response and e-mails re conference

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />It appears I need support from you in order to qualify as a presenter before I register.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can offer advice to you. But I don't influence the Scientific Committee.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since my theory is a new, all encompassing logical alternative to current theory, it needs to be laid out in depth before potential areas of quantitative analysis can be suggested and explored. Obviously I do not have views to present about observations relative to existing theories.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Cosmological theories are a dime-a-dozen. To be of any interest to scientists other than the author, a theory must show that it is not contradicted by any observation or experiment, adds insight or understanding, and makes testable predictions, the failure of which will falsify the theory.

For purposes of this conference, it would also be advisable to show how a new theory does something much better than any of the five major cosmologies already on the table. No one is eager to add a sixth member to the major cosmologies already under review, just for the sake of completeness.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It happens that I do have a mathematical issue to discuss. That is the measuring or summing of gravitation effects over long time periods and distances. I don’t believe this has ever been done<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This conference is not seeking "mathematical issues". However, the one you mention here is very old, and known generically as "tired light". Many people have discussed the cumulative effects of gravity on light, with many pros and cons in the literature.

One suggestion of a good contribution would be to take one of the problems on the "top 30" list, or one not on the list, and elaborate on it at the conference. My hope is that we will have a multi-authored paper presenting all the problems as a single package following the conference. -|Tom|-

Tom,

I apprecieate the responses in lieu of high demands for your time. You mentioned what a theory must show is that it is not contradicted. My overall theory matches Newtonian gravity in form. The redshift part was erroniously contradicted by Zwicky, the proponent fo tired light. My theory adds insight on many subjects. The testable prediction of the redshift part of the theory lies in the math problem I submitted.

You mentioned that suggesting the gravity effect as a source of redshift is a form of the tired light view. Tired light was proposed by Zwicky in 1929 as the alternative to Hubble and competed for acceptance for a while. The following paragraph from WIKI is a huge error by Zwicky himself as he refutes gravitational potential as a tired light source. The second statement makes no sense and ignores the idea of an ongoing shift of spectral lines with distance. Its nonsense that spectral shift must end at the galaxy boundary.

• Gravitational potential:
"One might expect a shift of spectral lines due to the difference of the static gravitational potential at different distances from the center of a galaxy. This effect, of course, has no relation to the distance of the observed galaxy from our own system and, therefore, cannot provide any explanation of the phenomenon discussed in this paper."

Who are you referring to that has more logically discussed the cumulative effects of gravity on light.

Is this Zwicky error about gravitational potential a problem not on the top 30 list available for contribution?

Paul

paul schroeder

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pshrodr</i>
<br />Is this Zwicky error about gravitational potential a problem not on the top 30 list available for contribution?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The paragraph you cite refers strictly to relativistic gravitational redshift, which might occur in galaxies. But you and some others (including me) have discussed the idea of gravity acting cumulatively on light as it travels through empty space. That idea is not addressed in what you quoted.

The objection popularized by Feynman and originated by earlier writers (possibly Zwicky was the first) is that, even with the smallest quantum particles, the intercations with photons have a minimum energy transfer. And when energy is removed in steps with such a "large" minimum size, the photons get scattered slightly, and the image of the source would become fuzzy or blurry by the time it reached Earth after traveling substantial fractions of the visible universe. Such fuzzing of images is not seen, so classical tired light is ruled out.

It might make a nice contribution if you concentrated on this single issue and showed under what circumstances this objection might not apply. -|Tom|-

P.S. When it is ready, submit any abstract via the web site forms so it can go straight to the Scientific Committee.