Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

pjackson

Sue,

Keep up the good work. I almost understood that comment! If redshift is simply explainable by the increasing orbital paths on the Shrodinger spherical (causal) wavefront) at the DFM would imply, then that element will be constant (if subject to refractive perturbations in between). Of course there would still be both red and blue shifts from recession and approach, as we find locally.

I'm pretty sure I gave you links to my paper & video deriving the related cyclic cosmology (a scaled up quasar jet distribution) and helical path expansion, but if not, here they are;

www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

very best

Peter

John-Erik Persson

Peter Jackson

My opinion is that Poitier (and others) made a terrible mistake 1880. I am sorry that you do not have a clear opinion on this point.

Best regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

pjackson

John-Eric,

You may be right, but I said all I could on the blog. Sorry couldn't find anything to support 'infalling ether', only 'dragged frames'.

I found Lodges 'glass disc' path error rather more serious as it led to Lorentz dismissing Stokes model, bringing confusion and the need for SR. Had Lodge used the correct observer frame he'd have found the true (Poynting) vector and scientific advance wouldn't have 'parked up' for 100 years!

Ce'st la vie

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson

Peter Jackson

Of course you could not find anything. Potier made an error 136 years ago, and it was not discovered that he made an error and it was instead Michelson that was right.

Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson

Satyavarapu Gupta

Hi Peter Jackson.

You remember you talked about collaboration.... Did you think any further about it???

=snp

pjackson

Hi snp

I haven't as I'm buried under work and blogging. The DFM is very successful, but as always ANY departure from doctrine is near impossible to disseminate!

How good is your mathematics, i.e. finding Lagrangians etc.? I'm told a more mathematical approach might penetrate. Do yu recall my 'Law of the reducing middle' and extension of the rules of brackets? (All in the essays).

Peter

Jayarava

Hi Peter,

I'm coming to this late, but I would like to know how you deal with the fact that an electron would have to revolve at superluminal speeds to generate the observed angular-momentum. As I understand it, it was this problem that made physicists abandon the rotating sphere model in the first place.

Thanks
J

« Previous Page