Alternative Models of Cosmology

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.

Akinbo,

I agree with all that's 'known'. How on Earth could we identify more than nearby individual sources!? I can't comprehend how you're confused that it has more than 'one direction'!! Do distant galaxies not surround us? Does each not emit in ALL directions!?

When the clergy looked at Galileo's new rationale they said; "I prefer to endure the remaining confusion about the cosmos than compound it with anything different."

I'm pointing out that you are precisely as wrong as they were, and until you bother to put that little effort into understanding it's consistency you will reamain so.

"How does 'it' know how to Doppler shift?" It doesn't need to. It's the same way your body 'knows' how to change speed when jumping on to a moving bus (in ANY direction. The moment it interacts it is 'accelerated' to correct it's speed to the 'new' c (one wave at a time, thus the (Doppler) wavelength change).

Do forget both fog and smoke entirely. It's just radiation (as 'light' waves but all wavelengths).

"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."

At last some sense, but now put it in the right context. There are many LOCAL ships on the ocean ALL co-moving. but they are SOLAR SYSTEMS, and PLANETS, and all within different GALAXIES. So 'from outside' is always "outside the LOCAL system' which is then always from some greater rest frame/system which is also ITSELF in motion. Light will then have Doppler shifted (changed to local electron rest frame c) many times en route from it's source. The spectroscopic effect of those shifts is what's called the 'Lyman-Alpha forest.'

You only need to visualise "small space 's' moving within space S" multiplied like many nested Russian dolls. If you're at rest in any one you may consider it's always "EVERYTHING ELSE" that's moving at different speeds. Bother to think about it and the fog lifts.

Peter

You state that light undergoes a red or blue shift passing through a window of transparent matter. Since this is demonstrably not true, that falsifies your approach. I don't know why you substituted lense for window, since lenses throw more complication into the DFM plasma. Lets stick with DFM plasma as a window.

"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)."

If a transparent window of silica at any relative velocity were to shift light due to its motion, we could easily determine our CMBR motion since all we would need to do is look at a star along the CMB dipole at 371 km/s with and without the window and then another star perpendicular to that direction with and without the window to deduce our CMBR motion.

Obviously, there is no dispersion of light with a window either in this galaxy or in any other galaxy that might be watching and we cannot measure our CMBR motion or any motion by this means. There is a time delay in the light phase due to the dielectric dispersion of the window that is refractive index, but not a frequency shift because there is no scattering or absorption. It is a mystery to me why you propose something that is demonstrably not true, but it is clearer now why you do not believe in a CMBR frame.

You seem to be confusing dielectric dispersion with atomic scattering and these are two very different albeit related phenomena. Dielectric dispersion is purely elastic and does not heat the material and so the light does not change frequency. A photon's electric field is continuously affected by dielectric dispersion and dispersion delays a light pulse due to slower c.

However, scattering is an atomic event for a photon with some probability. The photon either scatters off an atom or it does not and Rayleigh or compton scattering has typical cross sections in the visible like one in a million scattering events per encounter with an atom. Elastic scattering does not heat or change frequency, but scattering does fuzz up images. Inelastic scattering makes images fuzzy and also heats or cools a material. The light frequency can shift both ways and will cool the matter if it gains energy from the Boltzman population of the material as anti-Stokes Raman scattering, with exactly the same cross sections as Stokes Raman scattering, which heats the material.

Your DFM plasma seems to behave differently than ordinary plasma in order to have the properties that you claim it has and DFM plasma would seem to result in a much different universe than the one we have. You simply cannot say doppler shift on the one hand and then have light change speed on the other. Light changes speed due to dielectric dispersion and that does not depend on motion. Light changes frequency when it emits from a material at a given velocity. Light scatters differently for a moving material, but elastic scattering does not doppler shift the light frequency, but the scattering cross sections are dependent on rest frame frequency.

Akinbo,

You'll have to point out what's valid as I find no issues. I've agreed Galileo's ship since at school, though find many still misapply it.

Section 2.2 correctly identifies THERE CAN BE NO SINGLE ABSOLUTE 'PRIVILEGED REST FRAME! (i.e. Newtonian) which is what you're now yet again proposing with your flawed 'CMBR' understanding! There CAN BE 'MANY'! but NOT 'JUST ONE'.

The big error in throwing out the dirty water of a SINGLE preferred frame was in also throwing out the baby, which was MULTIPLE LOCAL background frames. So it went from Newtons to Einstein's incomplete descriptions! Returning to Newtons is NOT the answer!!

You clearly didn't read my words about the spinning bucket properly. It has nothing to do with Galileo or his ships. Newton's proposal (proved false) implied in the rotating case that there were only the water and bucket 'rest frames'. There clearly is not. There is a local background rest frame OUTSIDE BOTH.

We don't have a 'quarrel' Akinbo. That would require different 'opinions'. I don't have 'opinions' as they are unscientific. The only issue is, as Galileo's pope, that you're unwilling to countenance, so attempt to comprehend, what is a clear logical progression and consequence. You haven't yet even got to challenging the progression! I've warned many times it's not initially as simple as most assume. A little more effort is needed!

I'm here to learn, explore and discuss scientifically not, with respect, to be a personal tutor on fundamental Akinbo.

best wishes

Peter

This has been an interesting exercise for me since you obviously passionately believe in your DFM plasma and pose many contrasting viewpoints.

I really do not like to use invisible and undetectable matter to explain observations since once you go down that road, you can "predict" any action after the fact since that is what strings and multiverses and black holes and religions are all about.

Note that despite the fact that I believe in the large body of evidence for the Lorentz invariance of c, in the contracting universe, c is not constant and increases very slowly over time by mdot = 0.283 ppb/yr, butthis does not violate Lorentz invariance. The acceleration of light, mdot*c = +88 km/s/Mpc, corresponds to a contraction rate of -9.6%/Byr for the matter time universe and is the universal acceleration that determines both charge and gravity forces in this epoch.

The current expansion rate is 7.6%/Byr and simply depends on new Hubble and inflation constants. Forces in space time have there own separate sets of constants but in matter time, forces come from the contraction rate of the universe.

So in a contracting universe, the variation in c with time does mean that looking back in time is just like looking back through a graded index lense. All of our past universe appears progressively magnified by our current assumption of a constant c. So your DFM plasma does seem to do a similar thing, which is intriguing. A galaxy of the distant past will appear larger and brighter than it actually is in that rest frame.

" ... your body 'knows' how to change speed when jumping on to a moving bus (in ANY direction. The moment it interacts it is 'accelerated' to correct it's speed ..."

Peter, can you rephrase that in a way that makes sense to a sane person?

"You only need to visualise 'small space 's' moving within space S' multiplied like many nested Russian dolls. If you're at rest in any one you may consider it's always 'EVERYTHING ELSE' that's moving at different speeds."

You might, unless you understood relativity and Lorentz transformations.

Because all motion is relative, a body at rest relative to another is moving at the same speed as the other. At nonrelativistic speeds, this is trivial -- only if one is traveling at the same speed as a moving bus, can she be considered "at rest" relative to the bus, in which case the lateral motion of boarding is not affected one whit by the vector of motion, because there is no acceleration involved. There is a very, very simple way to understand this, as the solution to the projectile problem, that goes back to Galileo:

A projectile in free fall, released at the same height simultaneously with a projectile having an initial velocity, falls at the same rate and impacts the ground at the same instant as the impelled projectile. This is because there is no horizontal acceleration to the gravitational plane shared by the bodies (exactly the same case as the moving bus and the boarder).

Steve,

If I'm wrong wrong attributing the above post to you I apologise as it's rather less scientifically based or consistent than yours.

I make clear; "I do NOT then suggest some 'red shift' just due to 'passing through'.." some transparent dielectric medium, ..but the response was;

"You state that light undergoes a red or blue shift passing through a window of transparent matter. Since this is demonstrably not true, that falsifies your approach.

It then goes on to ignore the fundamentals of EM (J.D Jackson, extinction distances, etc. etc.) to suggest that light propagating in any local medium rest frame does NOT propagate at c (or c/n) with respect to that local frame, so violating SR and just about all experimental findings! That seems to be why the 'analysis' that followed was confused and invalid, suggesting I'm confusing things! If it challenges SR then of course it should state so and say how and on what evidence.

If that weren't enough, in response to my specification (and citation) of space plasma as purely what's actually found, so the standard astrophysical understanding, it then repeats it's assumption that 'dfm plasma' is somehow 'different'. It isn't.

But what I DO describe is indeed a different (more consistent with data in fact) rationalisation of the "effects" of the passage of light through a medium. If the author wishes to challenge and discuss that, then that's fine. I can wield overwhelming evidence and identify a stream of anomalies it resolves.

Even at CERN the analysis requires TWO rest frames for the propagation of light when meeting particles; The 'moving' rest frame, and the particle 'centre of mass' (CofM) rest frame. (one of which often being the 'lab frame'), performing a transform between them. Light then propagates at c in the NEW CofM rest frame. All I do is describe a rationalisation of that without the paradoxes of current interpretations. Doubless that will cause confusion to anyone embedded in any old doctrinal belief system rather than applying the SM.

I'm sure you agree the concept of light passing through a number of identical co-moving dielectrics (of greater optical depth than the extinction distance) at DIFFERENT SPEEDS wrt that local medium rest frame is not only entirely empirically inconsistent but rather laughable. The refractive index of any medium, say glass, is the same whatever speed it travels wrt anything else!

Perhaps the post was in jest and I've risen to the bait, but the points did anyway need addressing as the model does challenge current understandings. A bit like your 'contraction'. But as Jaynes pointed out; "Physics goes forward on the shoulders of doubters, not believers."

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

I specifically addressed Akinbo's question, so I agree the concept of the body needing to 'know how' to accelerate or waves 'how' to Doppler shift' is nonsense. Clearly if another body with a different rest frame is interacted with an 'acceleration' results. If waves interact sequentially while a body of dielectric medium is in motion through the ambient medium then clearly the wavelength will change (red or blue shift) without needing to "know how", which is simple optical science.

I suspect Einstein, whose it was specification I gave, may have understood relativity and the LT as well as you and I. I've always agreed the Lorentz factor always applies, and have even derived a consistent physical mechanism producing the non-linear curve as wavelength blue-shifts to the minimum at gamma. But I suspect you may again also infer the "interpretation" not just the theory itself which he specified. Perhaps best no go there again?

Clearly she is not 'travelling at the same speed' as the bus as it's 'co-moving' when she jumps on, which is why she's accelerated. An 'inertial frame transformation' is then essentially simply an 'acceleration' (K < K'). (Unless of course we prefer myth and belief to science and logic!)

I would point out that your last paragraph should agree my description but is just a wee bit flawed. It MAY be read as the 'initial velocity' being on the same vector as gravity, where you will have meant 'horizontal' velocity, which of course I agree.

Best wishes

Peter

I was simply stating the way I understand the universe is without DFM plasma. I am not sure to what paradoxes you refer since all of the examples that you repeatedly cite have standard explanations with Lorentz shifts and constant c. You claim that observations that suggest constant c in all frames are instead explicable by DFM plasma motion that changes c and results in the same set of observations.

You are fixing something, SR, that is not broken and it still is not clear what quantitative predictions DFM plasma allows you to make. You believe that any window motion results in light doppler dispersion due to the dielectric effect, but you do not cite any evidence that that is true. I believe in the body of evidence that suggests otherwise. We can just leave at that.

"Clearly if another body with a different rest frame is interacted with an 'acceleration' results."

Clearly not.

Bodies that share a rest frame share the same velocity. If one body accelerates, the bodies no longer share a rest frame. Again, an understanding of the projectile problem prevents confusion:

A body accelerated horizontal to the plane compared to a body in free fall are not at rest relative to one another. Consider an unpowered bomb dropped from an airplane flying at constant velocity -- if the plane does not accelerate when the bomb is dropped, the bomb remains directly below the plane its entire trip to the ground, because there is no horizontal acceleration. Should the plane speed up or slow down following the drop, the projectiles are no longer interacting.

This is exactly equivalent to the person at rest relative to a moving bus boarding the bus without being accelerated.

Light scattering off of moving atoms does result in doppler shifts as well as polarization dispersion. Light propagating through a moving dielectric window does not undergo a doppler shift, but dispersion due to the refractive index of the window affects the frequency of light in that frame and therefore the dispersion.

Akinbo, I wasn't going to get into this; however, since I replied to Peter I guess I'm into it already. The thing is, the topics you and Peter are addressing are already exhaustively explained by classical physics.

You write: "(1) Is this (cosmic microwave background radiation) to be seen as a fog present everywhere in the universe or (2) is it a smoke streaming towards us from all directions or (3) is there a third model?"

The conventional explanation for background radiation is big bang cosmology -- the radiation permeating space is consistent with what happens when a hot fire burns down to embers. It isn't appropriate to refer to the CMBR as "fog" because the universe is transparent, not foggy.

The reason that the radiation appears isotropic (coming from all directions) is that the universe appears to be uniformly expanding. (The same would be true if it were uniformly contracting.) What direct measurements appear to show, however, is there there is just enough non-uniformity (anisotropy) to account for small quantum fluctuations in the early universe that correspond to the anisotropies we observe, given the size of today's universe.

The big bang model is pretty safe from falsification. It just doesn't explain the nature of the quantum fluctuations, which is what the fuss over classical vs. quantum cosmological models is primarily about.