Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
I was pointing out that your argument of my interpretation of Sagnac seemed unrelated Narlikar? If this understanding ("3rd observer") of apparatus sets up a contradiction, i am not yet aware?
Yes - my understanding is that Narlikar's cosmo requires matter to be created and hubble expansion continue.
PC (to my knowledge) would be exploring energy/resonant structures of matter, ie plasma buckyballs, nanotubes as a mechanism. Also variations in mass (not matter) due to environments. Yes, ENE would suit.
The thread you mention, where i raised Narlikar as an alternative, is the absence of Quasar Time Dilation, this seems consistent with both of the above... Narlikar & ENE PC.
Big Bang (current form) does not at all.
|
I know that Ned Wright is one of those who is 'on-the-nose' over there at EU however he seems to have provided a reasonably current update (Jan 2010) of Narlikar's QSS vs the CMB findings:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
It would seem appropriate to counter Ned's counter, wouldn't it ?
We wouldn't have to take the quantum leap of faith into EUs world, if we stick to the mainstream BBT/CMB arguments against a key mainstream theory underpinning the EU/PC ideas.
I'll start it off ... at the end of Ned's paper, he states:
"It is very clear that the QSSC CMB angular power spectrum model proposed by Narlikar et al. does not fit the CMB data."
(Mind you, I'm not sure I'll understand the answer .. I'm having a hard time understanding the Graph axes, but I'm willing to play catch-up).
And so ... ?
Cheers