Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by johnduff</i>
<br />Could you present a list of the 20 or so mechanisms which can cause a red shift. I can only come up with a few.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">From Apeiron Vol. 1, #9-10, pp. 35-44 (1991):
Table 1
Non-Velocity Redshift Mechanisms<ul>Year <font color="orange">Originator</font id="orange"> Mechanism<li>1917 <font color="orange">Einstein</font id="orange"> Electromagnetic repulsion</li><li>1929 <font color="orange">Zwicky</font id="orange"> Gravitational drag</li><li>1937 <font color="orange">Hubble</font id="orange"> Gravitational interaction</li><li>1949 <font color="orange">Tolman</font id="orange"> Extended expansion hypothesis</li><li>1949 <font color="orange">Weyl</font id="orange"> Quantum gravity</li><li>1954 <font color="orange">Finlay-Freundlic</font id="orange"> Photon-Photon interaction</li><li>1964 <font color="orange">Fürth</font id="orange"> Curved photon path</li><li>1972 <font color="orange">Pecker et al.</font id="orange"> Photon-Photon interaction</li><li>1974 <font color="orange">Hoyle-Narlikar</font id="orange"> Variable mass interaction</li><li>1975 <font color="orange">Konitz</font id="orange"> Non-Euclidean geometry</li><li>1976 <font color="orange">Pecker et al.</font id="orange"> Photon-scalar U-particle interaction</li><li>1976 <font color="orange">Segal</font id="orange"> Global and local time hypothesis</li><li>1976 <font color="orange">Jaakkola</font id="orange"> G-E coupling</li><li>1979 <font color="orange">Crawford</font id="orange"> Tidal force in curved space</li><li>1981 <font color="orange">Tifft</font id="orange"> Variable mass</li><li>1981 <font color="orange">Broberg</font id="orange"> Elementary quantum interaction</li><li>1984 <font color="orange">Ghosh</font id="orange"> Velocity-dependent inertial induction</li><li>1986 <font color="orange">Wolf</font id="orange"> Thermal correlations at source</li><li>1986 <font color="orange">Mathé</font id="orange"> Global and local time hypothesis</li><li>1986 <font color="orange">Pecker-Vigier</font id="orange"> Gravitational drag in Dirac ether</li></ul>Several more have come along since then, such as the graviton drag in elysium of MM. See the original reference for further details on mechanisms in the above table. -|Tom|-

LB, OK you got me-I put an extra k in that doesn't belong there. You can correct that I'm sure and see that "H" really is better stated as 1nm/s^2 than the other way. If you know can you tell me the other way to say this?

Links on redshift quantization,
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
www.sastpc.org/internal.php?pid=104
www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/...85/00000002/05138613
public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Read Thomas Kuhn's best seller, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It should be required reading to anyone who pursues a career in science. Because people get hurt if it goes otherwise, and the people in power would get hurt the most, science must always maintain the illusion of forward progress. Revolutions only succeed when they can be portrayed as evolutions.

It will help answer "what is really going on". -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am almost finished reading it. It has become obvious that science is no longer willing to police itself. There is a big difference between rejecting a theory outside the paradigm and slanderizing/ruining the author responsible. In addition there is this notion of Freedom of speech. Clearly we need a Science Court which can independantly ascertain what is true and what is not, to determine what ought to be published or not. To ensure that scientists do not practice or condon what we non-scientists are sent to jail for doing.

<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 />I am almost finished reading it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good job! It shows you are serious about influencing scientific ideas. Perhaps too you see why this book rose to the best seller list, and has sold nearly a million copies. But I'm guessing that the percentage of readers among active scientists is depressingly small -- which probably explains in part why science is in the shape it is in.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Clearly we need a Science Court which can independantly ascertain what is true and what is not, to determine what ought to be published or not. To ensure that scientists do not practice or condon what we non-scientists are sent to jail for doing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I've often thought a Science Court might be a good idea. The problem is that, while there are lots of written laws that regular courts can try to follow, there are few universally agreed rules for science.

I read a cute anecdote in Science magazine, 14 January 2005 issue, p. 219: “Suppose that Jacob takes his trusty bow and arrow and shoots at a target on the side of a barn, hitting the bull’s-eye. We are duly impressed. Now Jonah steps up to a different barn, pulls back his bow, and shoots his arrow at the barn. Then he walks up to the side of the barn and paints a bull's-eye around his arrow. We would give him rather less credit, for archery anyway. Accommodation [of data by ad hoc theories] is like drawing the bull’s-eye afterwards, whereas in prediction the target is there in advance." Much of modern science draws the bull's-eye after shooting its arrows, and defends that procedure as legitimate. -|Tom|-

[Jim,] "LB, OK you got me-I put an extra k in that doesn't belong there."

Could you be a little more specific? Which "k" in "70km/kps" is the extra "k"?


Regards,
LB