• [deleted]

  • Post #286

Dear Yuri,

As I recall, one of your papers points to the importance of 36 degrees and its multiples. The 36-72-72 degree triangle is the Golden Triangle whereby the short side of the triangle is shorter than the two long sides by the Golden Ratio, phi = (SQRT(5) 1)/2 = 1.618...

This angle of 36 degrees implies the importance of the number "5", and ties in with my ideas on "pentality" symmetries, and Coldea et al's recent mass measurements of magnetic Ising quasiparticles near criticality.

Granted, the numbers 1 and 3 are very important. Our sudies likewise imply that the number 5 is relevant. Curiously enough, these are all small Prime numbers, and all small Fibonacci numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,..., and the Fibonacci numbers are related to powers of the Golden Ratio (which I briefly touched on in my essay - I shortened some of the details so that I wouldn't scare people away with the mathematics).

Is this "natural philosophy" or is this "numerology"? I know that Mohamed Saladin El Naschie has taken much criticism for his so-called "numerology", and sometimes he may push the "coincidence" a bit too far. But I think that some level of "natural truth" exists here.

If the number "five" is important, then WHY? Does this imply a level of Reality that we don't see directly? Is this a piece of the puzzle that doesn't yet make sense to us mere mortals?

Dear Basudeba,

I've run out of time, but expect to respond to you later.

Have Fun!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #287

Dear Sir,

As usual you impose your views on us. Hence let us clarify each.

1) We should not assume the fault is either in us or in the theory. In fact we should not assume anything - least of all wrong assumptions, but locate the contradictions or inconsistencies from the natural process and try to resolve them through logic and natural philosophy.

2) "Different view points" are not the same as "All view points". There may still be "Other view points". This is valid English.

3) We do not "focus on finding and resolving paradoxes", as it unnecessarily distracts our attention. We do not have that much spare time. But whenever we come across paradoxes, we try to resolve it through logic and natural philosophy. Further "life blood" stands for "source of sustenance". We do not survive through paradoxes or solving them.

4) The statement: "when it becomes logical it is at the correct level to become logical," is called circular logic, which is not a valid form of logic. It defines logical as correct and goes on to prove that correct is logical! While we do not dispute the essence of your logic, our question is: "how do you know what is the correct level?" There is no fixed yardstick for correctness. What you say as correct may not be incorrect. Once everybody believed that we cannot land on the Moon. That was correct then. But it is no more correct now.

5) We do not see what different concept you are hinting at about DFM? We have clearly mentioned that what you call as DFM forms a part of our general theory. It is not new for us. But we cannot be confined within it since we are referring to something much bigger. When we say field only is absolute and particles are locally confined fields, we mean the same as you. When we say the particles interact with the field, which affects the field, which in turn affects other particles, we mean nothing but "whole explanation of frame transition hinges on it" and "so all are 'connected' but only two can ever be connected 'locally'". So what new things you are telling?

6) In our essay and in these columns also we have described the mechanism of perception as the comparison (measurement) of the disturbance created by an object in the medium with that of our eye. Disturbance involves displacement. The displacement can be of two types: external displacement of position or internal displacement due to time evolution. Both are covered by the term transition as it indicates both external and internal temporal evolution. Without perceiving this transition, we cannot perceive. However, it does not affect their temporal evolution. They follow their own dynamics again due to interaction with the local field as modified by other effects on it.

7) If it is a duck, call it a duck. Simply say that dark matter is a misnomer and plasma and dark matter are the same thing. We believe no one from the scientific community will accept it. If plasma, which is well known is dark matter, how do you explain the missing mass that led to postulating it? If you say the theory of missing matter is wrong, how do you explain the receding galaxies at ever increasing rate? We explain it differently by our theory of gravitation. Do you have any theory for this?

8) We also equivalence, but in a different context than GR. Einstein's views and predictions have been repeatedly proved to be wrong and wherever they have been proved correct, there are other explanations for it. SR is wholly wrong. QM started out to be a correct theory, but somewhat derailed over the years. We can explain all phenomena in our theory.

9) We said "no one in the scientific community agrees with your views" in the context of your assertion that plasma is dark matter and we repeat it again. We are not expecting anything from any one. We cannot compromise with TRUTH - come what may. We do not flatter and not want to be flattered. In case someone does not want to listen to our views, we do not force any one. We have commented here because it was a public debate where everyone had a right to say what they thought. It is for others to accept it or ignore it.

10) Once again we repeat that your views form a small part of our theory. You are talking about events. We are talking about concepts. Hence we would advise you to come out with an open mind and judge it for yourself in the context of your Essay.

Regards,

Basudeba.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #288

Hi Yuri,

A quick follow-up...

As I recall, you also used 18 degrees. Can these be converted into 36 degree angles by using double-angle trigonometric identities such as:

cos(2*theta) = 2*cos^2(theta) - 1

Have Fun!

My Dear Basudeba

It seems clear we are destined not to work together. I read your assumptions about the limits of the DFM and despair, yet apparently I can't understand your great conceptions. I quite understand that my very different way of working and subtle prose will be alien to you because it is not how 'science' works.

When Enstein said 'we'll need a new way of thinking to solve the problems created by the old way', I took it seriously, I'm now a logician, architect and philosopher scientist. When I say something you read it as something entirely different. I'm not blaming you, but I will also not re-join the flock!

My methodology is research research research. Understand the information coming back empirically, and NOT just astronomers interpretations! If you had spent one tenth the time researching plasma that I have you would be an expert. It has been almost entirely ignored and missed, or connections simply not made. Once studied in detail it becomes quite clear that the Pioneer/ Voyager anomalies, Flyby anomaly and on ad infinitum are caused by both the mass and diffractive qualities of ions, or plasma. Indeed it's impossible for em waves to pass through even a diffuse 'ionosphere' (with 'mass') without being slowed and refracted! See some of my references. It's about making connections other haven't.

I really don't mind if "no one from the scientific community will accept it". Does that mean I should lie?! It's simply my job to keep collating the evidence until it is self apparent.

I asked you if you can explain 7c jets, ..no response! How about 3 year lensing delays, the re-ionisation issue, the Lithium 7 deficiency, the quadrupolar CMBR asymmetry, the 'axis of evil', and yes, I have explained receding galaxies, mass deficiency, secular evolution (paper accepted for peer review) etc. etc. You "force" your own view on me that the DFM is a small part of YOUR theory! It is only so because you have only considered it from the viewpoint of yours Basudeba. But you will not be able to see that.

The things you say yours proves are interesting and may indeed be right, but they are not falsifiable. The DFM derives far more (just seek and ye shall find) and almost all falsifiable. The evidence builds daily. Can you explain why light reflects BEFORE it reaches the atoms of matter, (NS 26.2.11 p16) or why blocked holes let more light through? (NS 19.2.11 p18) and dozens more. It's purely a matter of time and continuing experiment.

I would have been happy to work with you Basudeba, but a 'two way street' means looking both ways not looking one and dismissing the other, which is what you have done with the DFM. You say truth while only looking at half the turth. If you cannot see and change that please converse elsewhere.

I wish you luck.

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #290

Dear Basudeba,

I have never seen a hyperspace or multiverse dimension, so I cannot say exactly what they are. As I suggested earlier, many may declare Kaluza-Klein compacted dimensions to be internal degrees-of-freedom that only have a "mathematical realness", but no "physical realness" - this is the common treatment of "intrinsic spin". How can a "point particle" have spin angular momentum? Classically, we have L=mvr, but r->0 gives L->0, not an electron intrinsic spin of s = 1/2 h-bar.

I like the Babylonian choice of 360 degrees per circle. This fits the Earth year fairly well (365.2425... days per year if the recent Japanese Earthquake didn't change the Earth's rotation too much). It also has similarities with an SU(19) Lie Algebra of order 360 = 20*18 = 6*5*4*3 = 6!/2!

This toroidal spiral construct of soccer balls is half finished. It looks like a coiled snake! I really don't need to finish this toroidal spiral because enough is here to answer my questions. Find the nearest rubber band, and twist it until it flips around into 3 loops. Now imagine that rubber band as a closed geodesic toroidal spiral. It requires a total of four soccer balls to build this construct. Perhaps each "soccer ball" has the equivalent intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar (a fermion), two soccer balls represent 1 h-bar (a vector boson), three soccer balls represent 3/2 h-bar (gravitinos), four soccer balls represent 2 h-bar (a graviton), and then the loop is completed!

You mentioned something about 6+4 unique directions. Your logic seemed faulty because you gave the first 6 coordinates in 3-D, and the last 4 in 2-D.

Huh?

Your idea sounds close to a Face-Centered-Cubic Close-Packing Lattice (see Figure 1 of my essay), but did you neglect the top and bottom faces?

If you want to make these sort of geometrical arguments, I would suggest using the Pentachoron.

Go easy on Randall-Sundrum. I liked Lisa Randall's book. Besides - you can't believe everything you read - The tabloids may say that Supersymmetry is dead, but they also say that Elvis is alive! (and touring with Michael Jackson - really - I saw them in Las Vegas!)

But really - When a research team publishes an article in Nature and says that Supersymmetry is dead, that are making certain assumptions about the expected nature of a Weak-Scale Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. We "mere mortals" do not yet understand what effect additional scales (in my essay) or a TOE will have on the discovery of Supersymmetry. Please allow the LHC to gather enough data to work out the details. Would it be fair of me to flip a coin once, it lands on heads, and I declare that "Heads is all there is and ever will be!".

You concluded by saying "We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the "creation event" to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution."

The Big Bang was a so-called singularity. How can infinity exist in a finite Observable Universe (13.7 billion light years is huge but finite)? An infinite Multiverse allows an infinite Big Bang to occur, but then the Multiverse is infinitely old, and our Observable Universe is a small speck of fractal dust in an infinite Cantor set Multiverse.

Regarding Evolution, it seems to be a complex quandry of ideas: Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, Non-Darwinian, Stasis and Punctuation,... and we still don't exactly understand the "Origin of Life" - that transition from "non-living Chemistry" to "living Biology". And is it really "non-living Chemistry", or do we experience "being" because "being" exists at every scale (certainly to different magnitudes) from the Multiverse scale down to the Hyperspace scale?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hello Peter,

We were talking earlier about the visualisation of protons and neutrons w.r.t toroids, (the neutron having a Mobius twist). I woke-up with a new idea after talking with Ray. I've copied the essentials over for you to comment on:

I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

I've been thinking some more. I thought of a three braided helix 'rope' as the configuration of the proton and neutron toroids. The central thread at the start of the creation of the structure could have a repulsive nature and emit anti-gravitons. The other two would be the familiar Archimedes screw gravitons in attractive configuration. It's a novel thought that needs expanding on I think. Anyhow, bye for now,

AlanAttachment #1: 5_Note1.jpg

    Copy of copy of....Re; DEATH OF ENTANGLEMENT

    Edwin

    I'm sure you're watching the blogs, but just in case,just posted the below; (I forgot to also mention that geometrically this also explains the failure of the Law of Refraction between co-moving media, and reversal of time averaged Poynting vectors).

    Florin

    Thanks. The 'transient evolution' viewpoint v 'sudden death' of entanglement was interesting. If we consider the QED view and a Q-bit as a photon, in atomic scattering the energy is continually absorbed and re-emitted (at LOCAL 'c') so a string of 3 Q-bits may not only end up different distances apart (between moving media - [equiv to Doppler shift]) but are of course 'different' Q-bits each time, as, when emitted, their polarisation and path depends on the electron (PMD and birefringence). Looked at in another way this is equivalent to saying that (in macro classic terms) lots of quantum sudden deaths of entanglement may equal a gradual evolutionary death, in a process equivalent to 'diffraction'.

    If a string of 3 Q-bits arrives at 'c' but the electron absorbing and emitting the energy is part of another dielectric moving towards the incident medium, the arrival rate will be faster than the emission rate. We therefore have inertial frame transition, maintaining 'c' in the new medium (or c/n subject to PMD) without needing a Lorentz transformation. So now, the gradual death of entanglement gives sudden death of the LT to allow SR with it's paradoxes exchanged for a logical quantum mechanism! And suddenly we have something that meets ALL observation, and the SR postulates! Hmmm.

    It's called the discrete field model(DFM) Did you read the essay?; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 A few have grasped it but it but it really isn't easy. And let's toast Alain Connes and his famous toast ... "The Universe" (well.. our current real local one anyway!).

    I look forward to your Blog post. And yes, if you'd like to see the Chromatic Dispersion paper mail me at the Email address on the essay.

    Best wishes

    Peter

      Oi you lot! ..wot are you doing ere?!... Clear off out of here with those soccer balls!! Go find someone else's nice symmetrical windows to break!

      Ohh all right, ..you're welcome really, but less shouting please Basudeba!

      Ray

      I think Sreenath gave another dimension on 360, as it's the average between the lunar and earth year. Personally I think that's a fluke, but only because of;

      INFINITY - in a finite Universe. Didn't you read my recycling paper? You really must!! (recycle paper).

      It astonishingly shows, with some good evidence, that the Universe recycles itself (as a discrete field) regularly, and the big 'bang was actually a big 'whoosh', as a scaled up (I thought you'd like that) version of a quasar. The extra super massive black hole (ESMBH) toroid sucks everything in re-ionises and blasts it back out to form the next incarnation of each universe. That would explain the axial (Conical/Helical) 'axis of evil', spiral quadrupolar asymmetry in the CMBR, shortage of Litium 7, what was here before the big bang (the previous universe), expansion, and a few more anomalies. And there's more! (at bigger and longer scales).

      Let me know if you didn't read it and would like to and I'll try to find where I hid the link.

      Also, See the very interesting conversation with Florin on the sudden death of entanglement.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #294

      Dear Sir,

      Thank you for proving us right. We are talking of concepts and you are stuck with events. It is natural that you do not see our logic - let alone apply those concepts to analyze your events and test it.

      Since we discuss concepts your post is nothing more than words for us. Hence let us terminate this discussion.

      Good Bye.

      basudeba.

      Alan

      If we consider 'path', and not a graviton 'particle' I'm fine in principle. As you know, I've found a whole sequence of helical forms upwards of DNA to the CMBR quadrupolar asymmetry, suggesting the universe is just the result of a large toroid quasar black hole recycling process. Follow the 'axis of evil' down the dominant reciprocal cmbr vector and we'll find it, though it seems it should be dormant for a while so don't panic yet. I just referred to the rest of the process in an answer to Ray here.

      But ref polarity, spin and 'anti' matter, consider the mechanism; The twin jets of a quasar are both trying to use the centre of the toroid, so will have precession and a right messy time!, the former giving the conical helicity. So to start with we may have two sides of the universe with different something-or-other! gradually coming together as the whole caboodle starts rotation on its new (jet) axis. Will we find increasing antimatter!? As the ejected ions also disturb and condense matter from the energy field (the pretty dark black one!) this will also affect polarity or spin.

      It's a very random Stokes-Navier fluid dynamics process, so maybe there will be close local symmetry. It may depends on the actual process of condensation itself. Unfortunately I can't remember that (Q)bit as that particular oscillator either got away or got wiped clean in the re-ionisation process, which is after all the whole point of the process I suppose.

      Oh yes, ..and circular polarisation is thereby also explained, ..somehow. The luckiest bit for us is, if time is eternal, but we assume it passes in an instant when we die, and we won't 'know' anything if we're just suns or rocks on recycling, we could go through 10^loads of recycling processes before any of our ions (Q-bits) become part of another sentient being. But then.. we 'think therefore we am'(are) again, so the first thing we know when we die is that we're someone else! (So I'm going to be good again just in case). It's logic, but is it science? They do say science should be fun.!

      Does that sound sensible to you?

      Peter (Mk17^33)

      Peter,

      Yes, it does begin to sound plausible. I'm lost in the language of a modern physicist to some degree perhaps, but I'm getting some of the mental imagery you speak of. The neutron star is definitely something which I'm interested in modelling and relates to the 'inclination hypothesis' which can explain the ice age cycle better than Milankovitch's standard insolation changes with eccentricity. I'm happy with talking about paths and not necessarily particles if you prefer, no problem.

      The combination of physics with "we think therefore we am" is an enduring one and I also find the topic upbeat if not a bit fanciful. I've always been aware that a story of creation and an end-life is something that the laymen of the world -want- to hear. If western scientists solved a t.o.e which didn't include this human element, then the psychological game of world unity might be unwittingly lost, in the short term at least.

      My original question with regard to proton and neutron torid shapes and constituent configurations was about the so called 'weak gravity field of matter' which doesn't necessarily mean that the gravity force itself is weak. My mental imagery at the moment is a smaller scale than quasars and so called 'black holes', I'm trying to visualise the domains in magnetic iron. Do you remember the first time you felt the magic repulsive force of two magnets Peter? I'm still mystified around 36 years later.

      How does your personal model explain the mechanics of an iron magnet? I'm convinced that it's due to gravitons, which can be both repulsive and attractive. The internal dynamic geometry has a break of symmetry which gives a residual weak gravitational field from matter. You must have a different opinion of how to combine the gravity field with the magnetic field presumably. Can you provide something simple that a layman or Scientific American reader could understand I wonder?

      Kind regards,

      Alan

      Alan

      Not really I'm afraid. And I consider us ALL laymen!

      I've never been a fan of 'cannonball' messenger particles. They only had to exist due to removal of the ether, which only had to go to explain CSL for all moving observers.

      Now the DFM shows CSL can be explained WITH an 'ether', or quantum field 'condensate', which HAS to 'exist therefore it is' as the CMBR rest frame anyway!, there is no need for all the confusing nonsense that grew around it like mould and weeds. Physics is far simpler, and the only stumbling bock now is those who can't see the rest is now just 'beliefs'.

      Magnets can repel because there can be a field (below 'matter' scale) structure the em force configures to attract or repel. We KNOW it's there from experiment. How else could the em field of a moving object carry on, with apparent momentum, when the object is suddenly stopped dead!!? Yes.. it does!

      I'm continuously exasperated by the lack of basic intelligence and logic sometimes shown by our supposedly most eminent physicists. If they don't start listenning to me I shall throw my toys out of my pram and go back to Vulcan! - ..well we have to laugh don't we!

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #298

      I am familiar with Alain Connes view from Scientific American

      http://www.sciam.com...ter-of-particle

      "The picture that emerges from the Standard Model, then, is that of spacetime as a noncommutative space that can be viewed as consisting of two layers of a continuum, like the two sides of a piece of paper. The space between the two sides of the paper is an extra discrete (noncontinuous), noncommutative space. The discrete part creates the Higgs, whereas the continuum parts generate the gauge bosons, such as the W and Z particles, which mediate the weak force"

      It seems to me non esthetic.

      I believe reality always trumps the unfalsifiable. Nature is the final arbiter.

      Peter

      Yuri

      The standard model has never been aesthetic to me. See my above note to Alan today.

      I've just posted a reply to Florin in the essay Blog to explain the DFM in two paragraphs. Here it is. Any comments?

      Florin

      Don't worry, It's still only 1 in 4 who do. It needs the 'different way of thinking' Einstein postulated, very difficult if you use the standards way! There are some thought Gedankens (see the orange bits in my string) which are irrefutable. It needs pure logic, not mathematical abstraction. It also needs a non 'self centric' viewpoint (see my last ref). Consider yourself in Andromeda, with a very powerful telescope, watching a short string of light 'pulses' (or Q-bits?) passing through the Magellanic clouds heading for the the Milky Way....

      As you know about scattering you know the signals you are receiving are from Magellanic particles 'polarised' (charged) in sequence by the passing pulse, and that you receive them locally at 'c' (or c/ n of air = 1.0003). You time the pulses progress against the 'background' clouds they're moving through, and find they're doing about 'c'. You then time them with respect to your lab frame, and get a strange answer! You call up 6 mates on other planets who do the same, all get different answers! So it's clear your lab frames are irrelevant to the pulses as they do 'c' LOCALLY. The pulses then cross the vacuum to the Milky Way. (You pick them up again quickly due to the Halo, stretching out many Kps). You time them and find they've done 'c' with respect to (wrt) nothing (the vacuum) in the gap (Hmmm!). But, as the galaxy was moving towards them, they are now slowing to virtually 'c' wrt the environment they are in, the diffuse background halo say ion 'gas' or plasma). The PMD also slows them slightly, but they pass into the galaxy vacuum at 'c' wrt the galaxy, (SMBH) but slightly blue shifted (closed up).

      You check their speed wrt your lab frame again. They appear to be doing about 1.7c due to comparative galactic (and your sun & planetary) motion. But that is an invalid frame, as wrt the galaxy they do 'c'. Your sensitive telescope picks up the suns heliospheric bow shock, some sort of diffuse plasma cloud similar to LL Orionis. As the pulses hit that you can see the glow as they charge each ion sequentially and it emits the light to you. You can see their progress is slowed again to the new local 'c' as they head to the blue 3rd planet, which is moving away. As they catch up and enter the planets plasmasphere and ionosphere they are red shifted again, (but also slightly slowed by PMD), so sped up a bit to do 'c' wrt the planet. A primitive race on the planet looks through its first telescopes and is amazed to find it always doing 'c'! Yet the 'infinity' formula (LT) they invent to explain it endures.

      The discrete fields of the DFM are as Minkowski and Einstein predicted but never quite found Florin; "Infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion." The implications are quite major (covered in the other papers) and all good. As Edwin identified, our blind trust in maths has not been adequately tempered by logic, and the development of our conceptual powers needs to continue. Do now re-read it, with the Gedankens, and let me know if it's appeared for you yet.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #301

      Peter

      If the standard model has never been aesthetic for you,can you comment following articles?

      http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

      http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

      http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

      http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

      All the best

      Yuri

      With 300 Posts, there is even still a vanishinly small possibility that you will see this.

      Therefore hello again Dr. Jackson and wonderous essay please see my thourough commentary on my own thread, which has an Order of Magnitude leass posts!

      To be as cryptic as needed: it is my skeptical concern that the sense with which you misspelled Piers Morgan (On a Pale Horse--read it as a teenager--also wondrous) was intentional and a device of eliciting verbiage. How do you respond? heh

      Lol! Yes, we all have to laugh at our common ignorance, we'll probably all do a "I told you so" as soon as it's nailed and understood in detail and focus. A stark contrast to the fuzzy picture we currently have, which we -think- is clear..It'll be a like a new flat screen tv in HD!

      Alan

      Tommy

      You did indeed spot my counterfeit triple entendre Fraudian slip. But, though educated to beyond PhD, I am not a Dr so please call me Peter. I repeat the thanks given in your string for your kind words;

      "your essay was Magnificent. withdraw it immediately rewrite for Publication, and submit as an AstroPhysical model"

      Thank you for your kind comment, which I shall frame for my wall, post to Peers Morgan for his review. With typical scientific anticipatory plagiarism I have indeed taken your good advice and been roundly and consistently rejected. Indeed Florin has just informed me in the Blog Dept (the string about the essay competition is good value) that apparently is it very difficult to get something accepted by 'Nature'. Florin has read it twice but not yet understood it. I had hoped winning here may encourage the chap in charge of science to take note. ..Hey Ho. By the way..who is he anyway?

      Yet I am a tenacious type Tommy. As the DFM is quite a powerful weapon, and seems to fire magic bullets, I pointed it at a high profile astronomy problem, which it resolved immediately, and the paper was accepted for peer review! (The rejection letter is actually now overdue!)

      If you'd like to have a go with it be my guest, just think of a high profile subject for headline story and we'll see what it can do. If you haven't seen this yet you may enjoy it;

      I'm not actually convinced theoretical physics can now progress any more. We may be entrenched a bit too deep in the rut! What do you think?" (edited)

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #305

      Dear Peter,

      In my thread 833 you pointed me to a paper. I looked into it as to find data of measured velocity in excess of c according your claims. I only found values mentioned up to 500 km/s measured by means of (perhaps not relativistic) Doppler effect, while c roughly amounts 300 000 km/s. Errare humanum est. Why did you not yet reply and corrected me?

      Regards,

      Eckard