Quantized redshift anomaly

Taking my figure for the speed of gravity 1.16464217444E 25 I thought I'd plug it into Mach's principle, GM /r = c^2 I took the mass of the universe as being 1. So, I got a radius for the speed of light then I did the same with that speed of gravity plugged in to get another radius. Then I divided the two radii. The answer came out as 6.6260755E-34 That has to mean something.

(Edited) Getting the number 6.6260755E-34 bang on the button makes me a little happier that my speed of gravity is in the ball park. So, GM / r c^2 = 1 Again Mach's principle that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. Let's multiply both sides by two, 2GM / r c^2 = 2 = 1 - 1 / eta^2 To get the answer two, the sign must change at the speed of light.

To me this strongly suggests that something like our sun, has an internal radius of about 2kms which has a negative refractive index. It's balanced when half the mass of the sun is inside and half outside. Blow that outside part off in a titanic explosion and we can't see what's left, not because we have a singularity (black hole) but because we have a neg r.i. Inside of this very odd bit of space, electrons can move at ftl speeds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />OPPS[]

After looking at the article the authors are saying that the expanding universe wiil make the evidence disappear, so it is not a realization of no big bang, just an extrapolation of the present ideas....[]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do not have scientific american, but I know that the editors prefer marvellous absurdities to simple explanations using elementary knowledge.

How big is the pyramid of Big Bang theories founded on a single vertex, a lack of knowledge of coherent spectroscopy !

These are the reasons the BB is so popular. It can explain whatever comes up even though it makes no sense at all in real terms. Its just a shame so much time and energy is wasted on this modeling stuff when there are other uses where the tools can be applied. The data being amassed is being poluted by fitting it into a model. Its a repeat of human error over and over for the past 10,00o years.

Hi Jim, we simply cannot avoid models, not only do human beings produce them but we live in them. A societal model based on helotry differs from one based on slavery. Something of a Hobson's choice, I'd rather not live in either. Now, they do differ and if I want to know why, I would have to first question the assumptions of the societal model that I live in. This should be an obvious starting point but I have read a wonderfully elaborate economic analysis of an ancient "economy" based on nothing more than a half digested understanding of Athenian merchant shipping insurance. The laughable end result was that Athens was America and Sparta was communist Russia!

Suppose someone set a, cross faculty, essay competition in a university, $5000 for the best essay on the reasons for the wars of the Peloponnese. The essays to be marked by the respective faculty heads, then the best five percent, passed on to be marked again by different faculty heads.

There would be groans of protest at that last part but we'll let it pass for now. We would be left with say, twenty essays. They would be very well wit ten essays but that doesn't mean that they would enlighten anyone actually looking for an insight into the causes of the wars. In fact the best essays, in that respect, would probably have been weeded out by this time.

Come the great day of the prize giving, the head of the university gets up and states, that as he doesn't believe in models of any kind, he will give the prize to the essay that, to him, shows the most common sense and has the best data.

There would be a riot! The head of the university has an unacknowledged, unquestioned model, surely the worst kind!

Thinking along this line, has Occam's Razor ever been proven useful? Is it Occam's Razor, or the over-zealous application of it, that has us in such trouble, science-wise? For example, Occam's razor led science into the assumption the red-shift = distance, didn't it? How is that working out?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Hi Jim, we simply cannot avoid models
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The models are useful, but they must be built using rules of serious.
A model needs two types of hypothesis:
*a) the hypothesis of a physical systen, for instance a hot star.
*b) the physical laws which will be used.

Using these hypothesis, we say that the model is valuable if we deduce from it many properties without ad hoc additions.
But we must be careful: while there is no problem with hypothesis type a because they are visible, and it is easy to compare their complexity with the deduced properties, hypothesis type b are very dangerous, because setting a new law of physics requires a lot of INDEPENDANTLY verified tests.

The big bang is founded on Hubble's law while optical frequency shifts are easily observed in the labs using lasers. We know that Maxwell equations work in the whole spectrum, so that all optical effects work in the whole spectrum, only adjusting parameters related to frequency. The experimental and theoretical studies of the shifts observed with lasers show, by a simple extrapolation of parameters, that the observation of these shifts using ordinary light requires very long paths. On the contrary, Hubble's law is deduced from observation of close stars, it has no fundamental explanation allowing an extrapolation to far objects.


Some physicists (E. Wolf, E. MIchael, ...) proposed an interpretation of astronomical frequency shifts in interstellar medium using incoherent scatterings. It cannot work because the sources of incoherent scattering (studied by Lord Rayleigh in 19th century : blue of the sky) are fluctuations of density, that is collisions in a low pressure gas. As the number of binary collisions in a volume of gas is proportional to the square of the pressure, the intensity of incoherent scattering is a quadratic function of the pressure; happily for the astronomers, it becomes so low that it is negligible in interstellar medium. On the contrary, coherent scattering requires a collisionless gas (at the scale of the collisional time), it is large at low pressures, it shifts the frequencies without any blurring of the images and the spectra. Coherent effects are not reserved for laser technology: refraction is a coherent effect ! And there is no hypothesis of type b !