Quantized redshift anomaly

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 7 months ago #12489 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

Tom You wrote:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Let's leave Sarfatti conversations for his message board and his audience. We distinguish ourselves here by sticking to Scientific Method (especially controls against bias) and adoption of the principles of physics. That takes us in rather different directions from where Jack's principles take him. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I understand, but I had to fight my way through Sarfatti before I got here. [

] I copied his message to here because it presents a peek into their thinking, especially when they are confronted with anolmalies.[}

] It is good to know what the other side is thinking even if we do not agree with them.[8D] I presented Sarfatti with the redshift quantization anomaly before I found you. This was right after he said I was naive, inane, elementary, everyone knows that, stupid, superficially trained and not even wrong. [

] He did not, however, call me a crackpot. [

] His reply to my redshift query was a typical Sarfatti reply,[:0] but with a little bit of hesitentcy to it. He didn't just blow it off, said it was important if it works out, and finally said he has an explanation something about "topological defects in the vacumm of the Dirac sea of paired particles" if I remember right. He ended with lets wait and see...[

] Interestingly, his later letters admitted doubts, for example in one of his letters he writes as the subject line "Just when we thought we got it all right." Since then, this Cahill thing came up, and I think they are sweating now.[

)]

I copied again just the statements making my point.[

]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
Comments: 22 pages, 10 figures. better graphics
Subj-class: General Physics

That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any
observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts
of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first
revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.

However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for
the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that
used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the
effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light.

That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in
excess of 300km/s.

So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result.

This implies that the foundations of physics require significant
revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is
shown to explain various so-called gravitational `anomalies',
including the `dark matter' effect. Most importantly absolute motion
is now understood to be the cause of the various relativistic effects,
in accord with the earlier proposal by Lorentz.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cahill seems to have a good argument that the small residual fringe shifts in the classic MM experiments are not
noise or simple error, but can be interpreted as reflecting the motion of the earth through space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:13 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack, I'm pleased to observe that you now acknowledge that not everyone who challenges
Einsteinian models for "relativity" (and there is as a matter of fact more than one
Einsteinian flavor) is a "crackpot"...(although I agree that most amateur
heretics still are crackpots -- e.g., ....

No of course not. There is, as you say, "heresy" and "heresy". If Cahill is right, I don't think he is, but if he is, everything comes crashing down like a House of Cards on shaky ground. The more I read Cahill the more I sense he is at least eccentric, but he cannot be simply written off like most of the morons we encounter.

The professional "heretical" school is gathering strength and sharpening its arguments, and in view of the current proliferation of anomalies needs to be taken very seriously IMHO.

Z.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, there you are. Now where is this professinal "heretical" school that is gathering strength and sharpening its arguments?

BTW. I asked before but didn't hear the answer - what is the temprature of the ZPE (zero point energy) in outer space? And what relationship is there between this energy potential INSIDE empty space, and the measured cosmological background radiation? Are they the same or are they different? If they are different, then each must be taken into account. When that is done, what does it look like now?
Is the ZPE being "ignored" by almost everyone? [

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 7 months ago #12217 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tommy
 Now where is this professinal "heretical" school that is gathering strength and sharpening its arguments?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I wouldn't know, unless he is just describing those interested in the advancement of science. I guess there will always be people who oppose change, even when it is good change.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what is the temprature of the ZPE (zero point energy) in outer space?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I've never heard of such a thing. What meaning would it have? Temperature is a measure of mean constituent speed. Because nobody knows what constituents are involved in ZPE, how could they measure an associated temperature?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And what relationship is there between this energy potential INSIDE empty space, and the measured cosmological background radiation? Are they the same or are they different?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">There is no obvious connection at this stage of our knowledge.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is the ZPE being "ignored" by almost everyone? [

!]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Nothing much can be done with it until we learn more about ZPE. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 7 months ago #12223 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

Is the ZPE being "ignored" by almost everyone?

Nothing much can be done with it until we learn more about ZPE. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, I guess there are two ways to learn about the zpe, one is to read and study about it; and the other is to expereince it first hand. I first learned of the ZPE by having a flurry of synchronicity experiences. After a while, I determined that I wasn't imagining these events, and I would by no means accept that they were miracles. So the only way out was to try and figure out how it works. You see, what I saw happen, ordinary things but at extraordinary times, could not happen physically, so it had to be something not physical. I reasoned that there was a Pure Energy INSIDE the Universe, a type of energy not doing anything, and not being anything. It was this Pure Energy that provided the non=physical links I knew had to be there. And while I thought about it a lot over the years,and came up with a list of inexplicable questions, like where do virtual particles comes from, where does the black hole go to, and especially where did the Universe come from, and one in particular "Why does an electron keep moving forever" I asked that question on quantum mind a few years back, and surmised that the electrons were fed an energy from the INSIDE of space. Surprise, I got a reply from Hal Puthoff who wrote "It is as you say Tom, in 1987 I showed how the ground state of the hygrogen atom is continuously fed energy from the ZPF."

Since then I have read (superficially) about many different versions of the inside of space. There are many different concepts and many different names. We are talking about the Aether in spite of the fact that science says the Aether doesn't exist. It's just that the Aether is not a physical thing itself and thus does not affect physical things. M&M didn't prove any more that that. They especially DID NOT prove the the Aether did not exist. But science assumed that the Aether did not exist so work on it ceased for a while.

So today we have notions like the quantum foam, the quantum ground, the ZPE, the ZPF, The PSI field, the Dirac Sea, hyperspace, the Fifth dimension, the higher dimension, it goes on and on.

There are probably as many different kinds of the INSIDE of space as there are outside things being supported by it. Kinda like a canvass on which any sort of picture may be painted.

So, we know a little about this INSIDE. We know it has a potential energy, don't know how much , but enough to drive all the stars and us. We know it is non-local. That's how my synchronicity happened. One explanation of that is that the INSIDE is a single entity, so there is no here and there INSIDE.

So just on that information, how did the Universe happen? I think the Super BIg Bang is happening right now. I think that stuff is being created all the time. Don't know where. The center of the Galaxies?
Maybe all around us. I think that because the INSIDE is a single entity, and it would have no need to "expand" anywhere, since it was everywhere to begin with.

I asked Hal what is the source for the ZPE, he didn't know, and we trailed off with words like God and Love, and he mentioned that all the great philosophies have favorite words for it.

Well, I don't like some of the labels people use. I think the Universe is a WHOLE, and the creation was a differentiation of the Whole. And this Whole is us right now,

But much of science does not reflect this Wholeness. Instead there is a school of thought that has matter coming from nowhere, and just by chance, organized itself into us. Talk about miracles...

Anyway, in Western science, seems that Planck came up with the first "modern" version.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 7 months ago #12224 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

Hi Tommy, I love your questions and have a very good answer for all of them. The things(electrons, hyperspace, ZPE, ect) are all parts of models and not part of the universe other than the fact that they do indeed exist in the models. This is like Donald Duck-he is real and we know this because he is rich and loved by millions. Donald Duck is part of an industry and the industry is real too. So if you can say where Donald lives and how he stays so young after 75 years of stardom you can apply that knowledge to your questions and see how models can produce the things you suppose are real.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 7 months ago #12333 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

what is the temprature of the ZPE (zero point energy) in outer space?

I've never heard of such a thing. What meaning would it have? Temperature is a measure of mean constituent speed. Because nobody knows what constituents are involved in ZPE, how could they measure an associated temperature?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not the only one thinking this, I also read it somewhere, the CMB temperature is the temperature of empty space. This is a no-brainer I think, assuming the ZPE of course. Remember the ZPE does not have a direct effect on the physical, that is, it does not affect the outside of atomic matter, only the inside.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

And what relationship is there between this energy potential INSIDE empty space, and the measured cosmological background radiation? Are they the same or are they different?

There is no obvious connection at this stage of our knowledge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I would like to know what proof there is that the cosmic microwave background is the background of some past event. It just doesn't make sense that it is everyhere but came from a point, expansion notwithstanding. It makes sense that what is coming from everywhere is coming from everywhere. Furthermore, if the expansion inflation got things going in a hurry, what stopped it's hurry? I mean if matter or plasma got going "outward" or "away" or whatever, especially really fast, my simple mind says "momentum" and science tells me that once going in a direction, always going in that direction unless moved. So, tiny gravity is going to move all this exceedingly fast matter off track and into clumps where all of a sudden it is going around in circles? Talk about miracles.

I think that the Big Bang theory is a materialist's explanation, as the only way matter could have done it by itself. And it ties in with Darwinian selection which is also a materialist's only explanation for how matter did all this by itself. There is nothing wrong per se with the material, as long as one acknowledges it as an "illusion" of sorts (Maya), the problem is when it is further assumed, based on ones starting point of matter, that the material is all there is. Like there are only letters and words, and no meaning whatsoever.

So what they have is everything from nothing, speeded up and then slowed down, accidently organizing by random mutation into life. That really isn't a better story then the priests tell us.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Tommy
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 7 months ago #12334 by Tommy

Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> So if you can say where Donald lives and how he stays so young after 75 years of stardom you can apply that knowledge to your questions and see how models can produce the things you suppose are real.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, it is important we all start on the same page, so here is a little refresher course...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<center>
Words and Language</center>

WILLIAM JAMES

"Out of what is in itselt an indistinguishable, swarming continuum, devoid of distinction (sunyata), or emphasis, our senses make for us, by attending to this motion and ignoring that, a world full of contrasts, of sharp accents, of abrupt changes, of picturesque light and shade. Helmholtz says that we notice only those sensations which are signs to us of things. But what are things? Nothing, as we shall abundantly see, but special groups of sensible qualities, which happen practically or aesthetically to interest us, to which we therefore give substantive names, and which we exalt to this exclusive status of independence and dignity."

ALDOUS HUXLEY

"Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things." [TDOP Huxley 23]

DAVID BOHM

"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes."

KEN WILBER

Bergson was also aware of the spurios reality of "things" because, - as he himself pointed out - thought creates things by slicing up reality into small bits that it can easily grasp. Thus when you are think-ing you are thing-ing. Thought does not report things, it distorts reality to create things, and, as Bergson noted, "In so doing it allows what is the very essence of the real to escape." Thus to the extent we actually imagine a world of discrete and separate things, conceptions have become perceptions, and we have in this manner populated our universe with nothing but ghosts. Therefore the Madhyamika declares that Reality, besides being void of conceptual elaboration, is likewise Void of separate things.The doctrine of mutual interpenetration and mutual identification of the Dharmadhatu represents man's highest attempt to put into words that non-dual experience of Reality which itself remains wordless, ineffable, unspeakable, that nameless nothingness. The Dharmadhatu is not entirely foreign to Western thought, for something very similar to it is seen emerging in modern Systems Theory, in Gestalt psychology, and in the organismic philosophy of Whitehead. As a matter of fact, Western science as a whole is moving very rapidly towards a Dharmadhatu view of the cosmos, as biophysicist Ludwig von Bertalanffy states: "We may state as a characteristic of modern sciece that the scheme of isolable units acting in one-way-causality has proved to be insufficient. Hence the appearence, in all fields of science, of notions like wholeness, holistic, organismic, gestalt, etc, which signify that in the last resort, we must think in terms of systems of elements in mutual interaction."

ALAN WATTS

THE JOYOUS COSMOLOGY

"The principle is that all dualities and opposites are not disjoined but polar. They do not confront eachother from afar, they expoliate from a common center. Ordinary thinking conceals polarity and relativity because it employs terms and terminals, the poles, neglecting what lies inbetween them. The difference of front to back, to be or not to be, hides their unity and mutuality."

D.T. SUZUKI

"According to the philosophy of Zen, we are too much a slave to the conventional way of thinking. which is dualistic through and through. No "interpenetration" is allowed, there takes place no fusing of opposites in our everyday logic. What belongs to God is not of this world, and what is of this world is incompatible with the divine. Black is not white, and white is not black. Tiger is tiger, and cat is cat, and they will never be one. Water flows, a mountain towers. This is the way things or ideas go in this universe of the senses and syllogisms. Zen, however, upsets this scheme of thought and substitutes a new one in which there exists no logic, no dualistic arrangement of ideas. We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent, though not in reality, made thereby easier. We are in nature conservatives, not because we are lazy, but because we like repose and peace, even superficially. But the time comes when traditional logic holds true no more, for we begin to feel contradictions and splits and consequently spiritual anguish. We lose trustful repose which we experienced when we blindly followed the traditional ways of thinking. Eckhart says that we are all seeking repose whether consciously or not just as the stone cannot cease moving until it touches the earth. Evidently the repose we seemed to enjoy before we were awakened to the contradictions involved in our logic was not the real one, the stone has kept moving down toward the ground. Where then is the ground of non-dualism on which the soul can be really and truthfully tranquil and blessed? To quote Echart again, "Simple people conceive that we are to see God as if He stood on that side and we on this. It is not so; God and I are one in the act of my perceiving Him." In this absolute oneness of things Zen establishes the foundations of its philosophy. The idea of absolute oneness is not the exclusive possesion of Zen. There are other religious and philosophies that preach the same doctrine. If Zen, like other monisms or theisms, merely laid down this principle and did not have anythng specifically to be known as Zen, it would have long ceased to exist as such. But there is in Zen something unique which makes up its life and justifies its claim to be the most precious heritage of Eastern culture. The following "Mondo" or dialogue (literally questioning and answering) will give us a glimsp into the ways of Zen, A monk asked Joshu, one of the greatest masters in China, "What is the ultimate word of Truth?" Instead of giving him any specific answer he made a simple response saying, "Yes." The monk who naturally failed to see any sense in this kind of response asked for a second time, and to this the Master roared back. "I am not deaf!" See how irrelevantly (shall I say) the all-important problem of absolute oneness or of the ultimate reason is treated here! But this is characteristic of Zen, this is where Zen transcends logic and overrides the tyranny and misrepresentation of ideas. As I have said before, Zen mistrusts the intellect, does not rely upon traditional and dualistic methods of reasoning, and handles problems after its own original manners....To understand all this, it is necessary that we should acquire a "third eye", as they say, and learn to look at things from a new point of view."

Zen

I-hsüan
A Sermon

Reverend Sirs, time is precious. Don't make the mistake of following others in desperately studying meditation or the Path, learning words or phrases, seeking after the Buddha or patriarchs or good friends. Followers of the Path, you have only one father and one mother. What else do you want? Look into yourselves . An ancient sage said that Yajna-datta thought he had lost his head [and sought after it], but when his seeking mind was stopped he realized that he had never lost it.

From Sources of Chinese Tradition (de Bary, Chan and Watson, ed. and trans.), pp. 360--363
Typed 31 March 1995
CRS

Ken Wilber

HOW BIG IS OUR UMBRELLA?

And when we pause from all this research, and put theory temporarily to rest, and when we relax into the primordial ground of our own intrinsic awareness, what will we find therein? When the joy of the robin sings on a clear morning dawn, where is our consciousness then? When the sunlight beams from the glory of a snow-capped mountain, where is consciousness then? In the place that time forgot, in this eternal moment without date or duration, in the secret cave of the heart where time touches eternity and space cries out for infinity, when the raindrop pulses on the temple roof, and announces the beauty of the divine with every single beat, when the moonlight reflects in a simple dewdrop to remind us who and what we are, and when in the entire universe there is nothing but the sound of a lonely waterfall somewhere in the mists, gently calling your name-where is consciousness then?

GOETHE

"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.256 seconds