Why Quantum?

pjackson

Akinbo,

That's momentum, AND inertia. It's ONLY rationalised by the hierarchy of spin. Imagine a gyroscope flywheel made up of billions of tiny gyroscopes. Let's say if the big gyroscope is spinning but held rigidly and in rectilinear motion (in rest frame K), it's very happy "spinning but at rest" in it's own centre-of-mass frame.

Now apply a force perpendicular to it's linear motion. It will NOT want to change it's vector! The spin gives it mass. Spin IS mass! (current exchange rate E=mc^2).

Now reconsider the moon as made up of billions of tiny gyroscopes per mm^3. At any instant it's very happy on it's tangential vector and left alone will continue in that inertial state K. BUT that damned annoying centrepetal force keeps trying to accelerate it laterally!! It's inertia ('momentum') is then what is balancing the gravity.

When one gets bigger than the other, as one day one surely will, it will either crash down or fly off.

Finally, that relative 'momentum' is a direct function of relative speed right? At epigee the relative speed is far higher. Does that now become intuitive? It should do unless you're hanging on to some false assumption or other.

The spin relation works hierarchically at all scales, and explains why the polystyrene car is easier for you to push than the lead car. You'd think that as gravity is pulling the lead car down far more, that it may be accelerated more when let go! It only isn't because it has more spinning particles not interested in getting out of their rest frame inertia).

That works all the way up. Including with the Earth round the sun, the sun round the AGN, etc.

Peter

Steve Agnew

Oh my goodness...what wicked webs we weave...

I am pleased that you have an alternative to black holes. However, I am disappointed that you pull out another rabbit out of the hat with AGN's. Is there now way to navigate inside of a black hole? An AGN is a supermassive black hole by commone understanding and so why bring it up at all.

Either quantum action works inside of a black hole and we get a sensible universe or it does not and we continue with the silly chaos of Hawkings radiation...

Akinbo Ojo

Peter J,

Your reply is innovative but I doubt if it works. It contains a number of improvised mechanisms, such as "The spin gives it mass. Spin IS mass!" What you imply is that the origin of mass is spin. There are things that don't spin yet have mass. Moreover spin requires a third party to agree that you are spinning, making it relative. But mass is a scalar quantity.

"Now reconsider the moon as made up of billions of tiny gyroscopes... BUT that damned annoying centripetal force keeps trying to accelerate it laterally (inwards)!! It's inertia ('momentum') is then what is balancing the gravity".

Again, innovative but faulty. What we see in orbits is acceleration alternating with deceleration to gravity. We can attribute the acceleration to gravity, but mass or inertia by themselves cannot cause a deceleration without the intervention of some force. Momentum cannot change just because a body has mass without a force acting. That much Newton's second law tells us. Momentum is not the origin of force. The moon will happily maintain its momentum in the direction of gravity, if no other force acts on it, but it is not seen to maintain this momentum and momentum is a vector and so has direction.

As a body falls in the direction of a force, its relative speed gets higher as is observed when objects fall under gravity. The question is why the change of direction? Why not continue increasing in speed till the satellite (moon) crashes into earth? Something ghostly prevents this from happening.

On the energy balance sheet, your explanation too appears deficient. When gravitational potential is lost, TOTAL energy account of the two-body system enters deficit (see my earlier formulae for P.E. and K.E. posted on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 12:12 GMT). For satellites, it is said the lost energy radiates away as heat. How is this replenished in the earth-moon and sun-earth system to enable the orbiter regain exactly its previous height in the gravitational field?

To put things simply without hiding behind obscure mechanisms, the pendulum analogy helps. When the bob swings downwards under gravitational influence, it gathers 'momentum', it has inertia but these are not what makes it defy gravity at its lowest point. What balances gravity and makes the bob defy gravity is the Tension in the string (a force). Cut the string and the bob with all its inertia, momentum and its 'far higher relative speed' will crash to the floor.

To however give some favorable response. Let us assume your mechanism "It's inertia ('momentum') is then what is balancing the gravity" is faultless, (which it is not), then in atomic orbits since the electron has mass (inertia, 'momentum') then that is also what is balancing the electromagnetic attraction force and that is what prevents atomic collapse, thus no need for Quantum mechanics to improvise stationary waves and probability clouds to explain atomic stability.

Regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Steve,

Suggesting AGN's are rabbits from hats to astronomers is like suggesting haemoglobin is an invention by doctors to confuse 'blood'. I deal with observational findings not ancient theory. A quasar jet outflow is also analogous to 'Hawking radiation'. We find the same dynamics at stellar scale in the crab nebula so called 'neutron star'.

The only 'wicked web' is current nonsensical theory. All evidence is simply rationalised, but not using old doctrine. Golden rule; just as something's unfamiliar doesn't make it wrong, and vice versa. And of course particles 'navigate' in an AGN; helically around the torus body right up to the 'z-pinch' (another real mechanism).

One more characteristic of a helix is that when rotated one way the apparent 'phase velocity' of a helical form rotating as it also bodily 'passes by' an observer is different to that when rotated the 'other' way. That means that if 'charge' (+1/-1) relates to direction of rotation there will be a natural energy disparity measured. Now if that's correct we'd first need to find some kind of anomalous 'parity violation' between charges to apply it to. Hmmm.

I don't understand your comment on 'quantum action'. The process is one of re-ionization, at very high 'temperatures'. I suspect you may need to escape many layers of nonsense patches clear the way to coherent understanding. The reason the model remains unpublished is because most prefer to cling on to old assumptions.

Akinbo,

There is no 'improvisation'. You consistently take a disappointingly 'Akinbo centric' approach to the universe. If you haven't come across something personally before you automatically assume it's it's 'superfluous', 'improvised' or 'invented'. That's not how discovering new and unfamiliar things works! Life is a ALL about learning.

It works just fine. And matches the evidence far more consistently than any other theory! Think harder and afresh. All particles have spin. You won't then be able to name ANY physical entity that does not contain spin! What third party do you need to ask if an electron is spinning?

You don't seem to have grasped the concept of hierarchy. Think of a ships rope; each strand is twisted, so is each group of strands, on and on through many levels of DIFFERENT twists. In the end we can wrap the rope around a spar, and spin the spar on a planet. What is 'faulty' is the constrained way you're thinking. You must open your mind to a new way of thinking to understand. Are you able? Perhaps read Wittgenstein, or de Bono.

You state blandly; "..which it's not" but identify no flaw just trot out old mythical confusions which you seem to prefer. Do I have to give up on you?

best wishes

Peter

Steve Agnew

The rabbit you pulled was dodging the black hole with an AGN, which of course is a black hole. You claim that DFM is consistent with GR, but then do not say what happens to the odd singularities that occur with gravity force.

If you have the states inside of an AGN, then you have the partition function and can calculate the entropy and free energy. What is the entropy of a black hole or AGN by DFM?

pjackson

Steve,

There are no singularities. Entropy is also shown to be a misnomer. You need to rip off a few more layers of patches and look at what's underlying them. It's simple to rationalise once you clear the rubbish and can see it. I try never to 'dodge', just better describe from more coherent basics.

First singularities; Take any body, big or small. Lets' consider Earth, and Lagrangian points. Will you be crushed by gravity in a void at the centre of Earth? No. You'll feel none. The map of the gravitational potential of all spheroids bodies is TOROIDAL.!! The potential returns to zero. It's also true of MULTIPLE bodies. In astronomy we've position probes at Lagrangian points L1 and L2 which are two of 5 zero potential points in the Earth/Sun/Moon system. The concept of singularities is an archaic stupidity we need to clear away.

Now 'Entropy'. The same applies. We've taken a local 'snapshot' in time and assumed it represents evolution. The universe is dynamic and cosmology is cyclic and eternal. As the evidence in the paper on cyclic evolution shows; the whole concept of entropy is a short sighted stupidity. When an AGN re-ionizes the particles that made a mug, not only is it making then immediately MORE organised as part of a whole by breaking them down to the "self organised" helical flow, but once ejected and incorporated into the new galaxy they may turn into something far more complex than a mug! Rip away that patch which includes 'partition functions', 'entropy' 'free energy' etc. and we get closer.

It's all there, set out clearly in the essays and papers. But you won't understand without looking. Each essay was a top 10 finalist only because those who read them glimpsed the clear truths and answers to at least some degree. I show for instance that the galaxy mass growth since high z is NOT all from 'collisions' as assumed. Each recycling (quasar) mechanism increases conjugate pair production so also total mass, scale and OAM. But from the dark energy condensate 'pool' which is presently still over 80% of the mass/energy of the universe, not from 'nothing'. (no issues of 'aether' arise).

I've always read at least 20 papers a week and 'top'n tailed' far more. But I study findings not interpretations. I think we need to do at least that for adequate data points to make out the big picture.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Eckard,

I've tracked down what it was that sent Caroline 'off track' before she could reach and expose the answer. On page 9 of "The Chaotic Ball..." she passes over the correctly identified experimental finding of +/- redistribution due to settings as an assumption which "cannot be justified".

But that wasn't the point. She correctly pointed out the difficulty of proof, but didn't analyse the consequences any better than Rarity and Tapster (1990) who cited it, or it seems their cited authority Grangier, Potasek and Yurke (1988) who looked at phase coherence.

I don't blame her at all in the circumstances. I arrived from a different direction with a predictive hypothesis that already pointed that way. Her work is none the less brilliant deconstruction of many of the less brilliant defences built around the silliest assumptions surrounding QM.

It seems only 'unfamiliarity' now stands in the way of understanding nature. Is the problem then that familiarity is the foundation of most 'physics'?

Best wishes

Peter

Steve Agnew

What perplexes me is not why this blog folds its posts into very obnoxious ways, what perplexes me is why DFM has no entropy. If DFM works, then count the fricking states and tell me what that logarithm is, multply it by Boltzmann constant and be done.

So I guess you do not like the word entropy, but I hope that at least states exist, nicht weil?

It is no wonder that people somehow believe that something is wrong with our understanding of reality. I am one of those. But then to throw the baby out with the bath water seems rather silly.

Quantum action is the most successful model of the universe. Gravity action, a la GR, has been somewhat successful, but there have been lots of problems with GR. So, people get pissed off at quantum action when in fact the problem is with gravity action. The way out of this mess is with quantum gravity...give me quantum gravity and all will be what will be.

Akinbo Ojo

Peter J,

Do I have to give up on you?

Perhaps, not until you answer these four questions:

1. Do we see acceleration and deceleration to gravity in orbits?

2. Can a body accelerate or decelerate without a force acting on it?

3. Put another way can a body increase or decrease in speed without the action of force?

4. Can the same force that causes acceleration of a body be the same one that causes its deceleration?

Be straight to the point without much 'Peter-centric' mechanisms. Better still, a Yes/No answer before any elaboration.

Regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Akinbo,

1. Yes. An orbiting body experiences a lateral 'force', which can strictly be termed an 'acceleration'. Otherwise it would continue on it's tangential vector.

2. No. I don't really like the word 'force' as it's poorly defined, but it'll do. 'Deceleration' is strictly an 'acceleration', which is a change of rest frame.

3. Yes. Because that's a different question. 'Speed' is poorly understood and applied as it's only ever a 'relative' concept, and also requires 'time'. If a shuttle astronaut in some rest frame calculates the 'speed' of a passing asteroid he's being self centric and parochial if he does so wrt himself. He may accelerate then cruise in another rest frame, in which case the asteroids 'speed' has changed - with no force applied! He may also change it's 'speed' by choosing some other datum, Earth, some nearby planet, the sun, the centre of the galaxy? ALL give different 'speeds'. That realisation is FAR more important than we realise and not using it causes much confusion.

4. Yes. Same 'poor thinking' problem! Scientifically there is no such thing as 'deceleration'. As far as the asteroid is concerned it's entirely at rest. What speed any nearby planets and shuttles with to do is entirely up to them. ANY 'force' applied then causes an equal and opposite 'acceleration'.

You also need to improve your concept of the gyroscopic 'spin' motion which is the building block of what we call 'condensed matter', the hierarchical 'fractal' dimensions it lives in, and the implications. I described them but you were stuck in the simplistic view.

Only once that entirely different way of thinking is entirely assimilated and consistently applied will the path to reality start to become visible. Only then can we introduce the local 'background' rest frame which always exists despite the paradoxical insistence of the one wrong assumption in SR. Those are also ento irely hierarchical (only the LOCAL one is valid for 'propagation' speed). 'Relative' speeds are unconstrained, as intuition suggests. Only then can concepts such as 'deceleration' be reconstructed with a very different and consistent logic.

Don't 'dismiss' any of the above as each part of the code is required to unlock rationalism.

Steve,

Entropy isn't. It cycles eternally. All the time you refuse to read the papers you'll be stuck with the same old vista and never see the simple consistent logic and evidence. The 'babies' are Einstein's postulates, QM's 'absolute' rate of time and OAM as 'quanta'. They are conserved along with the maths. The rest is dirty water and the fog you must allow to lift.

Steve Agnew

I have read all of those papers and I can't even count the number that I read every week. So there! Thank-you for the reference to the stringy guy at Princeton, Nima Arkani-Hamed. That helps me understand the rather obscure approach that you have to quantum action.

Stringy theory is one of those kind of things that I find very distressing. Stringy theory includes hidden dimensions and hidden variables and you can explain anything...I accept stringy theory as true without argument since the universe is the way that it is and stringy theory affirms that. I dispute whether stringy theory results in any improved prediction of action.

Once again, a large number of scientists have found a way to say that the universe is the way it is in a really complicated way so that it seems really cool.

Is the math cool?

Yes.

Is it useful?

Not for predictions of action.

Without useful predictions of action, a theory is simply not useful for the guys in the trenches. Lots of math is really cool even though it does not help us predict things. When you ask why the universe is the way it is, the answer is simply not useful because the question has no answer. What is useful is to recognize the limits to our knowledge and then predict action from those principles.

Entropy is a number...related to the number of states of a system. If you can't count states, you do not have a useful theory and you do not have an entropy. Quantum action is very useful for predictions of action. Current gravity action is useful in some scales and clearly wrong in other scales.

Jonathan Dickau

Yes Steve,

String theory has not lived up to its promise, and where it has seen progress is mainly in combination with other ideas such as twistors. Thankfully that combination is one of the several areas Arkani Hamed is researching. He seems to be well able to use stringy concepts, without becoming immured of the entire idiom. There is nothing wrong with adding dimensions, or assuming that higher dimensions exist, so long as they are dealt with correctly and there is a physical rationale behind using them. But when correctly used, proving anything you like is NOT possible thereby.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Akinbo Ojo

Peter J,

Thank you for your frankness in answering the questions. With little differences we have the same answer for 1) and 2). I am thinking 'Newtonically'. The little difference in 1) requires clarifying which side is lateral force acting, is it outwards or inwards towards the centre of the orbit? Newton says inwards and gives this force, F = mv2/r = mrω2. His formula works well in engineering, etc. In 2), Yes deceleration is an acceleration depends on which direction. For example friction though viewed as a deceleration is an acceleration in the direction opposite to the direction your car is moving.

On 3) and 4), we have a problem. You have abandoned Newton here, but perhaps rightly so from the DFM perspective. Let's look at your answers. According to Newton's second law, a body cannot increase or decrease in speed without the action of a force. Rather it will continue with uniform motion, which means constant speed. I agree there may be difficulties here depending on the observer's own frame. So your insight is helpful. Einstein had similar insight hence his Equivalence principle, i.e. strictly speaking acceleration or deceleration depends on the observer's reference frame, hence not absolute. This I think led Newton to contemplate an Absolute reference frame for motion, on which there is yet to be agreement in physics. Newton was very much worried by this and this was the basis of the long argument between him on the one hand and Leibniz and Mach on the other. Newton formulated several thought and real experiments (bucket, globe, etc) to prove his viewpoint and the absurdity of saying ALL motion was relative, and there was no absolute way of differentiating 'stationary' from 'moving'.

Note however the viewpoint that the Cosmic Microwave Background now appears to provide just such a reference by which ALL other motion can NOW be judged and thus seems to vindicate the Galileo-Newton view against the Leibniz-Mach position. Using THIS frame, there will be no more argument who is moving and who is stationary relative to the other.

So when you say, "What speed any nearby planets and shuttles with to do is entirely up to them", in the frame of CMBR, it is no longer up to them. That may be Old School talk. Shakira and Beyonce are thinking differently! It is what the CMBR says that you can now use to judge if you are moving or stationary, and at what speed if you are moving. For example, the CMBR says earth is moving at about 380km/s through space. Can you cast a stone against that?

Best regards and many thanks for sharing your view (even if more Leibniz-Machian in my opinion).

Akinbo

*This has taken us away from Why Quantum, but for good reason. That same ghost , DFM mechanism or any other proposal preventing gravitational orbits from collapsing, may for economy be similarly at work in Quantum orbits. I will leave the gyroscopic aspect for now. Let us judge first what we can see. Before imagining what we cannot see.

pjackson

Akinbo;

The 'force' acts 'inwards', as Newtons. 'Self centric' thinking still pervades all science. We've escaped it a little, in baby steps, but all the time you reject the hierarchical / fractal view of nature you'll be locked in to it, and nature will confound.

3 and 4 need escape from those 'self centric', 'earth centric', barycentric' or even 'galactocentric' viewpoints to rationalise.

Perhaps start from the premise that for understanding nature WE are not important, nor is Earth, nor our sun. There are countless barycentric systems out there, all in relative motion all equivalent, as SR says. Light speed is c locally to all, so is found 'different' if all 'viewed' from one distant rest frame.

Think hard about that. The only logic then is that any valid concept 'speed' is only valid if using the LOCAL background frame as the datum. A car driving at 40mph on Siruis 5 is then NOT doing the 7,340mph we find (a self centric view) but is doing 40mph. Sirius 5 is doing 7,300mph wrt YOU! However it may only be doing 2,000mph wrt it's own local background frame.

ALL speeds are then relative. We stupidly assume we don't have to specify a datum frame for 0. We always must. Only then does it all make sense.

"the CMBR says earth is moving at about 380km/s through space. Can you cast a stone against that?"

It does NOT say that Akinbo! You added the "through space" using a self centric assumption of 'all space'! Read the actual Scott & Smoot (2004 Nobel) analysis.

Earth has a known orbital speed wrt the heliosphere, which has a known speed through the local group, which has a known speed through the cluster, which has a known speed through the supercluster, which has a known speed around the local filament, which has a known speed wrt the 'Hubble Flow'. (Yet even having found and calculated those speeds, now largely confirmed, Smoot couldn't rationalise the pattern without invoking ether and suggesting 'differential expansions'!! It's far simpler.

The fish swims at 3 knots in the river whatever speed it's flowing. It wonders at the intelligence of humans on the bank who insist it's swimming at 6! Wouldn't you?

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Akinbo,

An insight emerges from Campbell (Camb Univ. Press 2nd ed., 1913; p.388. 'Modern Electrical Theory'). Quoted by Cambridge Prof. Harold Aspden in his book "Physics Unified" on free view in this link just passed to me. . Aspden "Physics Unified. Ch.3. p54-76. Aspdens anaylsis was brilliant and he was really only 3 steps short of the holy grail (extinction distances, the fully hierarchical mechanism, and aberration).

Campbell;

"This is the simple way out of the difficulties raised by the MM experiment. If from the beginning we had used a plural instead of singular word to denote the system in which radiant energy is localised ... those difficulties would never have appeared. There has never been a better example of the danger of being deceived by the arbitrary choice of terminology. However Physicists, not recognising the gratuitous assumption made in the use of the words 'the Aether', adopted the second alternative, they introduced new assumptions."

Peter

pjackson

Steve,

I agree entirely about stringy stuff. Watching Hamed's Messenger Lectures it doesn't even appear as an old string to his guitar.

You seem irrevocably set on the 'entropy' view of nature. That's fair given the approach discussed here. But if you'd understood the papers you looked at you'd see the argument that 'infinite' states exist. You'd also see the well developed argument, in the very well supported 'It from Bit' essay, that entropy being a 'number' further constrains it as a valid concept in describing nature. Do comment on the "Law of the reducing Middle" postulated there if you disagree with it. Only one queried it in the long string of discussions.

The predictions and usefulness of the discrete field ontology is unprecedented. You suggest;

"When you ask why the universe is the way it is, the answer is simply not useful because the question has no answer." Yet if you'd read the Cyclic Galactic Evolution and Cosmology preprint you'd see that isn't true. Not only IS there now a consistent candidate but it's a very 'useful' one for decoding galaxy morphologies and astronomical anomalies.

Astonishingly all the a large scale CMB anisotropies naturally emerge. Some of the most recent findings predicted by the mechanism include;

Space Telescope Science Institute

Velocity anti-correlation of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites in the low-redshift Universe

The effect of fluctuations on the helium-ionizing background

So if there's one thing that discrete field dynamics seems to do consistently it's resolve anomalies. (It also explains how cups are made from many condensed particles). But it's still under test. If you can think of any throw them at it and we'll see what it says!

Best wishes

Peter

PS; One thing It predicts is that ALL information eventually re-emerges from so called 'black holes', whether decodable or not. I've just seen that Hamed agrees.

Steve Agnew

You seem irrevocably set on the word entopy. Forget entropy. Count the states and tell me the answer! Why is this so hard? Entropy is a word the represents the logarithm of a number of states. It is the states that are important, not the word.

Just tell me how DFM helps me to get across the street without getting killed by some black hole-driver. All of these platitudes about things that are very well known are very confusing. A useful theory tells me how to predict something that I do not already know.

Akinbo Ojo

Peter J,

Thanks for your reply.

"3 and 4 need escape from those 'self centric', 'earth centric', barycentric' or even 'galactocentric' viewpoints to rationalize".

I understand what you say and I agree WE are not important. However there is now a 'CMB centric' viewpoint to consider. Newton would be a happy man now in his grave. To agree and show our unimportance as you point out, the CMB is not isotropic in our frame.

"ALL speeds are then relative".

To an extent yes. It depends how high you want to go on your hierarchical ladder. At the top now sits the crown of CMB which physically depicts Absolute Space reference frame.

"Read the actual Scott & Smoot (2004 Nobel) analysis"

Thanks for giving me that assignment for my morning coffee. Don't know the link but I found this from one of the Scott & Smoot papers:

"The LARGEST anisotropy (read as the dynamical crown) is in the = 1 (dipole) first spherical harmonic,... The dipole is interpreted to be the result of the Doppler shift caused by the solar system motion relative to the nearly isotropic blackbody field, as confirmed by measurements of the velocity field of local galaxies...

At every point in the sky, the spectrum is essentially blackbody, but the spectrum of the dipole is the differential of a blackbody spectrum, as confirmed by Ref.[8].

The implied velocity [9] for the solar system barycenter is v = 368 ± 2 km s-1,... Such a solar system velocity implies a velocity for the Galaxy and the Local Group of galaxies relative to the CMB.

The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the `absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Our velocity relative to the Local Group, as well as the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, and any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth, is normally removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy study"

So more homework for DFM on 3) and 4).

Regards,

Akinbo

[deleted]

Steve,

"..cross the street without getting killed by some black hole-driver."

Hmmm. Yes, Surprisingly I think the model can actually do that. All the time you're in the disc (or toroidal) orbital plane you need to stand back and wait.

But the moment you're anywhere near either spin axis projection, go for it. You should even get a bit of a 'push' to help keep you out of the accretion flow.

In other words it suggests an anisotropic spherical gravitational distribution which resolves a number of anomalies. Our kinetic resolving power has recently massively increased and our findings are now what current theory predicts. The gravity (accretion distribution) of an AGN (black hole/neutron star in old money) does not appear to be spherically symmetrical. There are variable but strong and seemingly ubiquitous outflows and 'feedback' (poorly understood). These may of may not be separate kinetic effects but either way they completely overwhelm any other 'gravitational' effects in the disk OR jets (thousands of LtYrs long).

Take a look on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope site, at the centre of the Crab Nebula (Stellar scale and outflows still at low power - but giving GRB's), at Centaurus A and M87 (Our nearest active Galaxies at that stage) and at Saggitarious A, our own AGN, accreting from the presently limited radius disc and still spitting stars back out whole (14+ hypervelocity stars on the axis recently).

If you tried to cross the accretion disc when at full power you'd be spun round helically for a bit on max spin cycle (and heat) and spat out as free protons. That's not just 'theory', it's coherent assembly of a massive body of detailed evidence.

It's only the result of one practical falsification of the fundamental dynamic. another says that is a car's max speed is 100mph (call it 'c') if you're riding towards it at v on a bike your closing speed CAN be c+v, but the moment you interact your maximum speed will be modulated to the same as the car = LOCAL c.

(But don't try that at home!)

Peter

pjackson

Akinbo,

Smoot shows the cosmological model LESS well supported by the evidence, and identified a wide range of anomalies still to be resolved. He also knew ONE measurement would get just ONE finding and didn't imply greater isotropy. Indeed true of ALL constants, remembering that as we look 'out' we're looking back in time; "many of the cosmological parameters change with cosmic epoch, and so the measured values are simply the ones determined today,". To be clear, that means there is not necessarily just ONE CMB dipole, (rest frame) the same everywhere, as the 'flow' maps of the universe now show us. i.e; Dynamic Cosmic Cartography.

The only 'ultimate' one is that of the so called 'great attractor' (Centaurus) which has NO direct relation to the 'axis of evil' flow towards it or any of the CMB rest frames around it or near us. We always have to pick ONE background frame as a reference. That NEVER also implies it's the 'absolute' one. We don't have that power! So even LESS self centric thinking needed!

He identified Planck as an important expose of more. He was right. Around 5 major large scale anisotropies remained unexplained. Some simplified here; Planck announcement -significant discrepancies' etc. What the DFM does is derive a model which explains and 'predicts' ALL of them! i.e. each of the peculiar anisotropies a emerges exactly from the fractal 'quasar recycling' dynamics described in the HJ paper (do please look for any that aren't - but your time may be wasted!).

The evidence is overwhelming, but I can't keep spending time doing your incomplete homework and correcting your false assumptions Akinbo. Do please challenge, but 'assumptions' are normally wrong!

Best wishes

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »