Compatibility among alternative cosmologies?

JMB, I got the same reply several times and the latest paper I found at the site about SNR1987A is from 0704. Is there another number?

Here's the link Jim arxiv.org/abs/0801.0925

Sloat, Thanks for the lonk-I wonder why the site search won't display the paper? Anyway, its very interesting but the redshift and wide LAF spectrum won't cause an energy loss. This is a problem in the model E=hf which has existed since it was first misused around 1901. The fact is all photons have exactly the same energy while the Planck bundle has more photons at the frequency of the photons increases. All that changes in the redshift process is frequency and the number of photons in the Planck bundle. It will be great when the powers to be fix this really big, well entrenched, error.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Sloat, Thanks for the lonk-I wonder why the site search won't display the paper? Anyway, its very interesting but the redshift and wide LAF spectrum won't cause an energy loss. This is a problem in the model E=hf which has existed since it was first misused around 1901. The fact is all photons have exactly the same energy while the Planck bundle has more photons at the frequency of the photons increases. All that changes in the redshift process is frequency and the number of photons in the Planck bundle. It will be great when the powers to be fix this really big, well entrenched, error.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks to Sloat!
At least two light beams are involved in a CREIL process; thus you may consider that there is a flood of energy from the hottest photon to the coldest.
I think that, unhappily, Einstein received his Nobel price for the sole big error he made in physics: photodetection is very complex: its the first step is the generation of an exciton whose energy may be quantized as hf, and whose decay liberates the electron.
More generally, quantum electrodynamics is never useful and is, on the contrary a source of errors. A lot of experiments were done to show it is better than classical theory, but all are founded on an error in the classical computation: around 1903, Planck thought that his 1900 law was wrong and he added an energy hf in the mode. In 1916, Nernst showed, in a note to the Academy of Berlin presented by Planck, that the true value is hf/2.
Nernst addition is very important, it corresponds to the zero point energy, and the corresponding, stochastic field MUST be introduced in all computations. Einstein (1917) showed the amplification of light in a source, his work was precised by laser experiments: the spontaneous emission is an amplification of the existing fields (ZPF at 0K): the real field is Z+A where Z is the background field and A its increase by the source. The theory of the modes shows that there is a SINGLE field in a mode, so that it is impossible to neglect the stochastic field, or to split the field Z+A into Z and A.
The computation of the energy available in a photocell (that is its signal) is the balance of the received energy (Z+A)(Z+A) and the remaining energy ZZ, that is AA + 2AZ and not AA.
The classical theory has two advantages over QED:
1- No paradox. In particular, an emission increases Z, so that the probability of axcitation of all atoms is increased: the de-excitation of an atom which emits hf may result in one, two or more excitations of atoms. The result 1 is only statistical, there is no EPR problem.
2. The atoms are able to emit "spherical fields" : dipolar, quadrupolar, ... . To excite an atom, in particular to induce its emission of energy hf, we must generate the opposite of the spherical field it emits, which is a spherical field. When a laser starts, the atoms are excited by the stochastic field in their spherical modes, in the average hf/2. When the laser works, the atoms are excited by a plane wave which must be split into a spherical wave (and a scattered wave) to excite the atom. This factor 2 is natural in the classical theory, in QED, it is introduced by an ad hoc, strange "radiation reaction".

Neglecting the fraction Z of the real EM field is a source of absurdities. For instance the electron of Bohr's atom falls to the kernel; this result is wrong because the interference of the field radiated by the electron on Bohr (corrected by Lamb) orbit leads to a radiated energy zero.

and so on...

QM and QED are both effected by the misuse of E=hf in a negative way. Its a problem that will be fixed at sometime in the future and both systems(QM&QED)will be vastly improved. Its just these ideas are so powerful the photon/bundle relationship has been ignored but both systems have potential it seems to me. Would you agree?

As I see it, halving the energy of the photon would allow us to put more spherical shells into Olbers paradox but we still need to totally lose the energy over some distance. We cannot simply throw in a load of dust and gas, as this will re emit and essentially we would cook.

That raises another problem. A universe that cannot communicate with itself is not a universe, its two things. Of course we cannot exclude the possibility that we are inside a subatomic particle in an infinite scaled universe.

Over in Cosmicsurfers thread Ive suggested that an electron lets say, has an angular momentum at its edge of h and an angular velocity of c. At the Schwarzschild radius it has an angular momentum of one, and an angular velocity of the speed of gravity, which I believe to be 1.16464E 25 metres per second. The energy curve is a cosine and the particle switches to a negative refractive index at it core.

A particle of vacuum space is the reverse of this. In effect we have two sorts of space. Electromagnetic space gives us a universe of 14 billion light years radius, gravitational space has a radius of 22 metres! The universe can communicate with itself. Vacuum particles can absorb energy from photons, the energy is miniscule compared to the energy of the vacuum.