On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:30*am, Surfer wrote:

Which one are you? Rag, Kirsty or the porcupine?

None of the above. I am just a software engineer who likes to read
physics papers

I don't believe it:

-you are too intimately involved ONLY with Cahill's ideas

I have also been investigating MOND and Scale Relativity.
At the current time MOND is at an empirical stage--there is no
underlying theory to explain why it works. However astronomers are
using MOND to make useful predictions.

Scale Relativity is very interesting from a theoretical point of view.
It is essentially based on the simple assumption that space-time
geodesics are continuous but not differentiable. From that simple
assumption it follows that geodesics in space-time are fractal. From
that it follows that particle motion along geodesics must jitter. That
is, the average forward motion is a result of motion in both
directions.
This gives us two components of motion, the representation of which
requires a complex value. Hence from a very simple assumption, we get
the complex wave function of quantum mechanics. So there are papers
such as:

A scale-relativistic derivation of the Dirac Equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210027

Scale calculus and the Schrodinger equation
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211071

That seems very powerful to me.

However, Scale Relativity does not explain where space-time comes
from. For that we need a pregeometric theory.

This where Process Physics first attracted my interest. Process
Physics predicts the generation of a dynamical 3-space with
topological defects. This gives space and matter in an expanding
universe.
The topological defects are sinks for 3-space, so 3-space flows into
matter. The geometry of a radially inward flow causes the acceleration
of the flow to be described by an inverse square law. So the
acceleration matches the acceleration we know as gravity.
Outside matter, the acceleration is related to flow velocity by

g = del v/del t + (v.nabla) v

This allows a constant acceleration field to be produced by a time
varying velocity field.

More specifically, it appears the above has wave solutions with waves
upon waves, thus giving a general solution a fractal structure.

So Process Physics predicts a dynamical 3-space, flowing in such a way
that the velocity field has a fractal wave structure.

Now if one converted this to a space-time representation, wouldn't one
end up with something very similar to the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity?

If the similarity is sufficiently close, then Process Physics may
provide a theoretical basis for the fractal space-time of Scale
Relativity.

There is also a relation between Process Physics and MOND. Both can
account for galaxy rotation rates without the need for dark matter.

However, whereas MOND offers empirical formulae that seem fairly easy
to use, Process Physics requires flow equations to be solved using
numerical methods. So astronomers will probably prefer to continue to
use MOND. However, it may turn out that Process Physics is the
underlying theory that also explains why MOND works.

The above relationships are my own ideas. I have not seen MOND or
Scale Relativity mentioned in any Process Physics papers.

-the only thing you ever comment is the Cahill/Kitto papers

From time to time I have mentioned Scale Relativity. However Process
Physics is being more eventful.

-you repeat exactly their mistakes
-you have been lying, cheating, twisting the facts too long on this
forum to have any credibility

There are two more members of the "Progress in Physics" group, so you
are one of the group members, fishing for comments from the
mainstream.


Not everyone here is mainstream. I also like to communicating with
non-mainstream subscribers.


The sad thing is that you don't apply any of the valid
criticism you have received.

I take constructive criticism seriously, but it has not yet revealed a
fatal flaw in Process Physics. Consider the recent criticism of the
Miller data.

Because Process Physics predicts a fractal velocity field for
dynamical 3-space, the fluctuations in the Miller data can be
attributed to fractal fluctuations in that field.

If one does that, then the way Miller analysed his data simply gives
you a fluctuating velocity vector just as was predicted by theory.

Eg Fig 4 in
"Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed
Anisotropy"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...hill_flyby.pdf

shows the component in the plane of a ground level interferometer
fluctuating in magnitude from 150 km/s to 580 km/s.

These large fluctuations are disconcerting at first sight, but they
are probably due to the interaction between the interstella flow and
the local flow into the earth that occurs at ground level.

But in spite of such fluctuations, it was possible to calculate, from
the ground based observations, an overall average flow of about 415
km/s

That result was first provided (so far as I can tell) in
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

Now, nearly five years later, it turns out that light speed anisotropy
due to velocities in the range 420-450 km/s can completely account for
the spacecraft earth flyby anomalies.

This is in remarkable concordance with the earlier calculated average
velocity at ground level. But another implication of the concordance
is that there is less fluctuation of velocity away from earth, than
there is at ground level.

That is also something else we would expect from the theory.