckard,

You asked what 'datum' for propagation at c. Local backgrounds are essential, and all of equivalent status, so each is background to smaller ones. This is Galilean relativity but with Local Reality.

Nothing magical like anticipating observers existence and speed is needed. Just consider everything as a medium, dense or diffuse. Often the bigger the medium the more diffuse, but the exact same resultant effect on moving between media just takes more distance and time to implement (see J.D Jackson; extinction distances).

The evidence of this evolving change is found in 'scintillation' of starlight and accompanying birefringence (some apparent source positions changed, some not). The overall effect of this is an apparent gently curvature of light paths, increasing with particle density.

This is as you discussed elsewhere, called other names such as 'quantum gravity', 'curved space-time', 'aberration' and 'diffraction'.

See also my post to John above. On arrival at all matter speed is simply localised to c. Is that not entirely logical?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 9, 2013 @ 04:34 GMT
It's an interesting blog discussion on a fascinating find which finally puts a nail in the coffin of a "cosmological principle", which is the crux of the alternative world view given in my essays. Newton's principle that "all matter attracts each other equally in all directions" will be next on the list, which ultimately is the foundation of the cosmological principle.

In response to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Leo Vuyk wrote on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 14:59 GMT
We need a new Big Bang Theory: the Splitting and evaporating Black Hole theory leading to a fractal multiverse. for this phenomenon. see:

Two or Three Large Quasar Groups (LQGs) Located at the Start of Two or Three Lyman Alpha Systems and a Part of the Raspberry Multiverse?

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0088

According to Quantum FFF Theory, the Big Bang can be compared with a splitting Dark Matter Black Hole, also evaporating into Dark Energy Higgs vacuum.

This should lead to a fractal shaped raspberry multiverse with mirror quantum entanglement without a Schrödinger Cat paradox because there are always two Cats observing each other by entanglement between these universes.

As a consequence, the so called inflation epoch after the Big Bang is NOT the creation of all the plasma like Hydrogen ions needed to form the first giant Stars and Galaxies, but the splitted Black Hole created the plasma by themselves by a new paradigm repelling Horizon!!! See;.

Black Hole Horizon Curvature Dependent Balance Between Plasma Creation and e-e+ Annihilation in Quantum FFF Theory.

http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0061

attachments: Kopie_van_11_HUGE_LQG_QUASAR_GROUPS_2.jpg, Kopie_van_12_Huge_Q_Gr_3e.jpg

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Leo Vuyk wrote on Dec. 20, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
For a more extended description of the LQG or:Navel Cord Multiverse, see:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1312.0143v1.pdf

report post as inappropriate


guillermo alejandro pussetto wrote on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
"The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is an immense superstructure of galaxies that measures more than 10 billion light years across. It is the largest and the most massive structure known in the observable universe. This huge structure was discovered in November 2013 by a mapping of gamma ray bursts that occurs in the distant universe. The astronomers used data from the Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission."

"The structure also poses a problem to the current models of the universe's evolution. At a distance of 10 billion light-years means that we see the structure as it was 10 billion years ago, or roughly 3.79 billion years after the Big Bang. The current models of the universe's evolution, however, do not allow the said structure to form in just a mere 3 billion year framework. The structure was itself too big, and too complex, to exist so early in the universe. There is currently no idea of how such a structure has evolved."

Source : Wikipedia

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

guillermo alejandro pussetto replied on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 03:58 GMT
Something is wrong and, whatever it is, points to new physics.

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 02:43 GMT
Halton C. Arp, Astronomer Who Challenged Big Bang Theory, Dies at 86

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 18:17 GMT
Just had to add this.

"Among other cosmic parameters, says White, the BOSS analysis "also provides one of the best-ever determinations of the curvature of space. The answer is, it's not curved much."

Calling a three-dimensional universe "flat" means its shape is well described by the Euclidean geometry familiar from high school: straight lines are parallel and triangles add up to 180 degrees. Extraordinary flatness means the universe experienced relatively prolonged inflation, up to a decillionth of a second or more, immediately after the big bang.

"One of the reasons we care is that a flat universe has implications for whether the universe is infinite," says Schlegel. "That means – while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end – it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-baryon-oscillation-spectroscopi
c-survey-universe.html#jCp

Safe to say, an infinite universe is very much compatible with steady state models and needs rather large fudge factors to be shoehorned into an expanding model.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 19, 2014 @ 02:35 GMT
The Connection of Magnetism and Gravity with the use of Waves

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 17:23 GMT
What is the difference between intergalactic gas and plasma, other than one is supposedly inert and the other is electromagnetic?

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 18:51 GMT
John,

Plasma is basically just ionized gas; so the molecules/atoms of gas become electrically charged, rather than electrically neutral.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 20:09 GMT
John, Robert

Ooooch! plasma is rather more than just that. Pair production also produces pure plasma, which is a free electron positron and proton diffuse dielectric medium. We're finding it's density much higher than anticipated, and significant. i.e. commonly 10^15/cm^-2 even in the IGM, more dense at 'shocks'.

The small number that don't cancel can bind (evolve) into protons, CO and more complex molecular gases; first H He and Lithium, whereon they start to become detectable spectroscopically (pure plasma n=1). (They're already detectable kinetically, VLBA finding 2013. contrary to present theoretical assumptions, and of course gravitationally).

For some reason plasma science is not in the mainstream areas normally taught. It's at the heart of nuclear fusion has the highest coupling with EM energy, and is the most common state of matter by a massive (lol) margin.

Hope that gives a better glimpse.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 20:51 GMT
Peter and John,

More or less:

"An astrophysical plasma is a plasma (an ionized gas)"...

"called the intergalactic medium (IGM).... It consists mostly of ionized hydrogen; i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons."

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 22:39 GMT
Rob,

Oh dear. God save us from Wikiscience. With respect Rob that's pretty historic dogma. In the field the proton fraction in various cases is being better constrained all the time, and much plasma does NOT come from splitting electrons and protons! Pair production is matter condensed through the field. We now have the Higgs process to condense conjugate fermion pairs in mainstream so no longer need to be afraid of truth. Most cancels out (electron/positron) very quickly, but the small surfiet of electrons remains to evolve.

Much seems to come from quasar jet outflows, which sure enough starts from re-ionization of accreted matter, but propagates and mixes with a generous helping of new stuff in the collimation shear hypersurfces. It's not yet assimilated into theory why galaxies after the quasar periods have 'grown' in mass and volume by 4-10%. (the growth is not isotropic as assumed). The most precise calculations of outflow proton number density is 27% of the electron fraction.your link text Also look up the recent AMS probe findings. They were very little like the historic assumptions which seem to hang on against all real evidence! It's as if time imposes an increasing and impervious 'truth factor'.

It's very important plasmas and quantum induction are properly understood at last and old assumptions are expunged as plasma coupling holds a lot of answers about underlying physical mechanisms.

Peter

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 00:04 GMT
Rob,Peter,

I knew I was tossing a bit of a grenade with the plasma comment, given these filaments were predicted by the plasma cosmologists some decades ago, (the obit of Arp, linked above, had a picture with his hand on a plasma globe)but what I found more interesting and would like some feedback on, was the link prior to that. It sounded quite interesting, even if posted on the Graham Hancock site. So I was hoping to get some professional opinion.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 05:50 GMT
John,

"That's a good description, but is it an explanation of how gravity is actually doing the pulling?"

No, of course not. It's a bitter pill for almost all physicists to swallow, but, as far as "information" is concerned, ALL of science is merely descriptive. Theories are merely sophisticated information compression algorithms. They enable long sequences of raw measurements to be symbolized with shorter sequences of mathematical symbols. But any "interpretation" of the theory is nothing more than metaphysical speculation; the only thing that can be either verified or falsified is that the decompressed math symbols either do, or do not, accurately match the original raw measurements.

Science cannot "know" either what it means or why it works. You can guess, you can speculate, you can intuit, you can consult oracles, but you cannot KNOW, at least not via science.

The reason is simple: bad "interpretations" of good theories (ones that accurately fit the data) have no effect upon whether or not the theory is "good", any more than a good "interpretation" does. There is simply no fool-proof way to test interpretations. Occam's Razor provides one criteria for testing, but it is not guaranteed to work every time, or even most of the time.

As a simple example, suppose you had two theories about what was happening inside a black box:

1) X= a*(b+c), i.e., the box contains one multiplier and one adder.

2) X = a*b + a*c, i.e., the box contains two multipliers and one adder.

Since the two theories produce identical results, observations of the box's inputs and outputs cannot distinguish between them. But even if you could open the box to see what is inside, there are several different ways that multipliers and adders can be implemented, that all yield the same result.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:12 GMT
Rob,

One of the points I keep making is that information is necessarily static. Dynamic information would be an oxymoron, since it would be changing. Reality is necessarily dynamic. So information is descriptive, but if I'm looking for cause, it is a simple matter of the energy input. Such as if I want to explain how waves can form on still water, I refer to the air across the surface, because that gives the energy input, the basic cause. I don't need to go back to some theoretical starting point of the universe, or refer to all the complex molecular interactions. They can be just assumed. So the cause for gravity isn't some mathematical model that reduces time to a static dimension, because that reduces the the actual physical dynamic to a mere measure. So the issue is what is the source of energy to create the effect of gravity and how does it fit into the larger cycle. By that, I mean we see radiation expand and mass contract, so the logical assumption is some form of convective cycle, since the overall effect is flat, ie. they balance out. I have previously, simply been observing that releasing energy from mass creates pressure, so the opposite, energy coalescing into mass, would be a vacuum. Yet obviously the mechanics need explanation and further description.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 15:32 GMT
John,

My point is that it cannot be that "it is a simple matter of the energy"

In the example I gave, the number of "things" being symbolized differs. Consequently, if these "things" have energy, then the mathematical relations, that yield identical observational results about the behavior of that energy, nevertheless imply very different amounts of energy (two vs. one multipliers), "light", "dark", or otherwise. So the amount of that energy cannot be learned from observations of its behavior.

"They can be just assumed" Of course they can. They are. That is the problem.

You assumed that "I refer to the air across the surface, because that gives the energy input, the basic cause." But I assumed that the waves were caused by a rock thrown into the water. There is no "basic cause". There are just assumptions about a basic cause.

"energy coalescing into mass, would be a vacuum" No, it would be mass. Pressure is not the opposite of vacuum. High-pressure is merely the opposite of low-pressure.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 17:02 GMT
Rob,

I realize it becomes complex very quickly. Think calculating three body systems.

Yes, the waves can be created by any number of causes, but not by what amount to measurements/descriptions. As the old children's taunt goes, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This goes to my argument that blocktime eliminates the dynamic process in favor of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 21:05 GMT
Another

"(Phys.org) —An international team of astronomers have discovered the most distant examples of galaxies that were already mature and massive – not just young, star-forming galaxies in the nursery-room of the early Universe but also old, 'retired' ones – 'granny galaxies'."

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 01:10 GMT
Another small crack in the shell:

With computers, the researchers simulated mock observations of thousands of Milky Ways using the same data as the three previous papers. They found just one of a few thousand simulations matched what astronomers actually observe around the Milky Way.

"But we also have Andromeda," Pawlowski said. "The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000."

When the researchers corrected for flaws they say they found in the three studies, they could not reproduce the findings made in the respective papers.

"The standard model contains various putative ingredients— such as dark matter and dark energy —which were introduced because the model wasn't consistent with observations," said Benoit Famaey, a senior research associate at the University of Strasbourg in France, and co-author of the study.

Famaey and the other authors are among a small but growing number of astrophysicists who find the standard model fails to replicate what's observed and therefore they seek alternatives.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-universe-dwarf-galaxies-dont-st
andard.html#jCp

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 10:21 GMT
Another mystery.

"Everywhere we looked we saw this strangely coherent coordinated motion of dwarf galaxies. From this we can extrapolate that these circular planes of dancing dwarfs are universal, seen in about 50 percent of galaxies," said Professor Geraint Lewis.

"This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-mysterious-dwarfs-cosmic-rethin
k.html#jCp

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 11:25 GMT
John,

That's as predicted by the 'kinetic decoupling' model in the preprint here. www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_
WITH_BARS
.

I just flagged it up on the 'Quantum...' blog. along with another anomalous finding this week which the cyclic model predicted; Large (Hubble 'early type') galaxies ETG's) in the early universe. They've been coming thick and fast.

If you revert to my 2011 '2020 Vision' and the Fig of the HH34 jet heads you'll see how the dwarf sattelites arise. The 'quasar era/peak' evidence suggests the recycling has changed the axis approx 5 times now, at slowing rates.

Unfortunately such 'big picture' papers and non academia authors can't get published in the main journals.

Best wishes,

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 13:29 GMT
I get a kick out of these sorts of discoveries...dark matter is a patch for galaxy motion, dark energy a patch for the cosmos, now we just need a grey matter patch to fix the in betweeners.

Look, cold dark matter makes very little sense as a theory in the first place, and then to have contradictory information from dwarf galaxies should really not be too surprising. On top of everything, the fact that science does not yet have a quantum gravity is enough to explain lots of odd things. Why not just blame all of this loose gravity on as yet undetermined quantum exchange forces and leave it at that for the time being?

report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 09:56 GMT
John

Thanks for the link.

The Scalar Theory of Everything suggests Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift also New Astronomy, Volume 11, Issue 5, March 2006, Pages 344-358]

Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics]

Photon diffraction and interference] proposes changes frequency as it travels through space – a type of tired light model. It better correlates with Cepheid distances than Doppler redshift.

I’m still working on the interference of single photon.

I plan to look at QSRs following Arp’s model of where they are using the tired light model (redshift higher near spiral galaxies).

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate



Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.