Dear Bennett,

Good essay on Philosophy and General over view of all the sciences. You have nicely pointed out the failures of SR and GR even !

But still you are thinking of CMB as Bigbang originated only..........

There are some basic problems in WMAP satellites' instrumentation and software. WMAP cannot eliminate Microwave radiation from Stars, Galaxies and clusters. If you calculate CMB using Stephen-Boltzmann law there will be nothing left from BB generated CMB radiation...

Please have a look at my essay on CMB in FQXi few years back

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

One more point I would like to tell you furthering the BUCKET experiment you explained in your paper....

Lets do a small experiment which we did in our school days. Take a bucket and half fill it water. Tie a string to the handle; hold it with your hand. Now spin around yourself. As you gain speed the bucket will be lifted up to the level of your shoulders or neck. But water will not fall from the bucket due to centrifugal and centripetal forces.

The same thing will happen in Dynamic Universe model also. The bodies in the universe will not collapse into a central mass when there is non- uniform matter density. Papers were published by Dynamic Universe Model on this subject many years back. When there is uniform density distribution of matter, the whole matter will collapse. We can visualize matter distribution is non-uniform. Vacuum density and moon density are different. There are huge voids to huge super cluster structures of Galaxies in the UNIVERSE, They cannot be called uniform density as claimed by other models. All these papers were available from VIXRA or from the Dynamic Universe Model Blog.

Universal Gravitation Force(UGF) is the final resultant force vector acting on any-mass, which includes all these forces.

No additional anti-gravity is required.

Many papers and books were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe

Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain.... Have a look at my essay also for another result ...

Best wishes................

=snp. gupta

    Joe,

    You seem to be the un-official greeter at this forum...

    Maybe FQXI will give you a special honor - in lieu of cash....

    like the Long-Term Persistency Award.

    Robert

    Dear SNP..

    But still you are thinking of CMB as Bigbang originated only..........

    No ..the CMB origin can't be BB sourced... When the stars produce aether flow as well as EM radiation, the observed optical effect mimics the redshift Doppler claim of MS physics. But light photons obey E = hf so the frequency can't change in empty space...only the speed of light and the wavelength.

    This is consistent with a geo-focused universe, as inferred in my essay, where the Earth is the absolute frame and aetherodynamics dominates the cosmic motions.

    There are some basic problems in WMAP satellites' instrumentation and software. WMAP cannot eliminate Microwave radiation from Stars, Galaxies and clusters. If you calculate CMB using Stephen-Boltzmann law there will be nothing left from BB generated CMB radiation...

    The Milky Way microwaves are filtered out in the CMB data processing...This isn't an issue.

    BUT: All three CMB sky surveys clearly show an alignment of the CMB multipoles along the solar system ecliptic and equinox...a super axis of evil! This destroys the conventional tale of a BB origin...unless the Earth was at the center of the BB??!....

    Please have a look at my essay on CMB in FQXi few years back .http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

    OK: you say:

    No Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies.

    Of course not...the atmosphere filters out the microwave section of the spectrum... and the microwaves sky is virtually constant....unlike the visible sky..

    Here's my essay - from the same year....addressing the MMX null mistake.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1781

    One more point I would like to tell you furthering the BUCKET experiment you explained in your paper....

    Lets do a small experiment which we did in our school days. Take a bucket and half fill it water. Tie a string to the handle; hold it with your hand. Now spin around yourself. As you gain speed the bucket will be lifted up to the level of your shoulders or neck. But water will not fall from the bucket due to centrifugal and centripetal forces.

    The same thing will happen in Dynamic Universe model also.

    This is a diversion from the topic.... NBX establishes the Earth reference frame as the only valid predictive one in dynamics. So your theory must start with this axiom as its metaphysics..

    Many papers and books were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) ,

    Sounds interesting...but not on-line....

    All the best,

    Robert

    Dear Robert Bennett,

    "Mindless? Hardly." You nailed that one. You say "[Mach's] foundation is in the real physical world but it exists only in an immaterial context - the human mind."

    I appreciate your laying out the "often conflicting set of -isms". They are briefly defined, so I may misinterpret them but I am interested in the contrast between 'materialist' and 'spiritualist', specifically in how immaterial agents affect material reality. How does my immaterial mind manage to raise my arm against gravity?

    In physics fields such as gravity and electromagnetism are seen as "material" since they have energy (hence mass) and yet interact with "matter". I examine the possibility that a 'consciousness field' exists, universally, like gravity, and interacts with our material brain/body.

    You note that "even Newton would not hazard a guess as to the connective substance that transmitted gravity across space." One view (Ohanian and Ruffini) is that the gravitational field is the medium. [I concur] Even its name, 'aether', is again being spoken [Padmanabhan]. I believe that agrees with your statement that "Aether would seem to be the closest to prime matter..." Yet as you note, "realism, tested over 24 centuries, provides extensions to physical knowledge..."

    I suggest that historical errors provide worthwhile examples to study, and further suggest [in my essay] that current century-old paradigms contain similar errors, repeated endlessly, hence "true". Your interpretation of Mach is spot on ("the rest of the universe, not the fixed stars") and Mach seems to be making a comeback. I like your treatment of 'fictitious forces'. "The absolute space Newton sought was right under his feet." Excellent!

    You sum things up very nicely in Bennett's Hiker.

    And please note: if the gravitational field truly is the "aether" through which light passes, then MMX should measure the same local field ("under their feet") wherever they may be in orbit, hence should expect null results!

    The WMAP/CMB "Axis of Evil" is ignored today. What else can they do? And you say above that "This destroys the conventional tale of a BB origin... unless the Earth was at the center of the BB??!" And what is the argument against this? Oh, of course, Copernicus! Can't go there again! [Why not, if it fits the facts?]

    In short, I loved your essay, and your analysis of "mostly real" physics from the Bennett perspective. I hope you enjoy my essay as much. It too is more "who" focused then "what" focused.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      "The weaknesses of science are in scope and a false sense of the importance of subject matter depth. In the sequence of knowledge domains physics is a specific branch of science - which is a part of philosophy - which is part of theology." Sir Isaac Newton might have agreed with the 2nd of the 2 preceding hypotheses; he wrote, "Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors." In the philosophy of science, I follow Francis Crick and Richard Feynman. The triumph of molecular psychology might require a good understanding of religious beliefs.

      "Regardless of whether God exists or not, religious beliefs do exist and can be experimentally studied, as shown in this study."

      http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full.pdf Kapogiannis, Dimitris, Aron K. Barbey, Michael Su, Giovanna Zamboni, Frank Krueger, and Grafman Jordan. "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 12 (2009): 4876-4881.

      Όλα τα πράγματα είναι γεμάτα από θεούς. (All things are full of gods.) -- Thales of Miletus

      There might be as many different systems of theology and as many different systems of physics as there are theologians and physicists.

        5 days later

        Dear Edwin,

        Thanks for your thoughtful reply. We seem focused on the same targets, but with some variance in perspective.

        More than consciousness, my concept of mind is classical - the faculties of intellect, will/volition, memory and emotion. Computers can't model humans until the last item is included! Even then, how do you add the immaterial life principle...how does the robot come alive?

        Anyway, the mind- brain connection pondered by psychologists is the first causal step in making your arm move. The mind changes the brain's neural network (final to formal cause) which links through the nerves to the arm muscle(formal to efficient cause) which causes the muscle to contract(efficient to material cause). A classical causal chain.

        Materialism can't address this; it's outside the scope of science as practiced today. Modern philosophy, starting with rationalism, has contaminated and fragmented what should be a common worldview of reality. But realism/scholasticism - which I recommend you investigate and consider adopting - fills the knowledge gap of limited science. No, we can't measure the immaterial causes, but we can see the logical material effects - which we can measure. When the immaterial source of life leaves the body, we see the effect - death.

        The Sufficient Causality Rule of Realism (nemo dat quod non habet) is what refutes all the essays that attempt a material/physiological solution. In his essay George Ellis related these modern biological details of physiological causality, but left out the final cause....the immaterial final cause. Was the baby thrown out with the bathwater??

        Aether might be a bridge between the two domains... My Best Current Thinking on aether is that there are several types: the EM aether plenum of Maxwell, the GI discrete aether(your gravititational(static) and inertial(dynamic) field) ...and perhaps two more.

        Thanks to Big Al the 20th century was wasted by ignoring the existence of aether, though pseudonyms like zero point energy and quantum foam were often used to replace the verboden word. There were actually more aether tests in the 19th century than the 20th.

        I ..... further suggest [in my essay] that current century-old paradigms contain similar errors, repeated endlessly, hence "true". Right on! We must correct the wrong turns/interpretations of the past, using the sci. method and realism...before trying to advance.

        Re Mach vs. Newton, as revealed in the 1687 NB test: Newton believed in an absolute space, but declined to define its location. Mach thought the whole universe influenced the bucket's water, which included the Earth. In the ALFA model which interprets NB, I propose they are both partially right (and thus also partly wrong). There is an absolute reference frame for dynamic prediction, and it is the Earth.

        Bennett's Hiker - such modesty - is the linear analog of NB...with the same conclusion as rendered above.

        Can you believe, Edwin, that decades of students have been taught fake physics using fictitious forces to substitute for the results actually predicted only in the absolute Earth frame, the only frame where the laws of physics are valid? General covariance in GR??? LOL! What a scam.

        Suppose we were taught fake arithmetic in school... 2+2 = 4 in the lab frame, but 2+2 = 0 in any other frame of reference??! So to get the valid sum on a moving train or car, you have to add in the fictitious number 4 (from the lab frame) to get 2+2 = 4 !! By analogy that's just what fictitious forces are ..a dodge by mainstream physics around the absolute status of the ECEF/lab frame in dynamics. Adding in fake numbers(the fudge factor) is what we did in HS physics lab...

        The MMX is too involved to develop here.... A summary:

        - If the result were truly null, then why didn't Michelson include the Earth at rest as one of his 4 logical options for interpretation?

        - Later tests of the data by Dayton Miller and others(see Reg Cahill) find variable aether motions having periods of a stellar day and stellar year.

        You know about the axis of evil?? Wow...I thought that embarrassing discovery was safely buried in the info backwaters of the technical press. Yes - The low multipoles of the CMB align with the equinox and ecliptic of the Earth's local cosmic environment..... as if the universe were really geocentric! That should be headlines in the NY Times...

        As you say...GC? Why not , if it matches testing? What's not impossible is possible.... A truism.

        You realize that a geocentric world with a fluid aether destroys much of 20th century physical 'progress'...the BB, SR, GR...but not QM. Quantum Mechanics and its strange interpretations are consistent with the realism of immaterial sources espoused in my essay...with a suitably enhanced analysis, of course.

        E.g., SR #1 is disproven by the Ruyong Wang glider test of 2005.... With the Fiber Optic Conveyor Galileo could have detected the ship's motion relative to shore while below deck.

        SR#2 is vitiated by all the positive light anisotropy tests ...all those done with a gas interferometer - NOT vacuum.

        What you hear in the distance are the pillars of MS physics crumbling to dust....

        I have read your essay and will add some comments shortly.

        All the best,

        Robert

        Dear Robert Bennett,

        Excellent essay with in-depth analysis of science errors.

        I merely wish to point out that

        "In the heliocentric model the estimated speed was a constant 30 km/s but a variable speed was found after six weeks of testing, not exceeding 7 km/s. Attributing the variation to random errors, the consensus was that the orbit speed was null/zero."

        Michelson and Morley were highly honest people and got the right result (unexpurgated) in the form of highly dispersed variations of velocity turbulence light medium that is pushing the Earth in its orbit. In my essay, I wrote that they had to get the average speed of the Earth in light-carrying medium 8 km/s, and they got it. It is the first cosmic velocity of Earth, the square of which determines the gravitational potential of the Earth's surface. I.e., gravity has the dynamic cause; its mechanism is considered in the essay. By the simple detector of gravitational waves, I was able to also register the turbulence light medium.

        Similarly as the Earth, "the sun moves relative to the medium of the physical vacuum in the Orion spiral arm with an average speed of 437 km/s, equal to its first cosmic speed. Current speed between the pulses of the Sun perturbation is 369 km/s». Clash of the elements light medium Orion branch at a rate of 369 km/s, relative to the sun's gravisphere leads to microwave background around the solar system and its dipole component.

        You will also be able to analyze the principles of my science and to bring them to your rules.

        Kind regards,

        Vladimir Fedorov

          Thanks for your thoughts, David.

          Most of the time I do agree with Newton; only a fool wouldn't.

          Scientific pride is a serious disease...of the mind. it blinds one to the world beyond the limited study of nature. Sad to say, Crick and Feynman limited their horizons to brute matter, and lost their sense of what really matters.

          Diversity within faith and science is the mark of modern belief systems. For me only realism offers a logical path to the one true science and religion buried in the present cacophony of false beliefs.

          All the best,

          Robert

          Dear Vlad,

          We have a fundamental disconnect here. My analysis of Newton's Bucket and Bennett's Hiker led to the conclusion that the Earth's reference frame was at absolute rest..in order to explain the uniqueness of the lab frame in applying the laws of motion. The Earth being fixed, the Sun's speed is 30 km/s in the lab frame, not vice versa.

          The 8 km/s average of MMX gas interferometer tests represents the random measurement of cosmic aether flows hitting the immobile Earth, as do water waves from distant sources when encountering an island beach.

          Unfortunately I don't see the possibility of reconciling your 'rules' and mine.... unless either of our models is shown false EXPERIMENTALLY.

          All the best,

          Robert

          4 days later

          Hi Robert,

          I liked your Newton's bucket example. And am wondering why you did not include Foucault's pendulum as an example?

          Thank you for a remarkably clear and enjoyable essay!

          Check out my webpage (www.digitalwavetheory.com). There are three sections on gravity you may enjoy (or go to the published work given in my author section)...for an interesting insight on the ether.

          I'm doing my best to promote your work.

          Don Limuti

            Hey Don,

            No FP coverage because of essay space and relevance constraints.

            Foucault pendulum is an alleged proof of the Earth's rotation based on inertia principles...and excluding/ignoring aethereal effects. Michelson-Gale in 1925 found the Earth was surrounded by a rotating ball of aether that explained the fringe shifts ..but this was mis-interpreted as the Earth's motion in a fixed aether. When the FP swings in a North-South plane in the latitude-dependent aether wind, the S part receives a stronger flow than when N, causing a torque with each oscillation and a net rotation in the N-S plane. The predicted rotation from the aether motion is proportional to sin(lat) , as is observed. The preference for an initial N-S orientation of the FP plane is also consistent with the aether wind model.

            From my essay you can appreciate that SR and GR are rejected in favor of a geocentric universe and a cosmic dynamics driven by the motion of aether - whose particles might be termed 'gravitons'.

            There is no DM or DE, but the natural aether vortices that rotate the star systems determine the apparent centripetal force ...v= 1/sqrt(v) for the solar system and v = const. for the galaxies.

            Your model of the Speed of Light has SoL dependent on wavelength; my model has SoL dependent on the optical density(n) and the speed of aether Va.

            You do have an interesting Web site, Don.... in content and format.

            AMDG,

            Robert

            8 days later

            Robert,

            That we live in a faithless world, relying on mindless screeds -- materially, not intelligently or spiritually based -- is true. The breakdown of ethics and decency is evident in a polarized society. Beyond a supernatural intelligence, our mindset on extra-terrestrial intelligence fixates on an ET which is as crass and grasping as the values that dominate our economic system. Because we project our own image in everything, it dominates the scientific world as well..

            Thus matter and energy is seen in that same light. Your classifications, incisive comments and definitions help to reveal that in science.

            Hope you get a chance to comment on my essay as well.

            Regards,

            Jim Hoover

              7 days later

              Dear Mr. Bennett

              Just about CMB.

              Temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation is not a relic of the past but is geometric mean of all the temperatures. You can see here: http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0095

              BTW, your essay is very rational. I've highly rate.

              Regards,

              Branko

              9 days later

              Robert,

              Time grows short, so I am reviewing those I've read to see if I have rated them. Yours I did on 3/18. Bad accounting and short memory.

              Hope you enjoyed the interchange of ideas as much as I did.

              Jim Hoover

              Write a Reply...