Alternative Models of Cosmology

Thanks for the Silvertooth link, that was very interesting.

"...I went through all the same before later coming across this experiment by Silvertooth , which claims to have detected a 378km/s motion of the earth through space by a mechanism quite different from the CMBR observation. Please criticize this experiment and let me know whether it is of any significant value."

Of course, here is the real reason. The measurement was an artifact of day to night room temperature changes.

Reproducing Silvertooth

I liked Silvertooth's bi-interferometer, a ring interferometer coupled with a linear interferometer. However, anyone who has done interferometry knows that the data just does not look like Silvertooth's hand drawn sine waves. That made me a little suspicious.

So when Marett reproduced Silvertooth's result with real looking data with noise, I thought great, this is real. Then when Marett went on to show that the effect went away when the room temperature did not vary from night to day and had nothing to do with Leo, the experiment made perfect sense as an artifact.

Coupling a ring (i.e. Sagnac) interferometer to a linear interferometer is a good idea and should first of all measure earth's rotational velocity. The ring interferometer is sensitive to optical rotation effect and the linear interferometer is much less sensitive to rotation. So Silvertooth's gismo should first of all recorded the earth's rotation velocity, ~300 m/s at that latitude, then maybe earth's orbit, 30 km/s, but never in your dreams the 371 km/s CMBR velocity. The optical rotatary effects are just too small to measure in this manner.

Thanks Steve. I will trust your judgement on this and throw Silvertooth in the trash can.

I had already suspected that no optical experiment with the light source and light path on Earth surface can detect the Earth's motion (being in the same ship -Galilean relativity). However, light paths from beyond and outside the ship can reveal the ship's motion hence the CMBR revealing a velocity 370km/s.

You like 'The shrinking universe' but I don't agree with it. The CMBR temperature is now 2.7K. In a shrinking universe it must then have been even colder in the past since energy density was lower and you say it is now increasing (shrinking volume).

What do you think about the CMBR being a preferred frame of reference for motion and rest? I have been begging Peter to accept that it is but he would not bulge.

Peter,

Happy 90th birthday to your Mum. Hope she shared the secrets of her longevity with you, which I am sure would not include 'absorption and emission at local c'

Regards,

Akinbo

It is true that optical experiments cannot show linear motion, but they can show rotation since rotation changes inertia. The question is can optical experiments show gravity waves and the Ligo results will be coming over the next couple of years.

I do not think that gravity waves distort space any more than light does and so these efforts will prove futile. However, there are other experiments with particle physics that should show our direction and velocity, like IceCube, Cuore, DMIce, etc. There is a way to measure our motion...

As for our shrinking universe, you are correct in that the actual temperature of the CMB would be 0.0049 K instead of 2.7 Kelvin. However, that is not inconsistent with the observations. Moreover, having the speed of light define the collapse rate of the universe has a very appealing symmetry. If all objects are actually comoving at the speed of light, all mass = E/c2 is clear without the Higg's boson. All motion is a decrease in velocity and an increase in inertial mass and it is as if light were standing still and we are moving.

I agree that the CMBR is a perfect absolute reference, at least to within 99.9998% anyway. Everyone in the universe measures the exact same CMBR and so you simply cannot get any more absolute than that.

Dear Steve, thanks for being forthright in your reply. In response...

"As for our shrinking universe, you are correct in that the actual temperature of the CMB would be 0.0049 K instead of 2.7 Kelvin. However, that is not inconsistent with the observations."

Although your idea was interesting, I think it is now my grim professional medical duty to pronounce 'collapsing universe' dead. Unless of course you come up with urgently needed oxygen, I should be inviting Eckard, John M, Tom, Peter and co as the pall bearers. LOL :)

Part of the success of the Big bang model is the relative abundance of the elements (primordial nucleosynthesis). Those with stronger bonds able to be stable under the high ambient energy conditions are more in abundance, e.g. hydrogen, helium, etc. Structure formation and abundance follows quarks, atoms, molecules in that order. With starting ambient temperatures of 0.0049K, almost everything including humans would be stable and would exist at the beginning. The evidence says otherwise.

"It is true that optical experiments cannot show linear motion, but they can show rotation since rotation changes inertia"

I think no need complicating with gravity waves. The motion of the Earth about the Sun is not linear! It is rotational and optical experiments (notably M&M) did not see it. It is only when the light path is from a distant source (like Lunar laser ranging, Pulsars, GPS, etc) that the Earth based observer sees BOTH his linear and rotational motion (against Einstein's SR postulate that electromagnetic, e.g. optical phenomena CANNOT be used to discern Earth motion).

I look forward to the results and interpretation of IceCube, Cuore, DMIce, etc. There is a way to measure our motion... YES, We Can! CMBR already shows the way optical experiments can measure the motion of the Earth.

"I agree that the CMBR is a perfect absolute reference, at least to within 99.9998% anyway. Everyone in the universe measures the exact same CMBR and so you simply cannot get any more absolute than that'.

Peter J. is yet to concede. I think Newton deserves our post-humous apology. Despite various arguments from effects, causes and properties, we appear to have been late in catching up. I have linked these previously. I do so again. Read also the Scholium. We have allowed Mach and Leibniz to lead us astray. Now that CMBR is showing us the way, why can we not go back to the fork in the road to rediscover our physics.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Ahh, you doth protest too much...

I look for observation that the collapsing universe cannot explain, and I have not yet found any.

"Although your idea was interesting, I think it is now my grim professional medical duty to pronounce 'collapsing universe' dead."

What my analysis shows is that there is a conspiracy of equivalence between the expanding and collapsing universes. That is, they both predict the same isotope ratios and the same hydrogen to helium rations and they both are consistent therefore with observation. A collapsing unverse actually needs fewer constants to explain the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

So elemental abundances should not dissuade you, it is only the truth with which you should you align.

Okay Steve. Will stop protesting. I actually woke up thinking that perhaps global warming is due to collapsing universe rather than to environmental pollution. Just a foolish idea...

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

A "plasma aether" seems a contradiction in terms. 'Aether' was conceived as a sub-matter medium, conventionally with a single 'universal' rest frame, so equivalent to a 'dark energy' condensate rest frame. Plasma on the other hand is specifically the free fermion pairs and free protons condensed FROM the ether into 'matter'.

Plasma forms 'clouds' in space (invariably around matter moving wrt the 'aether') each matter 'cloud' can move wrt each other. (Whether or not local aether regions also 'move' is entirely 'at large' and a separate question). If you're proposing some different understanding of plasma can you explain what it is, exactly how it differs, why? and relying on what evidence?

As EM waves couple strongly with fermions, constantly re-emitted at c in the local fermion rest frame (Pearle et al's CSL) the fact that clouds of fermions move wrt each other means that the CMB can NOT represent a single 'universal' rest frame datum applicable everywhere. Sure a metre rule at rest in the local cloud rest frame will measure local 'c' wherever it is, but the real point is that ALL SUCH METRE RULES CAN AND DO MOVE WRT EACH OTHER.

That needs you to stop and think and visualise for a moment; All clouds are at rest. All clouds move wrt each other. Light does local c within each. The constant change of speed at domain limits is what CSL by the fermions there implements. That 'discrete field' model is the only logical mechanism which does not fail in logic when tested against observations. light is localised to c on ALL interactions ("measurement situations"; Gell-Mann) with all systems of matter. 'Observers' are simply a system of matter, so however fast they move they will find all light at c.

That's Akinbo's option 3; 'Other'. It resolves the final issues identified by Scott & Smoot. If you see any apparent paradox or anomaly please just say where and I'll show where your understanding is incomplete or not consistently applied. I'd like to understand why it seems so difficult to rationalise and hold.

And by the way I've found no empirical or logical objections to a contracting universe. Indeed a cyclic cosmology requires almost as long a contraction as expansion phase.

Best wishes

Peter

Akinbo,

Your devotion to Newton is admirable but as misguided as any religion. You are not consistently applying what you've already seen and agreed. If light SPEED is localised then it's DATUM must be localised! Perhaps you're not discerning between the uniform 'metre rules' of my post above, all reading the same, by ALSO realising that all metre rules in the universe can move wrt each other!

There can be no SINGLE background 'frame' with any validity. The reason the CMB radiation is continually Doppler shifted is that on arrival in ALL those rest frames it changes speed to the local c. It takes a little intellectual effort to rationalise and remember that. You're being lazy any reverting to your old religion (To suggest I'm; "yet to concede" is absolute delusion!).

Have a look and think about the rules of brackets in arithmetic. Nothing in ANY bracket can be directly computed against anything in another, but we can have infinitely many be brackets within brackets. THAT is 'Truth Function Logic' the only paradox free form of logic!

Silvertooth; His experiment was fine, his analysis as poor as any! There are TWO cases of rotating interferometers, The 1st where the medium moves (in a glass disk or fibre optic cable) the 2nd where the mirrors etc. move THROUGH the background medium (air/plasma etc). The results are different. The Sagnac case of a tubular waveguide rather than fibre optics gives different results (see Wang). Then the emitter itself may either rotate or be 'fixed', also changing the results, confounding all analysis that forgets to distinguish (unfortunately all except my own!!; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163)

I'm sure you can visualise the difference between a mirror moving THROUGH a medium and a mirror and medium 'moving' as one! Well you need to start applying that to ALL CASES to rationalise logically!

Best wishes

Peter

Plasma clouds? What is really amazing is that you truly believe that what you say makes sense...and in a perverse way, you do make sense.

"Plasma on the other hand is specifically the free fermion pairs and free protons condensed FROM the ether into 'matter'."

Plasmas are plasmas...electrons and protons bound into a gas like state by charge force. Most plasmas in space are electrons and protons but you avoid saying electrons, and that makes what you say very confusing jiberish. You seem to be inventing a plasma without electrons. Plasmas are so unique that they are often called a fourth state of matter. They have both electron and ion temperatures and emit and absorb light readily.

I have worked extensively with 1 eV plasmas at 1e20/m3 or so and it was lots of fun. We did spectrosopy, magnetic confinement, rotation with electric field, and succeeded in separating large amounts of ions by their masses. But plasmas are very, very voracious little buggers and we needed several megawatts just to sustain our baby as a steady state at several tens of cubic meters.

In fact, plasmas decay by emission of light and eventually emission cools them to the ground state of the hydrogen atom by a final series of excited state emissions called the Rydberg energy, which is the binding energy of hydrogen. There are a bunch of selection rules and parity issues with these processes, but the energetics are straightforward. Collision, obviously, can also cool the plasma.

Aether is an old term for the imagined working fluid of space and has a long history. What you keep talking about is a plasma that is like a cloud and so it is you who have defined a plasma aether, not me. I am just trying to use words that express what you seem to be saying. If you invent a new kind of plasma, you really cannot call it plasma without confusing everyone, so you need to call it DFM plasma or just plasma aether works for me.

As far as I know, there is no aether that fills all space and there is no plasma that fills all space, and that is because there really is nothing that is space. The nothing of space is just that...nothing at all. You gotta love our language!

However, there are clouds of plasma in space that emit and absorb light and there are clouds of neutral hydrogen that emit and absorb light and there are clouds of cold neutral hydrogen that only absorb light,and there are clouds of dust. Plasmas always emit light and therefore eventually decay into the ground state of the hydrogen atom unless there is sufficient reexcitation to reionize and maintain the plasma electron and ion temperatures, which are usually different.

"As EM waves couple strongly with fermions, constantly re-emitted at c in the local fermion rest frame (Pearle et al's CSL) the fact that clouds of fermions move wrt each other means that the CMB can NOT represent a single 'universal' rest frame datum applicable everywhere."

Matter of all kinds, not just plasmas, absorb and emit light at c. All clouds of matter absorb light, but only hot clouds of matter emit light. If the cloud of neutral matter is cold, we only see its absorption as a result of some background source. We are just such a cloud of hot and cold matter in our galaxy and we are moving wrt the CMB. Every other galaxy in the universe can see the same CMB and measure their movement wrt the same CMB even if they cannot see our galaxy and therefore know our motion.

Therefore the CMB represents a single universal frame that travels at 99.9998% of the speed of light wrt to every other rest frame. We can imagine that the CMB is a rest frame, but we only measure motion and so we must express all spatial metrics in the universe in units of h, the Hubble constant. In this epoch, our metric is H = 69 to 77 km/s/Mpc depending on how you interpret the data. This means that space has so many galaxies per Mpc and so much luminosity per Mpc as well.

It is beyond me why you mention papers that don't even support your thesis. Scott and Smoot have a very nice paper that says absolutely nothing about recycling. Moreover, a direct quote is:

"The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the 'absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Our velocity relative to the Local Group, as well as the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, and any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth, is normally removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy study."

So even Scott and Smoot support the notion of an absolute frame of reference. Game on...

Steve,

Bulk diffuse plasma shocks moving wrt each other is fundamental astrophysics, and I specify 'fermion' pairs as electron/positron pairs, which with free protons constitute 'pure plasma'. I agree 'earth bound' plasma conventions are a little different (I too have studies plasmas as well as optics and am a member of the APS Plasma Physics group) so can't be directly transferred.

In recent years we have greatly increased knowledge about space plasma coupling characteristics, density, distribution and motions (including far higher density and positron fraction that theorised!). I use that latest data not old inconsistent assumptions and theory.

You seem incredulous about 'plasma clouds' refracting light (including localising it's speed to the electron rest frame c). I'm not surprised. It's a new analysis, and it's predictions have been met; as soon as the VLB Array came on line! i.e. (worded rather carefully);

"We report on the first detection of the theoretically-predicted rare phenomenon of multiple parsec-scale imaging of an active galactic nucleus induced by refractive effects due to localized foreground electron density enhancements, e.g., in an AU-scale plasma lens(es) in the ionized component of the Galactic interstellar medium."

Pushkarev A.B., et al., VLBA observations A&A 2013.

The 'Smith Cloud' is a rare unattached plasma cloud in rapid motion wrt our galaxy. Within the Smith Cloud (subject to extinction distance) light and CMB radiation does c wrt the Smith Cloud bulk rest frame. That's how it refracts and lenses images!; by absorption and re-emission (Compton/Raman atomic scattering).

Now if you propose that the electrons of an identical plasma cloud or planetary shock elsewhere doing say 0.5c wrt Earth re-scatters light at anything OTHER than the local 'c' then perhaps your 'single absolute rest frame' for the universe may have a theoretical basis. Otherwise it still fails on simple logic, as it did 200 years ago. I've found the 'hierachical' (small system within larger system) model is the only one which doesn't. Do you understand it?

Lastly; You site Smoot, but did you know even his website has 'ether' in the title!? He found and specified a hierarchy of local system speeds building up to the 'axis of evil' but his analysis ended with the paradox unresolved so he suggested 'local' variable expansions! Also "The dipole is a frame dependent quantity" is entirely consistent with inertial systems (frames) as real Lagrangian bulk 'flow' rest frames. Do you refute that all bodies have surrounding plasma shocks in the bodies rest frame, and/or that bodies (and shocks) all move wrt each other? and/or that propagation speed in all systems isn't 'c'? (SR).

Best wishes

Peter

Funny you should bring up global warming...

"I actually woke up thinking that perhaps global warming is due to collapsing universe rather than to environmental pollution. Just a foolish idea..."

The quantum gravity of a collapsing universe results in coupling between stars in the galaxy, what I call matter waves. The proximity of stars to the sun effect the sun in different ways. Matter waves are kind of like gravity waves, but a little more general in that matter waves affect both gravity and charge.

My analysis shows that the two binary stars, Procyon and 61-Cygni, are largely responsible for the sunspot cycle. Both binaries are at 11.4 lyrs in different directions, but their motions and luminosities fit the sunspot cycle. Some other star distance coincidences also contribute.

The resonance represents over 400 years of sunspot observations and even fits the Maunder minimum, the mini ice age in 1670 where sunspot activity disappeared for 40 years.

Correlation of Solar Sunspot activity with Procyon and 61-Cygni

I think that a quantum gravity will enable many useful predictions just like this.

Steve,

Thanks for clarifying what you believe. It did sound a little like you were trying to lecture me on 'facts', but I'm sure you understand too much to make that error. Your agreement with Lord Thompson that very little needs 'fixing' was worrying but I believe all opinion should have proponents, and I agree your last line, which is far closer to my hypothesis then you realise.

My plasma research has included both space plasma and nuclear tokamacs. The latter appear to be an excellent model of black holes; Accretion ('gravity') and helicoil acceleration ('heating' and re-ionization). But then (and this is why tokamacs so far fail) ejection of the free protons in the jets (collimated bipolar outflows). When the fuel runs out so does the OAM, and the AGN dies. So there is your 'collapse' (leading into the next cycle).

Now the 'dark matter'. It's well documented that (check the standard SPIM), the 'electron density' (simplified plasma measure) around a celestial body can reach 10^14/cm^-3, higher in a collimated bow shocks (such as Earth's) and up to 10^22/cm^-3 in jet pulse collimation shear surfaces and at the nose of probes on re-entry (as the plasma's you'll be more familiar with on Earth). But these then spread out in space as the varyingly diffuse free proton/fermion 'pure' plasmas we detect, which evolve to CO, molecular gasses and 'dust'.

Now (after checking Clausius's virial theorem and Lagrangian bulk motions) ask yourself; Are these 'clouds' of particles somehow special in having zero gravitational potential? I simply suggest not, which all evidence supports. And when you do the sums (including the gas and dust) you'll find that they likely contribute somewhere between 50% and 150% to the potential we attribute to 'dark matter'.

Now lets go into the excellent research on the optical qualities of diffuse pure space plasma's a bit more. I'll post a link to one recent paper on free access to help, but please DON'T IMAGINE that glimpse in s anything more!; Bégué & Vereshchagin MNRAS 2014 Firstly, plasma DOES couple strongly with EM radiation (proton and fermions coupling peaking at different frequencies) but it does NOT "slow light down" as you suggest! It has a refractive index of n~1, same as the vacuum!! That makes it what's commonly referred to as 'transparent' or invisible spectroscopically (though all this seems beyond most mainstream limitations).

Now you need to employ your brain at full stretch. If the plasma medium has a 'bulk velocity' (as the moving 'cloud' in the VLBA paper) the coupling will transform the propagation speed to c in the cloud rest frame, which has the detectable effects reported even though it reverts to c in the GALAXY HALO bulk motion frame on exiting the cloud. In fact that's really just simple refraction. The effect is found in the halo's of other galaxies as the curvature of the light path we know as 'gravitational lensing', the ubiquitous (in astrophysics!) kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovich effect and the red and blue shifts from galaxy halo rotation.

So I suggest if we DO study the data we have and read 20+ papers a week for many years the coherent picture that emerges might just offer resolutions to ALL problems, whether we recognise them as problems or not! The real problem seems to be that those who DON'T study the data somehow "already know" how everything works!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

In reply to your post on Oct. 6, 2014 @ 16:30 GMT...

"Your devotion to Newton is admirable but as misguided as any religion".

Feel free to call devotion to Truth a religion. Newton himself said something like "Plato is my friend, Galileo is my friend but my greatest friend is Truth". That implies devotion is not to be to authority or persons, Newton inclusive.

This whole question of 'local' or 'localized' was VERY well known to Newton and Galileo before him. However, you hide too much under your 'local c'. c can vary due to many reasons in different localities, so it is not a constant and global value, except in absolutely free space. That is space free of fields, of which that on Earth is NOT FREE in any sense. It is polluted by electromagnetic and gravitational field. Even Einstein mentioned the strength of the gravity in the environment as a condition affecting the value of c.

Perhaps you're not discerning between the uniform 'metre rules' of my post above, all reading the same, by ALSO realising that all metre rules in the universe can move wrt each other!

I am not disputing that.

"There can be no SINGLE background 'frame' with any validity".

That is your opinion. So many terms are used to describe almost the same thing. 'background frame', 'preferred frame', 'immobile aether', 'preferred frame' are similar with a little difference. Newton preferred 'Absolute Space'.

"The reason the CMB radiation is continually Doppler shifted is that on arrival in ALL those rest frames it changes speed to the local c".

This goes to my original question of what is the most appropriate description of CMB. What does 'arrival' mean? Where is the CMB coming from, and where is it going? Is it a 'smoke' coming from some burning or shining place or is it a 'fog' that is just present without a discernible source? I guess, since you don't agree with the Big Bang, you regard CMB as a smoke?

Then, what do you mean by 'continually Doppler shifted, and in what direction? Our motion through the CMB frame gives both a RED and a BLUE shift. The other shift you may be talking about I don't regard as Doppler. That is, if you mean the reducing ambient energy now at microwave frequency. That is not due to observer motion but to an expanding universe ( in contrast to the collapsing one that Steve prefers).

To suggest I'm; "yet to concede" is absolute delusion!

You will concede before 2020 and we can bet a bottle of fine wine when the bet is lost and won.

Have a look and think about the rules of brackets in arithmetic. Nothing in ANY bracket can be directly computed against anything in another, but we can have infinitely many be brackets within brackets. THAT is 'Truth Function Logic' the only paradox free form of logic!

An infinite number of external brackets or an infinite number of brackets within is only in the Mathematician's mind. As I told Tom, zero 0 and infinity в€ћ are not part of the physics world.

"Silvertooth; His experiment was fine, his analysis as poor as any!"

From the reference Steve linked, the results may have been cooked up or the inference drawn overenthusiastic. I will leave Silvertooth alone.

I'm sure you can visualise the difference between a mirror moving THROUGH a medium and a mirror and medium 'moving' as one!

Of course, I can and what I see does not require absorption and re-emission at local c. What local c do you use anyway? Is it the mirror's or that of the medium? The correct one is that in the medium and not the electron in the mirror determining at what c to emit light.

Regards,

Akinbo

You seem to be suggesting that a window (made of dfm plasma or anything transparent) in our galaxy or any window at any velocity further red shifts the frequency of the light from an origin galaxy to a destiny galaxy, which is simply not true. The destiny galaxy will measure the same velocity or z for the origin galaxy light whether or not the light from the origin galaxy light goes through a window of any transparent material or dfm plasma at any velocity.

Your say that your dfm plasma has enough invisible and undetectable mass to account for dark matter, which is an invisible and undetectable mass...is this explanation progress?

Your mantra is that DFM plasma is consistent with all observations, but you can say that qualitatively of any model. Your need to show how the predictions of your model are quantitatively consistent with observations that do not have other explanations. Thus far, you have not done that.

Akinbo,

The way I go about analysis is with logical progression based on the evidence. You seem to prefer a different method, involving 'opinions', which is fine as all methods should be tried, but it does mean we get different results. As you wish to stick with your own prior assumptions (commonly held) and not test them, then my explanations are rather a waste of time.

On the subject of commonly held false assumptions. id you know by the way that it was not Newton who derived F = ma. The whole formulaic concept of acceleration was introduced rather later by Euler. If you prefer a universe in which water thrown from a spinning bucket can only drop vertically then it's not my universe. Committed followers of ALL doctrine claim theirs is the only truth.

The CMB is nothing other than low level radiation at a number of frequencies propagating at c in the LOCAL background rest frame. There is NOTHING mysterious about it, and the rest frame of the sun only applies locally to OUR star as each has it's own. If or when you're able or prepared to understand and accept that AND it's logical implications, then we may discuss again.

Best wishes

Peter

Steve,

A logical explanation of 'superluminal jets' is "quantitatively consistent with observations that do not have other explanations". As is 'kinetic decoupling', dwarf spheroid formation, the recovery of Snell's Law at the near'far field transition and the dozens of other predictions. But I agree if you ignore all those and assume that refractive index is frame invariant then the model offers nothing.

That would be interesting, as a beam of light passing through identical glass lenses on the ISS and Earth would do so at different speeds! Now that IS a novel prediction! I suspect you simply didn't understand that all I axiomise is light passing through at the SAME speed in each lens rest frame irrespective of relative motion. Thus the relative v, which is the Earth/ISS v. The axiom may be too simple to comprehend.

I do NOT then suggest some 'red shift' just due to 'passing through' a lens. There is a red OR blue shift dependent on the direction of that relative medium v. That's as found by observation. Indeed we can precisely estimate galaxy rotational velocities from the shifts. The 'lensing' time delays found are then also logically derived).

Plasma (normal space plasma not 'dfm') has what's termed an 'optical depth'. It simply behaves like a giant lens, but because n=1 it is 'spectroscopically transparent'. The only way we can detect it is than from the effects of it's bulk motion, which is precisely what Atlas 3D analysed and the VLBA confirmed (though theoretically problematic without understanding the rather hidden kinetic implications of 'atomic scattering')

"...plasma has enough invisible and undetectable mass to account for dark matter, which is an invisible and undetectable mass...is this explanation progress?" I'm not sure if that data itself can be "progress", but it certainly leads to more coherent understanding. It's only very recently we've discovered that the densities of 'plasma >> dust' particles are a number of orders of magnitude greater than the 'weak field approximation' assumption, partly due to the 'transparency' of plasma. If you have preconceptions which disagree with the actual densities you're not alone, but just look them up, or I can provide plenty more links.

The ontology is like that giant jigsaw puzzle. The very fact that it all fits into place and gives a beautiful coherent picture is evidence supporting it's veracity. Of course there may be other ways it fits, but the current SM is certainly not one! It's been well proved however that it can be successfully denied by avoiding looking at it (that needs no more re-verification!) which avoids the trauma of challenging fundamentals (in the same way as cosmic contraction I surmise!).

Best wishes

Peter

RE: The CMB is nothing other than low level radiation at a number of frequencies propagating at c in the LOCAL background rest frame. There is NOTHING mysterious about it, and the rest frame of the sun only applies locally to OUR star as each has it's own. If or when you're able or prepared to understand and accept that AND it's logical implications, then we may discuss again.

There appears to be some difficulty in swallowing this...

First, "light propagating at c in the LOCAL background rest frame", instead of at c+v or c-v would not show a Doppler shift due to motion of the observer's frame. When compared to peer-reviewed opinions, CMB is found to simultaneously show c+v and c-v, depending on the direction we look. The value 370km/s is the sum-total or 'resultant velocity' of ALL the motion of the Earth (i.e. wrt to Sun, Sun wrt to galaxy, Galaxy wrt to Local Group, etc).

Second, although true that "CMB is low level radiation at a number of frequencies", according to peer-reviewed opinions, the CMB has a thermal black body spectrum, strongest in the microwave region. This appears to suggest it is not just a random mixture of light at a number of frequencies.

The irony of the CMB for physics is that findings about it very much contrary to Einstein's relativity are this time not suppressed by mainstream as one would have expected. Among these are that (1) It is no longer true that electromagnetic phenomena cannot be used to discern an observer's motion, very much contrary to the postulate of SR and on which Einstein expressly rested the validity of his theory.

"But ALL experiments have shown that electromagnetic and optical phenomena, relatively to the earth as the body of reference, are not influenced by the translational velocity of the earth... The validity of the principle of special relativity can therefore hardly be doubted" - Einstein in 'The Meaning of Relativity', p.29.

Can we now express our doubt more forcefully?

(2) A preferred universal rest frame seems to have been found vindicating Newton against Leibniz and Mach. Einstein, following Mach also agreed that the existence of such a preferred rest frame would invalidate his theory. It is therefore an irony that while mainstream are prepared to accept the CMB but play the ostrich of what these portends, on the other hand some against mainstream do not accept and seize on the features of CMB that show glaring fundamental discrepancy for mainstream theory.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

How can an 'observer' remotely measure a Doppler shift, i.e. of light that hasn't yet ARRIVED!?

I can only do c+v when it a can't be measured. There is a mass failure of intellect here that you're also locked in to.

The instant it "arrives" in the observers rest frame it Doppler shifts DUE TO the speed change to local c.

Is it not delusional to imagine we can measure ANY quality of light without interacting? (except trigonometrically via reflected OTHER light also propagating at c)

That's why your dismissal of the importance of understanding "propagation" is such a major error.

You agree the 'localisation' concept each time you read it, but then fail to apply it! (i.e. my 'Much Ado..' essay). Once you apply with some some consistency you'll escape all the fog and confusion. A 'preferred universal rest frame only "seems" to have been found by those who fail to do so.

best wishes

peter

There are certainly still unresolved issues about CMBR for me which was why I asked for help. Peter and Steve have tried their best.

Peter,

What you seem to say about it increases the confusion since you seem to disagree about what is already 'known' about it like its origin seeming not to have a discernible direction or source. In my opinion, I better endure the remaining little confusion about CMBR than compound it with DFM.

On "The instant it "arrives" in the observers rest frame it Doppler shifts DUE TO the speed change to local c.". How does 'it' know how to Doppler shift? Towards RED or BLUE, since when the light arrives, all it does is change speed to the SAME local c for both cases of observer moving away and towards the source?

Still on my confusion with CMBR, whether it is an all present fog in the room or a smoke streaming in from without. Following the principle of relativity (both Galilean and SR), what is in the room (i.e. in the same frame like in Galileo's ship) cannot be Doppler shifted by the ship's motion, which would suggest that CMBR is not originating from within the room but is coming from outside since a red-blue Doppler shift is observed.

Then, on the other hand if it is from outside why does it not have a direction?

Or are we having a mixture whereby the CMBR in the room is not Doppler shifted but the one from without is Doppler shifted?

I think I give up for now.

Regards,

Akinbo

More for you Peter... In answer to how water will drop from a spinning bucket see Galileo's 1632 thought experiment.. You can also have a look at this.

Newton also derived the scenario from the laws of motion, stated as Corollary V:

"When bodies are enclosed in a given space, their motions in relation to one another are the same whether the space is at rest or whether it is moving uniformly straight forward without circular motion". (1726, p. 423.)

I have not finished reading but you can check section 2.2 here. That may help us resolve our "quarrel".

NB. Replace the drops of water with drops of light. Motion does not affect arrival time below deck. This does not require absorption and re-emission at c but it requires a co-travelling matter medium or Plasma which we are both agreed on is present.