Alternative Models of Cosmology

Good synopsis. Only thing that I would add is that the expanding universe CMB at 2.7 K is a partially ionized plasma at 3,000 K in its rest frame. In a contracting universe, the CMB is actually a lot colder than 2.7 K by the same factor of 1100 or so, but still partially ionized and force at the CMB has just grown large enough to freeze electrons and protons from gaechron.

The really nice thing about contraction is that it is the acceleration of light that determines electron and proton and other isotope masses, charge force, gravity force, and the universe contraction rate. You do not need any other constants than the three of c/alpha, m_dot, and m_gaechron...and of course matter, time, and action.

The DFM plasma seems to suggest that the CMB is actually emitting at 2.7 K and has no particular origin or frame of reference. So the CMB would not be a plasma at all, just a neutral gas expanding randomly and thermally. Neutral hydrogen at 2.7 K would for course be very transparent if it were not plasma. That was one of the original hopes...to be able to see back to the future by picking up recycled light echos.

Digging up this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na6QspKHt48

I can see one possible source of Peter's confusion. It is indisputable that bodies fall at the same rate in a gravity field, whether in a straight trajectory or a curved trajectory. It is indisputable that bodies that start in the same state of relative motion end in the same state of relative motion. However:

That the final speed of the body in the curved trajectory is greater than that of the one in the curved trajectory results not from an extra acceleration of the latter body, as Peter claims (the "accelerated bus boarder") -- it's a consequence of time symmetry. The same symmetry is inherent in Kepler's second law of motion, in which planetary orbits sweep equal areas in equal times.

Of course, apparently superluminal jets, like M87, have been explained and modeled quite extensively. Counter rotating and differential motions of stars and gas within galaxies are usually associated with past galaxy collisions. These phenomena are certainly not well understood and even have anomalies, but are hardly a paradoxes requiring a new world order.

However, if you can explain quantitatively galaxy rotation and dark matter and dark energy and what a black hole is really like with DFM plasma and tie gravity and charge forces together, that would be useful. It is not that there are not anomalies out there...there are.

I am glad that you now agree that a moving dielectric does not result in doppler shifts for an external observer. You created DFM plasma to do the heavy lifting of Lorentz invariance instead of just leaving c constant in all frames. Since the net effect seems to be the same, why complexify with DFM plasma. In a moving DFM plasma, c changes, but in a stationary dielectric, c changes as well. So now we get changing changes in a moving dielectric...and this is simpler than constant c?

All you seem to be saying is that the moving DFM plasma doppler shifts light instead of light doing it all by itself. Is this useful?

Yes. A good synopsis by Tom.

However, I wonder what Tom (and Peter) make of the observed red-blue Doppler shift interpreted as due to the motion of the observer vis-a-vis the statement that the validity of Special relativity and as well Lorentz transformation require that it be impossible for an observer to determine whether he was moving or at rest by observation of light.

Peter, I'm also here to learn, explore and discuss scientifically... The section 2.2 DOES NOT SAY THERE CAN BE NO SINGLE ABSOLUTE 'PRIVILEGED REST FRAME! What IT CLEARLY SAYS supported by the excerpts below is that IN THE ABSENCE OF an observer's motion OR rest being experimentally discernible by observations of electromagnetic phenomena and capable of influencing such optic phenomena, then Galilean relativity MUST be revised and the possibility of a single privileged frame discarded.

Excerpts:

"The attempts to measure the effects of motion relative to the ether (interpret as medium capable of transmitting light waves) commanded considerably more attention"; "...the abandonment of the ether -- following the failure of attempts to measure velocity relative to the ether and, more generally, the apparent independence of all electrodynamic phenomena of motion relative to the ether (light carrying medium)-- did not vindicate the Newtonian inertial frame, but required a dramatically revised conception..."; "But as Einstein also pointed out, the invariance of the velocity of light and the principle of relativity, at least in its Galilean form, are incompatible. It simply makes no sense, according to Galilean relativity, that any velocity should appear to be the same in inertial frames that are in relative motion".

There are now uncountable observations of optic and electromagnetic phenomena on which the effects of motion of the observer have a bearing (Therefore NO MORE APPARENT INDEPENDENCE). As at the time SR and Lorentz transformation were formulated there were not that many showing 'DEPENDENCE'. Indeed, one such experiment FAILED to find any significant effect due to Earth motion (the Michelson-Morley experiment) making Galilean relativity INCOMPATIBLE with light observation. That is, in Galilean relativity arrival time for INCOMING light can be influenced by observer's motion as it is for bullets. If light arrival times cannot be similarly influenced then as section 2.2 says Galilean relativity will be incompatible for light, unlike it is for bullets. However, now that experiments are turning up significant influences and effects on light DUE TO Earth motion then the original rationale for discarding Galilean relativity which says velocity should NOT appear to be the same in inertial frames that are in relative motion fails. This is the point I am stressing and why I call for its re-instatement.

Even, if you don't agree with privileged frames, and prefer multiple frames that is okay. But I have pointed out the reason why a single preferred frame was once ruled out, which reason is no longer valid since there are now instances where observer motion CAN influence optical phenomena.

See the Einstein quote I posted above on Oct. 9, 2014 @ 19:39 GMT and if you want to verify it is here (end of p.28-29). Please bold 'ARE NOT' and let me know if that can NOW be replaced with 'CAN BE', then we can lay this to rest. Sorry for asking for free tuition :)

Thanks,

Akinbo

Akinbo, a preferred reference frame is no problem for Galilean relativity or Newtonian mechanics. In fact, we use the preferred frame of Earth to send personnel to the moon using Newtonian physics alone.

It is only when speeds approaching the speed of light are involved, that we need to adjust our calculations to include the effects of Einstein relativity. At the absolute speed of light, spacetime geometry is coordinate-free -- i.e., no privileged inertial frame -- such that every observer's frame of reference is equally valid. This means that physical relations are causally limited to local interactions. ("All physics is local" ~ Einstein)

You write, "Special relativity and as well Lorentz transformation require that it be impossible for an observer to determine whether he was moving or at rest by observation of light."

No. You've got relative motion confused with the constancy of the speed of light. An heuristic that Einstein used to explain the equivalence principle (equivalence of gravity and acceleration) is the example of a person in deep space, negligibly influenced by a gravity field, in a sealed box, like a elevator, such that she has no external reference. It is impossible to tell whether the elevator's floor presses against her feet to exert a gravity-like effect, or if the elevator is in free fall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbSxxsb30_E

Also, http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/chapter10.html. See particularly figs 10.2 a & b

Steve,

'Explained and modelled' but not relativistically rationalised. Same for the Ecliptic Plane problem discussed in my essay. USNO Circ.179 2005 on the IAU 2000 resolutions states; "The apparently familiar concept of the ecliptic plane has not yet been defined in the context of relativity resolutions. A consistent relativistic theory of Earth rotation is still some years away;"

14 Years on a 'relativistic theory' still hasn't emerged, or rather "been adopted" because the DFM is it, consistent with the postulates AND the LT, but in clarifying the interpretation by removing an assumed 'infinity' in it's spatial domain. So yes. It is 'useful'. The problem is that too many fools say; "it aint broke so leave it be", so it's swept under the carpet with all the others and remains there.

The paper explained how ALL of the anomalous Planck CMBR 'SM inconsistencies' are predicted and derived by the model. The formal Planck report was carefully termed but most now forget it included the phrases; "challenge the very foundations of cosmology". "serious anomaly", "significant discrepancy of the CMB signal", "bringing with it new challenges about our understanding of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.", "evidence of anomalous features in the CMB is more serious than previously thought, suggesting that something fundamental may be missing from the standard framework", "..some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink." and that "...the anomalies seen by Planck highlight that the model should be at the very least extended, if not radically modified." etc. etc.

But no coherent solution has been 'found' so they too are now in the heap 'under the carpet' which now resembles the foothills of the Himalayas so all go round it rather than keep tripping up. Many outside astronomy ignore it exists entirely!

'Usually associated with past galaxy collisions' sums it up. It's crock, a grasp at straws with ZERO evidence. An FLRW universe is naturally cyclic and a galaxy scale model of that dynamic process reproduces the decoupling as the old outer halo isn't accreted and ejected in the bi-polar jets so retains it's original perpendicular rotation. 'Dark' matter (unobservable as you agreed) is shown as a natural consequence.

I see you blame your misunderstanding on me ("now agree that a moving dielectric..") and still misunderstand; " created DFM plasma.." though I explain I only invoke a) what we've found there, and apply b) what we know it does. But sure, that wasn't previously done!

What you've missed is the scenario effect I actually specified; Where the medium BEHIND the glass (say air) is at rest with the glass i.e. WITH THE OBSERVER IN THE [B]SAME[/B] FRAME', the Doppler shift due solely to the 'frame change' element remains. (inside the car or spacecraft behind the glass). That is the 'new physics' which our intellectual evolution has fallen short of seeing and which resolves the whole (Himalayan!) gamut of anomalies. So yes, it's VERY useful! Can you make the intellectual leap separating the effects of delta 'n' from speed change K-K'? (I don't suggest it's easy.)

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

"a preferred reference frame is no problem for Galilean relativity" That's good progress. The next step is to agree that Earth's is not unique, so ALL planets (bodies) have their own local preferred background rest frame. I've always agreed adjustment by the Lorentz Factor where acceleration (frame change) brings speed close to c relative to that local background frame.

Your other comments simply show misunderstanding of my hypothesis. A change from state of motion K to K' (forget gravity, imagine just 2 spaceships) requires 'an acceleration', but that only happens on INTERACTION with matter 'at rest' in that new frame. The speed of the other car is only RELATIVE and v+v, until they interact, then they are "accelerated" (even slightly 'Doppler shifted' if not rigid!) "Science is about finding new ways to look at familiar things"

The 'Relativity of Simultaneity' however wrongly precluded ANY such background frame, local or otherwise, because it DIDN'T CONSIDER the option of co-moving local background systems as 'frames'. All it NEEDED to do was preclude the "SINGLE & ABSOLUTE" preferred ('aether') frame to achieve it's correct aim. An aether like our atmosphere, with local co-moving currents and clouds, each a local rest frame, (like Earth's) is perfectly acceptable to simply explain and verify the SR postulates. However the bits others 'added on' have to be limited in domain to WITHIN each discrete 'inertial system' or field rather than assumed 'infinite'. That's all the Discrete Field Model is.

Akinbo,

If you understood the above you'll see where the logic you proposed fails. It fails for the very reason that caused all the angst in physics for centuries, because one single 'absolute' rest frame for measuring c is untenable. Because SR retained paradoxes thousands have gone back many times to try to resurrect the (one fixed frame) aether. Each time they've just hit the same old wall, and the CMBR (even as rather hijacked and turned nonsensical by the BB believers) has not helped to that end, only added more confusion due to the poor understanding. The only paradox free answer lies elsewhere, as I've described. It's not simple to understand, but it's worth the effort.

I know I may still be bashing my head against a brick wall here, but I have to find a way of explaining the complex dynamic. Imagine Einstein's small space moving within bigger space moving within bigger space etc. Reading my post to Steve below carefully should help.

Best wishes

Peter

"I've always agreed adjustment by the Lorentz Factor where acceleration (frame change) brings speed close to c relative to that local background frame."

Since all physics is local, that's a non-starter. You have been informed many times that you are adding unnecessary assumptions to an already complete theory.

Tom,

Perhaps more the only finisher than a 'non-starter'. It is entirely local. Just repeating you own familiar viewpoint won't help as you're thinking about it the wrong way to understand the hypothesis. Bragg again; "Science is about finding new ways of thinking about familiar things". Try this. It won't hurt;;

Axioms;

1) A system or 'body' of matter with a bulk rest frame may be assigned a LOCAL inertial rest frame K. Think of a dense gas cloud.

2) Many such systems may exist (K'

You gotta love language...language is so much easier than math because language allows you to turn on a dime and say contradictory things in the same sentence. That what makes most of the world go around...politics.

"'Explained and modelled' but not relativistically rationalised. Same for the Ecliptic Plane problem discussed in my essay."

Okay, I thought that falsification was your mantra, but now your standard has slipped from falisification to relativistic rationalization. The truth be known, your diatribes are teaching me quite a lot about the nature of fringe science.

I understand DFM plasma completely from what you have said and have read your papers. I then point out why that DFM plasma inconsistent with most observations and data. You then pull various rabbits out of your hat with some neat anomalous observation. I will grant you that no theory will ever be completely consistent with all observations.

All that is ever possible is that some theories will be more useful than others for predicting action in the universe. If a theory is useful to science, it will be used despite its flaws. If a theory is not useful to science, it will not be used. Since DFM plasma has not been useful for anyone else on the planet for prediction of action, it matters little that DFM plasma seems to be the bee's knees for you.

I kind of like the idea of counterpropagating invisible and unmeasurable DMF plasmas. That DFM plasma has dielectric properties that are so unusual and unmeasurable is also quite nice. You can explain many things with invisible and unmeasurable objects and you are not alone in your quest. However, trying to quantitate this qualitative relativistic reasoning with math does not seem to be possible.

"Perhaps more the only finisher than a 'non-starter'. It is entirely local."

Jeez, Peter, what does 'all physics is local' mean to you?

Tom,

Precisely as specified in Einstein's postulates, including c within all inertial systems. So nothing like your own view. The current interpretive paradigm offers no physical mechanism to go with the purely mathematical model contrived to reproduce the predictions. Mine does, and actually 'localises' the spatial domain of the equations from 'infinity' to the physical domain boundaries of each inertial system.

Those boundaries are defined by the most distant matter at rest in that system (Earth's ionosphere, the Galaxy halo, and Maxwell's near field boundary Transition Zone. Are you familiar with where that is physically? I can provide you with the full set of equations if you wish, but all are just approximations due to the well understood magnetohydrodynamic turbulence.

I don't really expect you to understand or accept the new interpretation Tom, just giving you every opportunity for valid falsification as specified above.

Best wishes,

Peter

Steve,

Are you familiar with the large scale cyclic nature of the FLRW cosmology? Your knowledge of Astronomy does seem limited as unlike me you don't seem interested in still learning so you simply dismiss or ignore the information I impart that doesn't suit your own beliefs and agenda. That's ok as it's quite ubiquitous, but still rather disappointing.

If you wish for links to anything I cite do just ask, but I suspect you may not. That's fine and expected too. But you haven't yet responded with the sound evidence I expressed my interested in for your own hypothesis.

Best wishes

Peter

...but you didn't say please...

"But you haven't yet responded with the sound evidence I expressed my interested in for your own hypothesis."

Matter time papers are pretty technical, so if you do not like math, you will not like these papers. So you are not the only one with rabbits in your hat.

I have tried several times to publish this, but the editors of four different journals just were not the least interested. So these papers were not even rejected by peer review, but that is coming I am sure. I do have a wide range of research interests outside of cosmology and astronomy.

Universal_Quantum_Action_in_the_Matter-Time_Universe

So far, I have three analyses that show the utility of matter time. These are all quite technical and still in draft form.

GALAXY_ROTATION_WITHOUT_DARK_MATTER_IN_THE_MATTER-TIME_UNIVERSE

Correlation_of_Solar_Sunspot_Cycle_with_Nearby_Stars_Procyon_and_61-Cygni

Decay_of_the_International_Prototype_Kilogram

And I have a number of further analyses in preparation:

Condensation of hydrogen pairs and isotopes in the early matter time universe

Diameter of the neutron in matter time

Reinterpretation of the Higgs boson in matter time (it actually scales with the classical electron spin velocity, c/alpha)

Matter decay correction for muon hydrogen spectrum that that is consistent with hydrogen: There is no anomaly with the proton radius

Liquid drop model of nuclear structure revisited with matter time

Distortion of quasar and galaxy numbers and luminosities by the time lensing of matter time

Aware matter and the quantum function of consciousness in matter time

"I don't really expect you to understand or accept the new interpretation Tom ..."

Good. Then I won't have to disappoint you.

Steve,

Not yet "relativistically rationalised" is the IAU/ USNO Circ.179 (p.6) quote I gave you on the Ecliptic Plane problem condensed. It's not my description, but it's entirely consistent with the data. 'Atmospheric Refraction' (recognised even before and by Newton) extends to the ionosphere, and localises light speed to c wrt Earth, wearas signal speeds from probes such as the Voyagers and Cassini-Huygens propagate at c wrt the barycentric frame (the Sun).

That data implies a speed change to local c along with the Doppler shift on reaching Earth's local orbiting rest frame. It is only THAT DATA which can't be rationalised using the present 'add on' interpretations of Einstein's Relativity. ALL interplanetary probes using just SR have been initially 'lost', including 3 Mars Probes and Cassini-Huygens and the Pioneers and Voyager craft are millions of miles 'off track'.

Interpreting using Einstein's 1952 "space s in motion within S" and local spatial 'domain limits' more literally based on MATTER centred virial inertial systems to each frame resolves all the issues, but using present methods it almost certainly won't be adopted. Perhaps in the next century if we get there.

"passionately believe.." Hmm. Yes, we do have a language thing. To me belief belongs to religion. I've just taken a heap of data sets and tried many ontological constructions to rationalise them, finding just one that works way better than any others, so needs deeper falsification. That's what I'm doing. The problem is that many OTHERS tend to use their 'beliefs' to judge it, which is unfortunately methodologically invalid.

Proper falsification takes research, an open mind and objectivity and all is very welcome. I'll do the same for you as I try to do for all hypotheses.

Best wishes

Peter

Steve,

"consistent with observations that do not have other explanations" rather misses the point that many 'explanation' are offered to almost ALL findings. What I suggest is important is finding logically consistent explanation coherent with explanations of OTHER phenomena. THAT is where we have a great shortage, including I agree, with 'expansion'.

You suggest; "Thus far, you have not done that". I have done so for the above cases, but apparently you haven't read or 'taken in' those parts, many actually summarised as a list! I've referred elsewhere but a short list of the top of my head is;

Formation of galaxy bars.

Halo rotational 'decoupling' (perpendicular to disc).

Formation and age distribution of dwarf satellite spheroids.

GRB's and strong X ray emissions from quasars.

CMBR large scale Helicity.

The full range of WMAP and Planck peculiar large scale anisotropies.

The Pioneer, voyager and flyby anomalies.

The relativistic Ecliptic plane problem.

'Electron heating' at Earth's bow shock (Cluster data) and shock creation.

Kinetic reverse refraction (KRR).

The failure of Snell's Law and Fresnel Refraction between co-moving media.

Stellar Aberration for waves.

Elliptical polarisation of light.

Faraday Rotation, the Kerr effects (still 'anomalous!), the kSZ effect etc.

A classical physical cause of the effect quantified by the Lorentz Factor.

The list goes on, and I've discussed each one in detail, shown how it improves on present theory and how it all fits perfectly together like a jigsaw puzzle. Indeed a contraction 'phase' is implicit, but NOTHING is required to be 'infinite', even the cycle itself.

So far only a handful of people have bothered to check the evidence rigorously and follow the logical progression. All those agree the model is consistent. I don't expect a great rush of others but falsification continues. Whether of not it's 'true' or not is quite another matter. I can say I'm quite certain it's far from 'complete'!

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

"I don't really expect you to understand or accept the new interpretation Tom"

TR; "Good. Then I won't have to disappoint you."

OK. But I'm still; "giving you every opportunity for valid falsification as specified" which I note you're still unable to do scientifically. That's fine. Nobody has, but my rigorous attempts continue, as they should. The invitation remains open.

Best wishes

Peter

A little constrained from being online for a while...

Peter,

I think this summarizes the final position, i.e. I know I may still be bashing my head against a brick wall here, but I have to find a way of explaining the complex dynamic. Imagine Einstein's small space moving within bigger space moving within bigger space, moving within bigger space, moving within bigger space, moving within bigger space, moving within bigger space,moving within bigger space, moving within bigger space,moving within bigger space,moving within bigger space, moving within bigger space, ad infintum.

In other words there is no end to the 'bracketing' on both the large and small scale. This is good because it represents a falsifiable position, especially on the smallest scales. My position is that the bracketing has a finite limit on both the smallest and largest scales.

Tom, thanks for the link on the other thread, although you only quoted the reference. You didn't say if you agreed with my description of the Action-Reaction principle. Is the 'Mathematical Universe' infinite in size?

Regards,

Akinbo