Quantized redshift anomaly

[JMB] " ... the mathematical representation of physics is always approximate, the strangest mathematical results of generally good theories must be tested seriously."

Indeed.

There is (IMO) a better way to say this.

===
Math is to Reality

as

Map is to Territory
===

If something is (isn't) on a map, that doesn't mean it is (isn't) in the territory. If something is (isn't) in the math, that doesn't mean it is (isn't) real. Math is a great tool: wonderful for describing how things behave, but essentially useless for explaining why things behave.


LB

Jim,

As you can see, we are all bothered by the mis-use of models. But models are neither good nor bad. It all depends on how they are used.

Don't turn your back on such a powerful tool just because it can bite you. I keep a can of band aids handy, just in case. When one of my models blows up in my face I use one or two of them and move on to my next idea.

===

When I see someone else using a model that is chewing their hand off, I usually make a few attempts to help. But the large majority of such cases happen to those with the least technical background, and they are the most resistant to such help. After a while you just have to let them do their thing.

LB

Those of us with a formal technical education and real world experience in a technical field seldom fall prey to the allure of a bad model. But when we do we tend to go way overboard and all do it together. So much so that it even gets taught in the schools. And that puts a lock on it that is damned hard to break. Special Relativity (but not General Relativity), the Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics are classics in this sense.

Out of the thousands of models we use, big and small, to help us do the things we do, three real stinkers isn't too bad. And one of them (BB) has no significant practical applicaions beyond employing professors, so it can kind of be ignored.

As you can see not all of us follow the crowd. Eventually someone in our Leper Colony will discover something that demonstrates conclusively why a particular model doesn't describe reality. But the chances of that someone being an amateur, as opposed to a trained technologist, are pretty slim.

Dr. Van Flandern and his little group are MUCH closer than anyone else I've ever seen or heard of. And they are not very close. (Probably not, anyway.) It takes unknown (but almost certainly large) quantities of talent, money, and time to succeed in this sort of enterprise. Time can usually be substituted for money, but this also injects a lot frustration (are we there yet?). But there is no real substitute for trained talent. And few that have made the personal investment of time and energy and money necessary to acquire a technical background and become talented will "throw it away" by aligning themselves with groups in which most members don't understand how to manipulate units, or even why it is so important to know how.

Bummer,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When I see someone else using a model that is chewing their hand off, I usually make a few attempts to help. But the large majority of such cases happen to those with the least technical background, and they are the most resistant to such help. After a while you just have to let them do their thing.

LB<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">

Hal Linstone, past president of ISSS, observed certain traits in his employees which he was able to capture in a systemic way. He created the TOP model to depict his observations. He found that his employees expressed one of three attitudes. The first was the Technical. These employees have a need to know what is happening at the technical level. THe second is O, the Organizational person. This person is always trying to Organize. Then there is the P or Personal perspective. This person looks at it from a humanistic perspective. Technical, organizational, personal. Interestingly, Zinghang Zhu independantly arrived at a model almost identical to Ha's. Zhu uses WuLiRenLiShiLi - the matter, the relationships, the person.

So not only is the model expected to include all lhe relevant facets,
in their elemental, relational and wholistic roles, it has to presented in each of three different perspectives.

What it is, how it works together and what does it mean to us.

As if this were not enough to keep in mind, there is more...

Gestalt: when this and that become something else...

Thomas Kuhn writes in his book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", that a revolution is what it usually takes for science to progress

He also mentioned how the new theory forms a gestalt. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"...Therefore, at times of revolution, when the normal-scientific tradition changes, the scientist's perception of his environment must be re-educated -- in some familair situations he must learn to see a new gestalt. After he has done so the world of his research will seem, here and there, incommensurable with the one he had inhabited before." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A gestalt is a global shifting of perspectives. such as from foreground to background. From one figure, a wretched old lady or a beautiful young girl.

A gestalt is a system, that is, a process, that is, a relationship that is an interaction between like this blue and white, say. Parts and wholes is another potential gestalt. Seeing wholes is seeing relationships, the only thing common to all the parts. The only thing common to all the parts. I had to say it again. Only relationships are common to the diversity of parts.

A gestalt is putting the parts together and seeing a new whole. Interestingly, these interactions are emergent which means the unexpected, the new, the different is to be expected.

A cosmological gestalt shift in perspective may very well be something like seeing matter being sucked into the center of Galaxies, and trying to explain how it all works that way on the one hand; and on the other hand seeing matter "spewing" outward from the center of the Galaxy. And explaining it all that way. The whirlpool of soapy water flowing down the drain an the one hand and on the other spirialing fireworks being pushed out.

Truth has advantage. The false must conspire in secret with a secret language, but the truth wants to be known. And known it will become.
The source of the ZPE sustaining energies, those which sustain all the fields/atoms/molecules/matter is the same source inside our minds, e.g., our consciousness. The truth of the matter is all interconnected.

Strange, how little is said of the movement of matter in a Galaxy. One is led to believe, because of a Black hole in the center, that matter must be moving inward. I always assumed that is what they meant. I don't see it moving inward, but...
On the other hand, I am finding here and there an observation that matter is streaming out of the Galaxy. Asimov in 1961 found it a mystery, what Oort calculated as a flow of hydgrogen outward equal to one solar mass a year, Asimov said would be have depleted the stars by now, and he conjectured that a circulation must be going on.

Today, I found this letter I copied below. It's from the Arp website, one of their forums. Perfect timing...
<hr noshade size="1">
The question is which way does matter flow in a Galaxy?
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A Unique Cosmic Equality.

My earlier inputs to this Forum were built around the conviction that the Universe is literally infinite and eternal, and therefore, that all observations (the Evidence) must be essential parts of the Whole, and be logically integrated into that Whole. Creation is flatly ruled out as Mysticism, not Science.

Earlier I also observed that for us to be living in a Universe vibrantly alive after an eternity of burning the total material mass and energy mass lost by the stars of the galaxies of our Observable Universe (a modest sample of an infinite state of existence) must be 100% re-assembled as new galaxies, and I nominated Arp’s Quasars as those new galaxies, seen at birth.

I further suggested that the total mass lost by the old stars of our Observable Universe (OU), per year, should equal the total new mass contributed to that OU, per year, in the form of Quasars. I.e., galaxies lost should equal galaxies gained. A bit of arithmetic
indicates that this is the case.

1. Number of new Quasars added to OU, per year:
a. Seyfert galaxies in OU= 2 billion
b. Quasars ejected by each Seyfert= 2/7 billion years
c. New Quasars, or galaxies, (a x b)= 0.57 per year

2. Galaxy equivalent in lost mass in OU, per year:
a. Stars in Milky Way galaxy= 100 billion
b. Galaxies in OU = 200 billion
(As the Sun is an average star in the Milky Way
and as the Milky Way is an average galaxy in
the OU, then the mass lost by the Sun, per year,
may be used in this calculation.)
c. Solar Wind mass lost by Sun, per second = 9 x 10^13 grams
d. Energy mass lost by Sun, per second = 4.44 x 10^12 grams
e. Total mass lost by Sun, per second = 9.444 x 10^13 grams
f. Total mass lost by Sun, per year =2.989 x 10^21 grams
(Seconds in a year = 31.55676 million)
g. Total mass lost by OU, per year = 5.96 x 10^43 grams
h. Solar Mass = 2 x 10^33 grams
i. Mass of Milky Way (2.a. x 2.h.)= 2 x 10^44 grams
j. Total mass loss by OU, per year, divided by Milky Way mass (2.g./2.i.)= 0.30 per year
(If we were to add in the mass added to space
by stellar explosions in the OU, the 0.30 number
would be somewhat larger.)

The two pertinent number here are:
1.c., for the number of new galaxies created,
by the Seyferts in the OU, or = 0.57 per year
2.h., for the galaxy equivalents in mass spewed
into space by the stars of the OU, or = 0.30 per year

This similarity of results cannot reasonably be dismissed as coincidence, given that all the number used, with the exception of Arp’s two quasars ejected, per Seyfert, per seven billion years, were found in the literature.

What more do we need to support the Cosmic Cycle hypothesis?

Jim Wright 3/26/05<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
Hey North, here is that summary you asked be for. My reply to them:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well there is mysticism and there is mysticism. Just like there is science and there is science. How much of "science" is based on faith? Think about that. Real mysticism is based on experience. Faith is no more than a belief. It is somewhat presumptuous to assume that one religion speaks for all of them. Real mysticism and real science both acknowledge the "INSIDE" of space. The Chinese always considered apace as being "Full." It is only recently that American's decided that space was "Empty" based on the presumption that it isn't needed. Seems we got ourselves into quite a mess trying to explain how everything came from empty nothingness. Now we need the INSIDE of space. Indeed, in order for an atom to sustain radiation, a source of energy must be provided. In 1987 Hap Puthoff published his paper showing that the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the electron, derives it's systaining energy from the ZPE. ZPE is sero point energy, an energy they measure at absolute zero. When Maxwell developed his famous four equations, he believed in the ether as did most scientists at that time. He included along with his equations, what he called displacement currents. They were there to connect with the ether. But when the ether was found not to affect light, and Einstein didn't need an ether, Maxwell's equations were "corrected" and the displacement currents, along with the 20 quaternions used to work with them were discarded. There are perhaps two dozen different names for the INSIDE of space, each of them having to do with certain situations. The ZPE was found in experiments, and is considered a fact as opposed to a theory. There are many theories about what it actually is. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Opps, I forgot to mention plasma...