Cosmological Deja Vu:The Second Copernican Revolution by Donald Clayton Wilson

Don,

You have had the opportunity to observe numerous approaches to "impugning" a subject, which ones work and which are counterproductive.

"A lengthy historical analysis shows that this crisis is the result of an erroneous interpretation of astronomical observations made exactly one century ago."

The "dark energy" crisis fits well within Georgina Parry's essay 1316, where she used the term "incomplete information", how this has resulted in some of the contemporary assumptions. If the scientific community or "scientific authority structure" (a Kuhn term) then decides an assumption is fixed in stone, everyone is required to use it without question.

There is another issue that has stagnated scientific progress for over 70 years, but one cannot challenge the views of a scientific "prophet" without retribution, thus it is better to "impugn" secondary issues.

I challenged a "cast in stone" assumption in my essay, 1294, and I quoted Kuhn when I presented an example of a contemporary paradigm change.

Very people are aware that the transverse electromagnetic field structure was the only structure known to Einstein when he developed his theories. Does this make a difference? Yes, Einstein had "incomplete information."

Hello Don!

I greatly enjoyed a quick read through of your paper, which I try to do for all the papers before I start reading for details and content. Your paper was a lot of fun to read, and I hope you do well in the contest.

You may remember me from CCC2 in Port Angeles, and I actually mention that conference in my essay Cherished Assumptions and Progress in Physics. You will find Avtar Singh also has an essay entered.

You make a good case for how widespread the current problem is, Don, and also that it will be seen by history that the 2nd Copernican Revolution already happened - or is solidly underway. Fun times for Physics are ahead.

Regards,

Jonathan

Don,

Dark energy and dark matter are popular terms in the papers published in arXiv. A recently published paper solves the problem of gravitation without stepping on curved space-time or using the terms electromagnetic or Coulomb anywhere in the paper.

unified theory of dark matter, dark energy

Gravitational Field Equations and Theory of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

"The negative part of 'epsilon' represents the dark matter, which produces attraction, and the positive part represents the dark energy, which drives the acceleration of expanding galaxies."

The final sentence in the report states: "Consequently, when there is no normal matter present (with T = 0), the curvature R of space-time is balanced by R = 'Phi'. Therefore, there is no real vacuum in the universe."

There is definitely too much consumption of dark energy and dark matter going on.

Dear Donald,

I agree with you that < The Basic Physical Assumption that the observed galactic redshifts are to be interpreted as receding velocities is Wrong.> I supposed the dark matter is due to nuons which are similar to white dwarfs by their properties but have such mass as nucleons. More about it in the Essay and in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles.Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Don,

I was looking for something else when I ran across an article titled, "On not being the first to discover no galactic dark matter"

No galactic dark matter

The article has numerous linked references. The last sentence, "Vast, distributed-mass galaxies should not be required to rotate like sparse planetary systems."

Don

Great analysis. Do you think the 'Incommensurability Gap' can really be filled with all so swamped with information and clinging on to their own beleifs?

I would like to point you to one new and quite brilliant way ahead, which your investigative skills should expose and assess. unusually this is not my own essay! It is Peter Jacksons's, who find a new underlying mechanism explaining classical physics from QM. OK, I do identify a consistent part of his ontology, a real 'boundary mechanism' found by the Cluster probes, equivalent to the LT between the ECI and Barycentric frames, which Peter generalises.

Blindness caused by old beleifs seems to be preventing most physicists following the dynamic mechanism. I think you may do so, We both need votes! I'm giving you a deserved top score, and expect Peter would agree. Please do comment on both and expose any suspected 'fraud' or ask questions.

Thanks, and very best of luck.

Rich

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Donald Wilson,

In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present as if the big bang and expanding galaxies were an established fact. But actually there is no evidence that the we are at the center of the Universe and the galaxies are all moving away from us other than the assumption that the cosmological red shift is a Doppler shift. There is a discussion of other possible causes of the red shift in http://charles_w.tripod.com/red.html . My own view is that the red shift is due to an interaction of the photons with masses passed in space. If light actually is degraded by the ether itself, It should prove impossible to establish the cause by experiment, because the affect would be so tiny.

Astronomers speak of a "young Universe". It was, of course, younger than it is now when distant stars shone. However, there is no chance at all that the Universe was as young as astronomers say when the light from those distant stars was created even if the big bang hypothesis were valid. It took the light over 13 billion years to arrive here, so it is obvious that the atoms emitting it took well over 13 billion years to get out there even given a big bang. It does not make any difference if the atoms traveled out there from a spot near here or the ether is expanding, well over 13 billion years would have had to go by, so by now the Universe could be over 30 billion years old even in the unlikely event that there was a big bang.

You may also find interesting a hypothesis that the characteristics of quasars arise because of refractive lensing by gases near a huge mass inside the quasar of the light from an opposite jet in http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html .

Sincerely, Charles Weber