Why Quantum?

I understand much better now about the aether of your discrete field model. So the DFM must have a good solution for constant galaxy rotation without dark matter, right?

Also, you have left time out of your DFM definitions. And you imply that all action is now quantum action. So gravity is just a scaling factor of some sort from charge force? Is there some kind of simple description that ties gravity and charge force together?

Steve,

Galaxy halo's are constituted by the outflow matter, which is initially 'pure plasma' or free electrons/positrons protons (some slowly evolving to CO and molecular gas).

Plasma is largely ignored by theorists but it has interesting qualities. The most important one is it's refractive index is ~n=1. That means it's 'EM profile' is almost entirely non-existent, or rather it's the same as the 'QV', so is entirely 'dark' spectroscopically. It DOES however have mass, so normal gravitational potential. It also has a high EM 'coupling constant' (which we struggle to distinguish from n). It COUPLES with (absorbs and re-emits) EM, but does NOT slow it down or change it's wavelength (but the kinetic implications are important when it's 'moving'!)

We've also been finding it exists in far higher densities than has been assumed, though 2 and 2 haven't yet been put together as all are guessing about exotic 'dark matter' particles. So yes, the model suggests such exotic particles don't exist and are not required as the distribution is exactly as we'd expect.

I don't actually invoke 'aether' by the way as the function of the "condensate/ dark energy/ QV/ quintessence/ Higgs field/'new' (Dirac) ether" or whatever is different. It condenses the particles (conjugate vortices) to do the job (with the protons) of modulating light speed to LOCAL c exactly where it's needed, by compression at the field 'domain boundaries'. The energy depletion surrounding the focussed vortex particle is a bit like the surface tension on gravy around peas. That needs a name as well, so we could call it say 'gravity'? It goes to (just below) zero when two vortices cancel out (annihilate) when they reach the Debye length.

I don't really know what 'charge' or 'force' are, but the vortex size, complexity and spin speed certainly dictate the energy density distribution around it. The long range sharper 'cut off' being found seems to better match the Yukawa potential profile than a simple inverse square law. I suspect we may find a good rough scale model in cyclones and anticyclones on Earth.

I don't really know what the time is either, except that it's doesn't have properties that can 'dilate' (or contract). I think we've confused the EM signal emissions from things we humans call 'clocks' with a 'rate' of motion itself! Only emitted "signals" can be contracted and dilated. Christian Doppler found the effect but all eyes were on Newton. The constant local re-emission at 'c' (CSL) means one 'absolute' rate of time is allowed within SR's postulates.

There is then both 'Proper' time (propagation speed) and 'Apparent' time (emitted in some other frame i.e. from a (bluish!) clock approaching you at 20% of c). (That's Einstein's 'Co-ordinate time' better rationalised). My co-author one J Minkowski agrees with Hamed that there's no Minkowski 'Space-Time' as such, but best not mention that to Tom or he'll throw a fit!

Did all that make any sense to you? Normally it seems 'unfamiliarity' itself causes objections, but that's 'religious belief' not objective science!

ooops late for dinner!

best wishes

Peter

Steve Agnew,

"Is there some kind of simple description that ties gravity and the charge force..."

I would suggest an ontology for 'affinity' by the constraints that it is the limit of coherent (cohesive) communicability across a state. jrc

Plasma and aether...okay, now I can place where you are coming from. Whew!

Sometimes these things are more difficult than they should be. It is okay to have zany notions, but please at least have them make some sense. It seems strange that you do not have a more prominent role for time in DFM, although I really like the idea of a two dimensional time...a proper time along with an action or atomic time.

Getting your dfm black holes all charged up seems a bit extreme since we do have something called gravity force after all. Science does not really understand gravity force, but maybe some day it will. You know that with a quantum gravity, there will be quantum exchange forces and matter currents that result from neutral matter flows.

Now I will propose an answer. Charge force involves the bonding of charges with the exchange of a photon between an electron and a nucleus. Science imagines that binding energy as a photon emission into space that complements that virtual photon exchange that binds charges together. What science does not normally consider is that photon emission is really also an exchange bond, but now of the atom with the boson matter of the universe. That exchange bond with the universe is what we think of as gravity...so there. Charge force and gravity force represent the inner and outer solutions to the Schrödinger equation.

One of the difficulties that I have with all of these fringe theories is not that they do not have some kind of a basis in fact, it is that they often introduce more pathologies into quantum action than they resolve.

We really need to focus on a quantum gravity allows us to use quantum action everywhere including inside of a black hole.

Peter J,

You may well be right about the more exotic phenomena like magnetized astrophysical jets, etc. I wont contend with you there after all you are an astronomer. My turf is pointing out discrepancies and absurdities in the basic physics, if any.

We have previously agreed on some basics like some you mentioned to Steve in last post about a "something" whose 'EM profile' is almost entirely non-existent but which DOES however have mass'. You call the something Plasma, I call it Dark Matter because of its non-visibility, transparency (dark) and it being a substance different from space-vacuum making it capable of gravitation interaction (matter). On any of the choices, either yours or mine, it can form a light transmitting medium, gravitationally bound to Earth and so in Earth's frame of motion, whatever choice is made, either 30km/s solar system or 380km/s 'CMB-centric'. That on its own explains the Michelson-Morley finding and is the sought after earth-bound medium of Stokes, etc. Air does the same for sound being earth-bound, making sound velocity independent of earth motion, either 30km/s or 380km/s. This is Galilean relativity (recall Galileo's ship).

I however stick to my position, that based on Newton's wish, now confirmed by the CMB isotropy, that there is now an experimentally confirmed absolute position of rest, then some of the mechanisms in DFM should be set aside for economy, while others can be retained to explain things not within the scope of Galileo-Newton physics.

On the 'Why Quantum' topic, what I was actually interested for you to elaborate was whether the mechanism stabilizing gravitational orbits, could as well not stabilize atomic orbits. From your opinion, you proposed momentum and inertia as the stabilizers opposing the attraction of gravity. Since the electron has mass 9 x 10-31kg, if what is good for the goose is good for the gander, why can't atomic orbits be stabilized likewise?

(This does not imply that I agree that inertia and momentum is what stabilizes orbits).

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

'Making sense', like 'speed', is relative to a datum not absolute. To those familiar with a flat Earth a sphere made no sense at all. To those with beliefs based on an Earth centric universe Copernicus and Galileo were trying to complicate things far too much.

So; "at least have them make some sense" only betrays prior assumptions. The one thing we DO know is that our current assumptions are wrong. Logically a prerequisite for the correct solution is that it initially will NOT appear to 'make sense'! The DFM simplifies all fundamentals on examination and testing. The problem is that none with prior assumptions will do so.

Your own are interesting, very focussed, but I agree do address one fundamental area. Of course it made no sense at all to me initially, as expected, but walking all the around, over and under it I do glimpse some consistent aspects. If a 'photon' of energy is a spin state quanta there will be an effect (on both parts of any interaction) certainly related broadly to 'binding' and also the NLS equation (but do you have a meaning for the spread function?)

I suggest your view is nothing like as broad as that needed to see the great picture and where quanta fit in, which is the inevitable result of rejecting things that don't seem to 'make sense'. However you have made a little more effort than most to try to understand DF dynamics, which I appreciate.

'Time' is treated so fundamentally in the model it needs little analysis. I'm not sure about your '2D' description. The DFM's is that light propagates in a quantized medium just like sound (but normally very diffuse) and is constantly 'localised' to that medium's rest frame datum for c. EM signals from clocks are then being modulated all the 'time'! but are not 'time!'. Only our stupidity leads to us calling them such. Time is a 'rate', and absolute (as QM). The discrete kinetic nature of fields means that there is no issue in SR.

'Black Holes' are mythical artifacts. Old assumptions. The whole point of a nuclear tokamak (as an AGN) is that it turns baryonic matter back to plasma, specifically free protons (the fresh fermions condense at the shear surface 'shocks'). AGN have been the mechanism for recycling ~all the H then He in the universe (evidence overwhelming). Talking in terms of 'quanta of action' in tokamaks is then a bit like the discussing horse power of rocket motors. They CAN be quantified in that way (at a stretch! - as outflow proton density) but there may be far better, wider and more useful ways of understanding and describing them! The concept of 'entropy' falls into the same class.

Big picture?: Beyond Galileo; The sun goes round the galaxy, which goes round the local group, which orbits the cluster, which.. etc etc...

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

"You call the something Plasma, I call it Dark Matter". Then you at last entirely agree with the DFM which derives 'dark matter' as pure plasma (which we're very familiar with as pure unbound electron/positron pairs and protons). i.e. Aberration 2010, my 2011 essay etc. and;

Twin Planetary Inertial Reference Frames

That's excellent, and you can transpose it to atomic orbitals, but then 'hit the buffers' instead of thinking more broadly. How you can still write that the CMB is 'isotropic' after the clear evidence I looked out and posted for you (from Smoot and far better since), and the logical rationale, is entirely beyond me!

Galileos' ship is on a planet which represents another ship Akinbo, and in a solar system which represents another, in a galaxy which represents another. If your vision doesn't work beyond that even now then I'm disappointed in my ability to explain fractals and the hierarchical universe and appear to be wasting my time.

I think a problem is exposed by your missed out the essential word 'apparent' in your first paragraph. (See my last post to Steve.) But each must follow our own course. It seems I'd better spend my time searching for a different form of description.

Very best wishes

Peter

Okay, charge up the universe and use charge to explain gravity force...this is the plasma doctrine and it appears in any number of contexts. But gravity is gravity and charge is charge. There is a very well defined proportionality there and any theory that does not define that proportionality in some rational way ends up creating huge pathologies in any model.

Where are all of the in between states? Why doesn't gravity result in the same coherent issues as charge force?

These pathologies are worse than the things that DFM tries to explain. Look, no one denies that the current model of the universe has severe problems. The issue is simply whether there is anything better for predicting action. Turning dark matter and black holes into plasma may be reasonable in some context, but over the top in others.

A quantum gravity will have matter currents and exchange forces that will affect what we think of as gravity without the resort to plasma this and thats. Without a quantum gravity, science simply will not be able to resolve the issues of black hole, dark matter, and dark energy.

You go to great lengths to reinterpret quantum action with DFM, but quantum action is the most successful and is in no need of reinterpretation. The DFM model spends very little time reinterpreting gravity as quantum action, which is the crux of the issue. There is no need to change quantum action, since quantum action works just fine. What we need to reinterpret is gravity as quantum action and all of these pesky little Bell's theorem do-dats will disappear.

Peter,

I think, we are getting to the 'hierarchy' limit on this thread (close to 50 posts). I will respond briefly and urge you to read, Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) after reading this response. We may have to open another thread or shift the discussion to a more appropriate blog. On this Why Quantum topic, you have not confirmed what I asked you on orbital stability. That is, whether since you propose momentum and inertia as what opposes gravity and prevents orbital collapse, whether it is the electron's momentum and inertia that also prevents atomic collapse? Anyway, my response...

"You call the something Plasma, I call it Dark Matter". Then you at last entirely agree with the DFM which derives 'dark matter' as pure plasma (which we're very familiar with as pure unbound electron/positron pairs and protons)

What I agree on is that there is an invisible form of matter, discernible only by its gravitational effects. I am not committing that it is made up of electrons, positrons or protons. I suppose electrical experiments would have long confirmed if that were so.

The DFM's is that light propagates in a quantized medium just like sound (but normally very diffuse) and is constantly 'localised' to that medium's rest frame datum for c.

We are in partial agreement here. With the addition that not only 'dark matter' or 'plasma' is quantized but even space, itself devoid of all matter is quantized (i.e. discrete) and its unit is the geometric point of the Pythagoreans, Proclus, Aristotle, etc, not that of Plato (as I discussed in my 2013 essay). What is quantized can vibrate. Space therefore can vibrate and transmit light (and maybe also gravitational waves) at a speed c, slightly higher than our local, earth-measured c.

Big picture?: Beyond Galileo; The sun goes round the galaxy, which goes round the local group, which orbits the cluster, which.. etc etc...

In a rare moment of inspiration and brilliance, Newton is quoted in the Stanford entry referred to above as implying that, "..., one can directly observe the allegedly absolute motion of a body if both it and its immediate surroundings are visible. In contrast, because the parts of absolute space are not directly accessible to the senses, it is very difficult, ...to ascertain the true motion of individual bodies and to discriminate them in practice from the apparent motions. "Nevertheless," he remarks in a rare moment of wit, "the situation is not entirely desperate." Evidence is available in part from apparent motions, which are the differences of true motions, and in part from the forces, which are the causes and effects of true motions."

Now that the immediate surroundings have somehow become visible, thanks to CMBR, why do you still resist Newton on this?

When you read Newton's views, particularly section 5, you will see a bigger picture. Therefore, don't stop at cluster. Continue further up the hierarchical ladder. You will eventually get to a structure which does not go round anything. That is the visible marker for Absolute Space which Newton unfortunately did not live to behold and confront his opponents of the Leibniz-Mach, etc school with. Do you belong to that school of thought or are you forming your own school?

Regards,

Akinbo

You may also want to read the related Stanford entry on Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion.

"On the origin of the observer" my recent article

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20140304.14.pdf

where time has only a mathematical existence.Attachment #1: on_the_origin_of_the_observer.pdf

Peter,

I just rushed through your 4 page paper. As I have always said in its fundamentals DFM is Galilean relativity only that you go a step further to propose mechanisms by which this is implemented. So when you say, "We find that a model using two rather than one inertial system 'frames'", Galileo already knew the difficulties that can follow such scenario hence his 'ship analogy'.

Focus on section 5.3 in the Newton link I just mentioned (Argument 3 from Properties) and the reasoning. Absolute Space does not take anything away from DFM so I don't know why you resist it given the infinite regress your hierarchy of motion would lead to.

Talking of the isotropy of the CMBR, no one is claiming it is completely smooth, but the irregularities (anisotropies) seen appear to be non-dynamical in origin, that is not due to motion, save for the dipole anisotropy due to the earthly observer's motion. Most appear to be structure-formation artifacts. When this dipole anisotropy is removed, the smoothness is very remarkable (can't quote the figure off hand).

Akinbo

Steve,

"reinterpret gravity as quantum action and all of these pesky little Bell's theorem do-dats will disappear."

I'm afraid I'll have to leave it to you to work on that route. It's not by choice, in the DFM they already disappeared along with the other paradoxes. I thought you'd read my essay. The 2 page summary clarifies precisely how (let me know if you can't rationalise it). It's started setting record hit rates on the archive;

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

"use charge to explain gravity force...this is the plasma doctrine". I'm not sure where you got that from at all. I suspect the "electric universe" website? which has little do do with real plasma physics and astrophysics. I don't even know what 'charge' is (apart perhaps from 'conjugate spin') so certainly don't 'invoke' it in discrete field dynamics! I only invoke what has been consistently demonstrated and observed experimentally and fined theoretically consistent, so usually without the 'interpretation'!

I see "spending time re-interpreting gravity as quantum actions" as involving the kind of dangerous assumptions I've escaped. Sure it's an important subject, but for instance a condensate energy gradient obeys the conservation laws and would do just as well. It's also founded (centred) on each quantization of the energy.

We must all follow out own path Steve. If your beliefs take you in some other direction I won't be able to change them. What may seem 'over the top' to you will be simplicity itself from other observer vista's. That's humanity, and one of it's strengths as well as weaknesses.

"quantum action is the most successful and is in no need of reinterpretation" is one example of that. I find the current assumptions actually 'explain' very little! As in QM, to 'quantify' precisely is one thing, but it may mean nothing in physical terms.

What I have is something that works consistently across a wide range of the trickiest issues, resolving anomalies, but others who's understanding it patchy won't see or believe that. That doesn't shock or worry me. That's life. The model's far from complete anyway, and I estimated 2020 so it's still premature. But if you do find any actual real (rather than imagined) flaws or shortcomings do please point to them.

Many thanks, and best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

I'm not sure how you still concluded the opposite to the evidence I passed you. I regret even pointing you to Smoot as you seem to have a habit of jumping to false conclusions using inadequate information. That's exactly what mainstream does. We're all sceptics here so that's not that.

Or perhaps you don't see the 'degree' we're discussing. As planets, stars, galaxies and clusters all move at such slow speeds compared to light it's perfectly possible to say space is approximately 'flat' by ignoring that smaller scale. But that 'smaller scale' is where it ALL happens!

You suggest I refer to Galileo and Newton. Don't you think that's where I started from decades ago? I analysed precisely the shortcomings Galileo himself recognised and re-trod his and Einstein's footsteps but applying what we NOW know from astronomy. A consistent and beautiful answer finally emerged, self apparently correct if far from 'complete'. It may even be 'wrong' but it's so much better than what we have I'm obliged to persist. It's not what human thinking 'expected' but it IS the 'new way of looking/thinking' which ALL the real greats have identified is needed.

So it seems the task now is to find a way for others to understand and try that new way of thinking, or as Bragg put it "new way of looking at what we've already discovered". Perhaps you're right and it's time to end this string as I've done my best and failed. Perhaps the time is also wrong with man still so intent on killing his fellow man. Maybe even 2020 will be too soon.

I think you anyway for reading the bits you did and helping me better understand the task.

Very best wishes

Peter

Peter,

Just had a look at the Planck satellite link. The problems of isotropy or less of it appear to relate more to cosmological modeling not dynamics.

To what do you attribute the anisotropy simulating a 370km/s Doppler motion which you also included in your paper or is it now an anomaly?

If it now an anomaly, we shall see

If it is not then since no one has suggested that the CMBR is moving or 'going round' anything then I rest my case.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

"more to cosmological modeling not dynamics" is illogical gobbledegook. Cosmological modelling IS dynamics! Our only 'eyes' are spectroscopic. All of cosmology is about motion, from the so called 'Big Bang' and inflation to accelerating expansion, and all 'peculiar velocities' between.

The 370km/s is not anomalous at all just poorly understood, particularly outside astronomy. We are all 'flat Earthers'. We insist we understand what 'motion' is so refuse to consider it any more carefully. That's the 'new way of thinking' needed. Give this a try;

All stars are 'systems', moving wrt other stars complete with all the planets and junk inside their 'heliospheres', the dense plasma 'sheath' defining the limit of the solar winds (radiating at a speed WRT the STAR!) and so the edge of the system. We can often see these in the optical by means of the nebula gas they move through.

The 370km/s is Earth's speed wrt our OWN star, NOT any others! It is also NOT wrt the galaxy as the solar system has a ANOTHER orbital velocity wrt the galactic cente. But again, the galaxy is also system, with it's halo, which is NOT absolute, i.e. others are different, and they all move wrt their "local group" rest frame. etc etc etc. It is a heirachy. A hierarchy of inertial systems wher;

ONLY THE 'NEXT FRAME UP' IS A VALID DATUM FOR MEASURING PROPAGATION VELOCITY

Does that help at all to give you a glimpse of the big picture, supposedly 'anomalous' but rationalised by 'discrete field' dynamics?

Best wishes

Peter.

Akinbo,

The key concept 'surface last scattered' may also help. Familiar in astrophysics but the most popular understanding (a single 'event' long ago) is highly anomalous and frankly nonsensical.

Each shock or halo is the 'last scattering'. Until the Pioneer and Voyager (1&2) missions we'd only ever measured from 2 rest frames, the ECI and Barycentric (sun) frames (the secondary ECRF producing the lunar ranging anomalies as the 4 page paper above). Voyager is now moving into the interstellar (local arm) frame so has 'slowed down' wrt earth as the plasma density reduces, and the sun's emission are becoming Doppler shifted. All well documented. None rationalised (any other way).

Earth then has a 370km/s speed THROUGH THE LOCAL BARYCENTRIC (SUN) REST FRAME, but clearly DIFFERENT velocity wrt ALL other bodies and rest frames in the cosmos. Indeed our speed wrt anything else, say Andromeda, clearly changes dramatically all year as we orbit the sun!

It's the familiar conclusions we 'jump' to that keep us in the dark, and our unwillingness to abandon familiar assumptions. The relation of Einstein sitting in a train at the station as the other one moves goes further than SR revealed. it keeps repeating hierarchically at ALL stages, in exactly the same way as in truth function logic (TFL)

Do please let me know if those conceptions are at all successful. I have to find a description that works.

Peter

Peter,

I really wish you to sit back and take a look at all that has transpired so far. Read the views Newton expressed again in section 5.1-4 that I linked, even if you have done that 100 times before. Why I urge you to do so is that the beautiful DFM baby should not be thrown away with the bathwater just because of your insistence that there is always a 'next frame up' ad infinitum, which is mathematically possible but physically illogical (again see Newton's reasons and arguments). Trying to fit this 'ad infintum next frame up' has also led to erroneous statements, such as

"Earth then has a 370km/s speed THROUGH THE LOCAL BARYCENTRIC (SUN) REST FRAME", when the whole world knows the speed as 30km/s. And

"The 370km/s is Earth's speed wrt our OWN star, NOT any others!", when most take the red-blue shift as the velocity with respect to the CMBR. As you know, our star (the sun) moves at about 225km/s about the galaxy centre, so can the Chariot (earth) run faster than the horse dragging it?

Why give Tom his opportunity to laugh at you?

Any way, if you will not bulge that's okay. Did you see Georgina Perry's link to the The effects of clock drift on the Mars Exploration Rovers?

I have been looking at the paper. I don't have access to the number of times measurements were taken from the Fig. 2 and 3. If you do, let me know so I check if it fits 'clocks will run faster on Mars, than Earth due to its lesser gravity' doctrine.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Newtons shortcoming was clear. Relativity tried to resolve it but just found other paradox. Neither can explain experimental findings, mainly CSL, consistently.

I read it again as you asked. It hadn't changed. He assumed some 'true speed' a priori (on top of the correct 'true rest states') so was doomed from the start (he borrowed it from Aristotle and Descartes). The flaw in his "spinning bucket of water" justification is clear. When the water has accelerated the bucket is in the SAME STATE as the water! He calls the bucket 'the background', but the "air outside" is the background, in which case he's clearly WRONG!

I certainly agree his; "True rest cannot be defined simply in terms of position relative to other bodies in the local vicinity". It needs a whole 'background system' (with it's own rest frame) for any 'speed' to be measured. Also;

"Property: If a part of a body maintains a fixed position with respect to the body as a whole, then it participates in the motion of the whole body." (and)

"Conclusion: True and absolute motion cannot be defined as a translation from the vicinity of (the immediately surrounding) bodies, viewing the latter as if they were at rest." As that's consistent with the 'absolute' being a misnomer.

And; "The complete and absolute motion of a body cannot be defined except by means of stationary places". As that's true of ALL motion!

The constant speed of light falsified Newton. Einstein took one step the right way, but failed to rationalise findings. Discrete field dynamics completes the rationalisation, predicting ALL findings, most importantly Local Reality and CSL.

You have only used beliefs to dismiss it Akinbo. Why not assess on the evidence. Many more than Tom will first laugh, as did the flat Earthers and those dismissing Copernican and Galilean dynamics. There's no hurry. 2020 is still a long way off.

In the meantime findings from space exploration push our anomalous theory inexorably further in the right direction every day. I'll see what's been announced this week and post it before entirely giving up on you.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

"Debate settled..interstellar plasma..local hot bubble." Today, announcing two new 'Nature' papers reporting findings about; "Local Interstellar Clouds and the Local Hot Bubble," (Remember the picture of LL Orionis in my 2020 Vision essay?

The 'bubble' actually has a very thick 'skin', but theory is inevitably 'closing in' on the consistent solution that it scatters light to the local c (thus the 'soft X-rays' scattered (in the local Doppler frame) at the whole bubble surface. some quotes;

"New research resolves a decades-old puzzle about a fog of low-energy X-rays observed over the entire sky, confirming the long-held suspicion that much of this glow stems from a region of million-degree interstellar plasma known as the local hot bubble. ...of hot gas extending out a few hundred light-years from the solar system in all directions.

...An atom of interstellar helium collides with a solar wind ion losing one of its electrons to the other particle. As it settles into a lower-energy state, the electron emits a soft X-ray.

...The solar system is currently passing through a small cloud of cold interstellar gas as it moves through the galaxy. The cloud's neutral hydrogen and helium atoms stream through the planetary system at about 56,000 mph (90,000 km/h).

...In the 1990s, a six-month all-sky survey by the German X-ray observatory ROSAT provided improved maps of the diffuse background, but it also revealed that comets were an unexpected source of soft X-rays.

...only about 40 percent of the soft X-ray background originates within the solar system. "We now know that the emission comes from both sources but is dominated by the local hot bubble," said Galeazzi. "This is a significant discovery. Specifically, the existence or nonexistence of the local bubble affects our understanding of the area of the galaxy close to the sun, and can, therefore, be used as a foundation for future models of the galaxy structure."

Think hard about the anomaly and read between the lines of the rationalisation. It's not there yet, but all the findings themselves are predicted 'spot on' by the DFM's dynamics. New Findings from X-Ray Instrument Settle Decades-Old Interstellar Debate. July 2014. There are many more each week.

Have you ever tried to put yourself in the minds of the flat Earther's to understand the fundamental unfamiliar and seemingly ridiculous proposition they were faced with?

Best wishes

Peter