Re: Physics for ex-farmers

Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>CF:
>Can you base something on the abstract?

No. Too short and abstemious.

>>A theoretical paper setting out the mathematics for the proposal is
>>available in XarchiveXXXX
>>
>Actually enough maths is in this paper for the results.

That's the trouble. It makes astrophysicists go to sleep and think
'kook'.

>The long paper
>is intended as a rigorous development from first principles and imv
>demonstrates the theoretical *necessity* of doing things this way.

Good. It probably should be rewritten as the theoretical half, with
results calculations, that is as a reference for those they **really
want to know.

>Unfortunately only very physicists are interested in that; it is a pure
>mathematicians or a philosophers perspective on logical argument.

Quite, so keep it out of this one!

>>>Since the connection is meaningful only at the times of
>>>measurement it will be called a teleconnection. Standard general
>>>relativity and quantum mechanics are assumed, excepting that wave
>>>functions are defined using
>>
>>particular? unique? 'god-given'?????
>
>I have italicise *quantum coordinates* in the text to indicate that they
>are particular coordinates defined in section 2.3. Can't say god given,
>as I think they are actually constructed by man as the only
>mathematically consistent way of extending our interpretation of the
>world around us - but this is a thorny issue with which I hope to occupy
>the minds of philosophers for centuries.

Mathematical consistency is by definition 'god given'.

>>>quantum coordinates (section 2.3), not in
>>>curved spacetime.
>>
>>>the
>>>prescription reduces to the standard affine connection in the classical
>>>correspondence, and that geodesic motion obtains for classical particles
>>>and for a beam of light (section 2.4).
>>
>><Insert the results you intend to use here.>
>
>The result is geodesic motion, section 2.4.

Ok, so just bloody say that then STOP.

>><Probably just the expansion/doppler expression is all that is required>
>><Can we just say 'includes a term for expansion in time'?>
>
>I think needs more explanation, or makes no sense. The idea of rescaling
>measuring apparatus so that the expansion term only appears in the
>quantum domain is very thorny.

Then you had better explain that in detail.
Starting with me for a start.

>>>a closed universe with zero cosmological constant
>>>>>and no cold dark matter
>>
>>is discussed here as this gives a good fit to current astronomical data.
>>
>><Hmmm, that won't do on its own.
>
>see para 2, new version.

Which new version, I am totally confusticated.
Start a new thread with new text. Threads cost little, just remember to
make it a truly new (unreferenced) thread. F-theory-1 would be good.

>>You need to make it clear that your
>>proposal alters the interpretation of a number of key astronomical
>>observations. As a result you cannot pick and choose between a
>>teleparallel interpretation and a conventional semi-classical
>>interpretation. You either take one, and use its interpretation, or the
>>other.>
>>
>>A table might be good here.
>
>Possibly. Certainly it would be wanted in a sci-am version.

Hey, for everyone their first exposure to this needs to be as a sciam
article. The only current world expert is you.

>I'll have to
>think about it, because it is not as simple as I at first made things
>appear.

I rather felt that to be the case.

>On has to change model (i.e. change cosmological constant) when
>going between standard and teleparallel models, which means things don't
>relate together in a simple a way.

Well, you had better justify that in a simple way or its curtains for
you!


>> Standard, Teleconnection
>Cosmological constant 0.7 0
>Density 0.3 ~1
>>Age of universe 14BY 16BY
>>Current Expansion rate H_0 H_f = H_0/2 half the rate
>>Distance to galaxies (I'll have to look at the actual formula and
>proper definitions as they are quite complicated, but off the top of my
>head it is something like:
>parallax distance same same

do you mean parallax or standard candle?

>redshift distance ~1+z ~sqrt(1+z) (must be a 2 here)
>Age of galaxies ~1+z ~sqrt(1+z) (must be a 2 here)
>
>>Pioneer a_anomalous unexplained Expansion in time or Hc
>>MOND a_0 arbitrary Expansion in time
>> unobserved consistently
>> dark matter related to Hc
>Topology Open possibly closed
>
>These last are contained in cosmological constant:
>
>>Required dark matter ??lots?? modest
>>Required dark energy vast amounts close to zero
>>Accelerating universe yes not required

Ok, you have some work to do. Tidy up the table.

>>>Other models are possible but
>>>>>up to the accuracy of the tests applied here this simple model is
>>>>>consistent with data, gives accounts of observed phenomena which the
>>>>>standard model has been unable to explain and makes clear predictions
>>>>>with regard to future tests.
>>
>>The correlation with astronomical data has been done manually and it is
>>accepted that detailed computer analysis of original data will
>>eventually be required.
>>
>>In the case of galactic rotation curves the results are consistent with
>>an empirical law (MOND) that closely matches detailed statistical
>>astronomical data. The 'MOND acceleration' is however shown to be
>>fictitious and due to a second order effect of the cosmological
>>expansion on the doppler shift due to expansion in time.
>>
>>[You may care to make that more precise, but the shift IS interpreted as
>>a doppler shift.]
>
>The word "Doppler" is used far too casually imv

Yes.

>>>It must be stated, otherwise it appears that the CMB is also subject to
>>>the square law, and the analysis becomes totally screwed. It is
>>>absolutely critical that in determination of Hubble from redshift the
>>>initial state cannot, even in principle, be described in any reference
>>>frame other than that determined in the final measurement. This has to
>>>be made clear.
>>
>>This needs to be in the table, above.
>
>Add
>Initial absolute density unchanged, calculated from He abundance
>Initial rate of expansion calculated from initial density
>
> standard teleparallel
>Omega_B (baryon density) 0.02-0.04 (0.025-0.05?) 0.10-0.20

Won't more baryons mean more neutrinos?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ozacoohdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why an inconsistent ZF may be desirable, and should be welcome.
    ... is true under an interpretation M of L if, and only if, the interpreted ... individual, within a symbolic language (reasonably, these would include ... if we define a mathematical object and a set constructively as ... and without any loss of generality - I consider mathematics ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Understanding the quotient ring nomenclature
    ... It does not serve as a motivation in the definition of ring. ... neither willing to try and work out why this interpretation must be ... student in mathematics who, being uninterested or, most likely, unable ... I do not believe that you will find the inverse cone construction nor ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
    ... the ordinary mathematics we wish to express. ... A key issue for this discussion is the meaning of the word "meaning". ... interpretation of set theory. ... world we observe (i.e. beyond the world of phenomena observable in the ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: ... and twenty four months.
    ... deformations of hyperbolas. ... are an important and interesting interpretation of N ... your initial theorems all seem quite sound ... but has found some amazing phenomena in mathematics ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... falsifiability. ... different interpretation of the same theory show us ... Suitable coordinate choices eliminate the singularity at the ... "universal expansion", nor how you achieve expansion / ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)