Quantized redshift anomaly

If you guys would just read what you write and identify what is modeling and what is observation better papers might be published. You seem to be so well versed in this stuff that this cannot be done. Why do you assume a proton absorbs an electron for example?

<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 />
If you watch a Black Hole form,...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is good to observe the origin of the black hole story:

Assuming that the local speed of the light is isotropic (Michelson and Morley), the equations of the light are invariant by the conformal group which has a strange topology, with singularities such as black holes.
It does not mean that all transformations of this group are physically allowed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy


If you watch a Black Hole form,...

---

(JMB)
It is good to observe the origin of the black hole story:

Assuming that the local speed of the light is isotropic (Michelson and Morley), the equations of the light are invariant by the conformal group which has a strange topology, with singularities such as black holes.
It does not mean that all transformations of this group are physically allowed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I almost can understand this. I already know that the Black Hole is not really a hole, it is a quicksand made of neutrons. Or so they say. I don't know if they have actually found one. I hear that Cahill did the M&M experiment and found an anomaly. The Big Bangers deny it. The topology of space with black holes... I wonder if they really mean singularities? Sounds like it is the mathematics that is imagining a Black Hole. BUT, what are the assumptions behind this thinking? Is the first assumption that space is empty or is it that space is full? Because a neutron star would react much differently if it were one or the other.

I think the mathematics has to include this INSIDE of space before we can expect it to give us accurate models. I believe that the equations now presented are based on the assumption that space is empty.

But if our first assumption is that space is full, a source of energy, then what would a neutron star do? The differences are simple, if the assumption is that space is empty, then the flow of matter is in. But if the assumption is made that space is full, then the flow of matter is outward.

Now, this is old, but Asimov writes that Oort found that there is a hydrogen flow outward from a galaxy's center equal to one solar mass per year. Asimov thought this was a mystery because this flow should have depeleted the galaxy by now. He suggested that it might be a circulation flow.

It is no mystery for the ZPE

<b><u>Systems that do something</u></b>
<hr noshade size="1">



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
John Warfield's WORK PROGRAM OF COMPLEXITY (WPOC)


Understanding Complexity: Thought and Behavoir



John Warfield writes in his book "Understanding Complexity, Thought and Behavior" about a work program which is centered around the relationships among the elements of a complexity. He calls this program the "Work Program of Complexity", designed to illuminate the perplexity of complexity through "learning". The program has two fundamental thrusts , one is toward Discovery and the other is toward Resolution. Discovery has two thrusts, one is Description and the other is Diagnosis. Resolution has two also, Planning and Implementation.



The program utilizes "Interactive Management" principles to enable a group to come to grips with a problem situation.

The most difficult step is the first step, that of description. Fraught with pitfalls, killer assumptions, lack of foundatinal principles, dominant personalities,and the like, getting all the contributing factors out into the open requires considerable effort. Warfield uses groups and in them idea generators to submit viewpoints directed toward a "Trigger Question" After clarification and authenticity, the listing of contributions is interrelated into a "Problematique" A "Problematique" is a modeling using a combination of prose and graphics, permitting a view of all the aspects in a relationship. Prose alone is inadequate to express systemic relationships. If the number of elements in a problem field is large, seeing all of them is usually enlightening.

Once the Problematique is created, and presented in an "observatorium" in such a manner to be worthy of the work involved, a skilled diagnosis/options is formed, a plan/options devised and then implemented.

At first glance it may appear that the simple poster which is created is no more than what they will say "dumbing down America", but it really is state of the art science whereas all the parties involved come together and ascertain common relationships. It takes a large number of people to include all the relavent perspectives, and it takes a great deal of knowledge to evaluate, distill and organize those features. And it takes a great deal of wisdom to simplify all the work into a single picture capable of informing the larger audience.

(Note: This procedure originated by the Club of Rome around 1970)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[Tommy] "(Note: This procedure originated by the Club of Rome around 1970)"

Ah yes - the Club of Rome. I studied some of their stuff back in the 70s and 80s. Primarilly "The Limits to Growth" and some of the debates that grew out of it. But I missed this one. Thanks.

===

So, I take it you are saying that this is BS like the rest of their stuff?


LB

Jim,

Why do we use models? Because we need all the help we can get. It helps us figure out where to look for the next piece of the puzzle.

Oh sure, it could be done like you suggest - wait for another piece of information to fall into your lap, catalog it, and start waiting again. Or, if waiting is not your bag you could wander around looking under rocks and stuff at random. This tactic ought to grow the catalog of "discovered facts" a good bit faster than the waiting approach.

(But even this is a model of sorts - " ... the universe seems to be constructed in such a way that facts are easier to discover if you go look for them, instead of waiting for them to come to you ...". Experience supports this model, although I'm sure there are some exceptions.)

It seems reasonable that we ought to be able to do even better than that, however. What if we look at the facts we already have and try to organize them in some way? A chart or a table, maybe. When you fill it in with some of the facts you have found so far, it becomes a simple model. Picking facts at random from the catalog would probably work often enough to be useful, but selecting facts that seem already to have a realtionship of some sort ought to work better.

If it turns out that there are gaps in the table ... hmmm, a clue.


===


Of course there is a down side to using organizing techniques (modeling) to speed up the process. Many people, including scientists, have a tendency to mistake the map for the territory. I suspect that this is what really bothers you about it.

Well, it bothers us too. But life goes on, imperfections and all.

Regards,
LB