In this case it isn't strictly going "there and back" but going with and against the aether flow which is vibrating underneath the motion.

I left the "c" out of the final expression didn't I? Sorry, I have to learn to check myself when I do this stuff. That is the correct answer:

v_average=c.(1-v²/c²)

It seems that the first set of questions in my post were not answered.

Do you require clarification of them?

Just double checking, you wrote
So did you mean to use the "/" rather than the "."?

Binary pulsars probe regions of gravitational field space that are many, many orders of magnitude (OOM) greater than what can be explored directly, in the immediate environs of the Earth.

Any 'gravity shielding effect' detectable in the latter environment, would very likely be approximately the same number of OOM greater in a binary pulsar system. To the extent that analyses of the radio pulses received should show a clear 'gravity shielding' signal (assuming the Earth-bound results scale appropriately) - or not - binary pulsars should be an independent test of such shielding.

My question concerns what work has been done to look for such a signal.
Only if:

* the observed results are consistent with LSG ... quantitatively

* someone has looked for the expected 'shielding' signal in GRACE (etc) data

* the expected signals (in GRACE, etc, data) are either present, or not expected to be present, given the estimated uncertainties.

Given that the GRACE satellites are shielded, from the Sun, and Moon, in very predicable patterns, and given that the Earth's geoid is now very well measured, I'm a little surprised no LSG proponent seems to have looked for a shielding signal in the data. Ditto lunar ranging data, LAGEOS data, ...
All the more reason to be surprised that no one, apparently, has looked at GRACE, LAGEOS, GPB, ... data to test 'shielding' hypotheses.

IIRC, in an earlier post - or posts - in this thread, you also stated that the value of c will vary according to the local electrical (or magnetic, or electromagnetic) field (or the gradient of that field, or ...).

Could you please clarify this expected dependence of c on something to do with electromagnetism?

Specifically, what is c expected to be a function of, in the ATM idea presented in this thread?

Also, how does the magnitude of the expected dependence on (something do to with electromagnetism) compare with that due to (nearby) mass?
Please describe a gedanken experiment, the results of which could be used to arrive at an experimental-based estimate of the dimensionless constant.

In the ATM idea(s) presented in this thread (e.g. WSM), how is the electron distinguished from the muon and the tau?

To what extent do these ATM ideas constrain the number of electron-like particles?

Let's back up for a moment, and review the extent to which "71 km/s/Mpc or 1/14*10^9 years" depends on textbook physics.

Start with the distance ladder, critical to any conclusion about what 'lengths' the universe 'scales' as.

Beyond direct parallax, all rungs on the distance ladder assume - implicitly or explicitly - that the 'laws of physics' are the same everywhere; that, for example, there are stable atoms (called 'hydrogen', 'helium', etc) which, if excited, emit photons/electromagnetic radiation with 100% repeatable, extremely well-defined spectra.

And today direct parallax is only good for a kpc or so.

One corollary is: if an ATM idea proposes that the 'laws of physics' are not the same everywhere, or that the spectrum of hydrogen is not 100% repeatable, or ... then all conclusions concerning distances (beyond a kpc or so) need to be re-determined, using revised rungs on the distance ladder.

For example, an object classified as a Type Ia supernova (Ia SNe) in standard astronomy/astrophysics may no longer be a standard candle ... an object with what would otherwise be classified as a Ia SNe light curve may not even be a supernova, under the laws of physics incorporating an ATM idea, or its maximum brightness may have no correlation with distance, or ...

And so it is with the Arp-Narlikar VMH: certain high-redshift objects are not billions of light-years distant, but mere Mpc (or closer); certain objects far apart on the sky are actually near neighbours, and so on.

As the ATM idea presented in this thread seems to reject much of the standard physics that underlies the distance ladder - and explicitly incorporates the non-standard Arp-Narlikar VMH - it seems logical that an alternative distance ladder must have been created, and used, in order for claims about how the universe scales (beyond a kpc or so) to have legs.

Please present an outline of how 'the Hubble scale' was determined to be "about 14x10^9 light years", using distance ladders that are fully consistent with the VMH.

Well I think that I answered them. I stated that as GR says there is no shielding then there is a subtle difference. Does that not answer the question about them being equivalent?

In another post...

Yes, but it is not the field strength that is important but the field shielding. This can only happen with a 3 body system, not a two body one.
Any gravity shielding in a binary applies only to the other matter in the same body. It does not vary over time in a detectable way, and cannot be observed separately for different parts of one star, and so is not detecable as a difference between GR and LSG.
Yes, this is a very good point and I believe that it should be done. I have thought about artificial satellites in this way and realized that a test is possible with sufficient accurate data (taken by the minute rather than the day). It is a crucial test. One point that I would make concerning this is that the GR equations are fitted on the assumption that GR is correct. To get a proper test requires refitting the data with the alternate model and seeing if the residuals decrease or increase.

After this proposal has run its course I will see if such data is available. I am not sure whether the maths of it all will be too hard, but will at least be able to look for a period difference of the right form.

There are fairly clear signs now that GR is not a perfect fit to data, particularly for space probes that move through the solar system (as distinct from planets in near circular orbits), see:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...t-anomaly.html

This will only be known when computer simulations are done (or the less likely case that someone solves the maths).

My wild guess is that there is a matrix which is open in two directions. One dimension is the number of times the phase of the wave changes as you go around the particle 0=neutrino, 1=lepton, 2=muon, 3=baryon and there therefore could be further types but they might be very weird and very unstable.

The families I think might elate to the number of missing waves due to the fact that inner waves of any standing wave pattern are larger and yet far from the particle the waves have an essentially constant wavelength. This means that the inner waves have a total wavelength that is greater than the distant waves and that sum of differences should be a whole number as the distant waves will all be part of a sort of universal matrix of waves. The difference will be 1, 2, 3 for the existing families with further families possible. The energy of such a wave structure is roughly dependent on some high power of the number of missing waves because of the geometry (3 dimensions) and energy density (higher energy density to cause greater wavelength distortion in non-linear field). The observed pattern suggests a power between 7 and 8 that if another lepton exists it would have mass ~25000 times an electron. Take all this with a grain of salt.

I would point out however that the number of families of particles is not actually demonstrated to be 3 as is often wrongly repeated. That number only refers to the number of families with mass less than some value (I think the W mass from memory). If you look at the actual mass changes between families the next one might well be expected at a higher mass than that. This point seems to be entirely ignored by all physicists, an example of poor logic or imprecise statements.

There are problems as you suggest, but mainly applied to Quasars and not galaxies. However some galaxies have been demonstrated to have peculiar internal redshifts but of quite small magnitude compared to quasars. Generally, Narlikar has demonstrated that for VMH many things scale on (1+z) in the same way as they do for GR, i.e as 1st, 2nd or 3rd power.

Actually for normal galaxies, the alternatives both depend on the same ladder steps to derive a real distance unrelated to redshift (otherwise you could not do a distance versus redshift scatter diagram). That far they are the same. The Hubble constant is simply the slope of that scatter diagram graph.

I am pretty confident that the Hubble constant is now quite accurate as I can compare geological cycle periods to galaxy super-cluster distance spacings (the 128 Mpc that we discussed in the Redshift periodicity thread) and get a match. That match allows the Hubble constant to be immediately calculated to better than 1% accuracy and potentially to better than 0.1%. The present value I get is only about 0.3% different to the latest value that I saw.

When you do fundamental physics and cosmology in a more fundamental way, many more of these things appear as cross-checks. It also helps to use equivalent units such as years and light years to see the fit rather than seconds and Mpc/h which is the daftest unit ever.

I am going to take a break and see if I can post a correct result once and for all.

This is relevant to the EPR question:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0511134

[non-mod mode]Let's do a gedanken experiment.

Let's assume there is a spacecraft in orbit around the pulsar of a binary pulsar (or both, in the case of double pulsars) such that it is regularly on a line between the binaries, much like the L1 and L2 Lagrange points.

Let's equip our spacecraft with suitable 'g' detectors, which measure the local 'g' continuously, and powerful communicators, which send the data from the detectors back to us, here on Earth (encoded using a suitably robust protocol).

Would analysis of that data be expected to show a (very big) 'gravity shielding' signal?

If so, then we can ask if there is something in the environment of the binary pulsars that might act like our gedanken experiments' local 'g' detectors (and communicator).

If not, why not?
My compliments, rtomes ... this puts you in a quite small minority of folk who have started ATM threads, in this BAUT ATM section!

I, for one, look forward to reading the results of your research*.
Er, no.

First, a SPACE.com story is not a reliable source, when it comes to seriously studying GR, at the very least you need to read the relevant papers, published in peer-reviewed journals.

Second, while the Pioneer anomaly is well-established - as an anomaly - the status of 'five of six flybys' must surely be quite tentative ... if only because, so far (AFAIK), only one team/researcher has looked at it carefully enough.

Third, generalising from the Pioneers and five of six flybys to "fairly clear signs now that GR is not a perfect fit to data, particularly for space probes that move through the solar system (as distinct from planets in near circular orbits)" is a pretty extraordinary inductive leap!

* BTW, did you get around to analysing the HIPASS data?

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]And this rather neatly brings us back to an item that was left open in one or other of the other ATM threads you started - what is a 'quasar'?

If you intend to address challenges to the ATM ideas presented, as presented, concerning the (Hubble) scale of the universe and the universality of the Arp-Narlikar VMH, please say so explicitly.
This, it seems, is circular logic ... please clarify.

Specifically, please show that "some galaxies have been demonstrated to have peculiar internal redshifts" using observational and experimental techniques that have been rigorously shown to be fully consistent with the VMH.

Please also explain what the distance scale of the 'quasar' universe is, using observational and experimental techniques that have been rigorously shown to be fully consistent with the VMH.Reference please.
Please provide a definition of "normal galaxies".

Please show that "the alternatives [upon which the ATM ideas presented in this thread depend] depend on the same ladder steps to derive a real distance unrelated to redshift" using observational and experimental techniques that have been rigorously shown to be fully consistent with the VMH, WSM, LSG, and LET.I do not know if anyone is questioning, or has questioned, your confidence - certainly not me.

However, the explicit purpose of this ATM section of BAUT is to challenge and question ATM ideas, as presented.

In this thread you have presented an ATM idea that seems to depend - inextricably - upon several other ATM ideas, including WSM, LET, LSG, and the VMH. These ATM ideas seem to require a re-write of large parts of the standard physics that is incorporated in the estimation of distances beyond a kpc or so.

Logically, then, a potential weakness in the ATM ideas presented here is the relationship between distance estimates based on standard physics with estimates based on replacing key parts of standard physics with WSM, LET, VMH, and so on. In this set of related posts, I am asking about the extent to which those differences have been investigated and found to be unimportant.
Unless a rigorous demonstration that distance estimates are the same (to within a few percent, perhaps) - using the ATM ideas of WSM, LET, VMH, etc vs using standard physics - it seems all you have is an interesting coincidence ... and that is assuming that "the 128 Mpc" and "geological cycle periods" stand up to appropriate scrutiny (for avoidance of doubt, the very mild challenges these were subject to in earlier ATM threads is nothing compared with what they would be faced with if presented for publication in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal).Indeed.

However, when so many ATM ideas are proposed, it is all but impossible to challenge them effectively, especially when there are so many, potentially fatal, logical inconsistencies and errors to ferret out.

[/non-mod mode]

I don't want to labour this point too much, but it is important. If the equation for the average velocity that you have used in your further work is incorrect, then your claim that you have correctly derived the "spatial distortion" equation must also be incorrect. In addition this means that your theory is not consistent with observation.

If the "/" was just a typo, then c'est la vie.

[non-mod mode]In 'Big Bang' theories, the mean free path of neutrinos was extremely small until (approximately) primordial nucleosynthesis was complete; then they decoupled, and streamed free, just as photons did at age ~380,000 years, to become what we see today as the CMB.

But, in any case, won't there be a (logical) need to first build a robust ATM theory of the weak force (fully consistent with LET, WSM, LSG, the VMH, ...), or at least of neutrinos, in order to consistently interpret any data from future neutrino telescopes?
This provides a good example of the potential logic errors in the ATM case being presented in this thread.

Whatever "cosmological measurements" of "any change in e/p mass ratio [...] over cosmological distances" you may find reported in astronomical/astrophysical papers, they will all either incorporate standard physics (as the unstated default), or explicitly state what non-standard physics has been used.

Unless and until all ATM physics incorporated in the ATM ideas presented in this thread are shown (rigorously) to have effectively no impact on the long chains of logic implicit in such papers, I can't see how any of such papers could be any use to the case presented in this thread.

For example, almost all the soft x-ray and less energetic electromagnetic radiation (and much of the harder stuff too) detected 'from the sky' is thought to come from molecules, atoms, ions, or electrons; change the e/p mass ratio, and almost all spectra need re-interpretation (and line spectra may become nigh on impossible to unravel).

One corollary: if the ATM claims being presented in this thread include firm predictions that the e/p mass ratio is not constant (or constrained to very tight limits), or if there are firm predictions that the charge/mass ratio (of the electron, proton, etc) is not constant, or ... then a logical question to ask is how all astronomical observations must be re-analysed.

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]Which derivation, it now seems, is somewhat limited in its scope (or 'explanatory power', if you prefer).
Could you clarify please?

It seems there is a leap of logic here: how does "structures such as particles must evolve with time" (a general statement) make the Arp-Narlikar VMH (a particular hypothesis about non-constant mass) "inevitable"?

Surely the particular can be wrong, even absurdly wrong, without the general also being wrong?Allow me, if I may, to challenge this assertion.

"non-linearity" is a mathematical concept, which for the purposes of this post one may ask to be rigorously and consistently defined.

"Without non-linearity there cannot be observation. All observation requires interaction between some field and some sense organ or instrument" assumes that
a) "fields" have an existence independent of observation,
b) that all field-sense organ/instrument interactions must include non-linearity,
c) and more ...

"That cannot happen with linearity because all linear waves" conflates "linearity" with "linear waves", among other things.

Of course, this takes into territory far removed from the explicit scope of BAUT, into maths and philosophy, so I don't want to pursue it further now; I simply note that that italicised, bold, navy paragraph contains much that can be challenged and questioned.

Back to questions.

"These things are logically true." - what are the "things" referred to here?

"The fact that 99.999% of all physicists and cosmologists totally ignore them" - how did you arrive at the 99.999% number? What is your evidence for the "totally ignore" part of this assertion? Is "them" the same as "these things" in the previous sentence?

"(not just questions asking for derivative proofs)" - if the ATM idea had been presented sans LET, LSG, VMH, WSM, ... then this thread may have been much shorter ... perhaps the idea, when explored more carefully, could be shown to be nothing more than a slightly different mathematical approach to the ones usually found in physics textbooks; perhaps the idea could be shown to be interesting but essentially useless in terms of addressing the specifics of the pertinent observations and experiments; perhaps ...

However, the ATM ideas were not so presented.

There were, for example, assertions about the equivalence of LSG and GR, about the perfect interchangability of LET and SR, about the consistency between astronomical observations and the VMH, about actual and potential scope of WSM wrt elementary particles, about ...

And I'm still far from clear on the extent to which falsifying LET or WSM or LSG or the VMH would show the ATM ideas presented in this thread to be "wrong" (see the confusion over the general and the particular earlier in this post, for example).

Then there's the question of 'non-linearity' and 'waves', and the question of ...

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]Have you subsequently found this?
[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]

All quotes from posts by rtomes, in this thread; all emphases mine (unless otherwise noted).I do not doubt that the views expressed in these quotes represent the personal feelings of rtomes.

I wonder, however, what their purpose is?

Those which are specific (e.g. "99.999%") can be easily questioned and challenged; those which are sweepingly general (e.g. "entirely ignored by all physicists") almost certainly cannot be defended.

Beyond that, how does continued repetition of borderline insults, casting aspersions on the competence of physicists, etc help support the ATM ideas being presented? I feel this is a particular apt question, given that rtomes is on record - several times - as saying he has not published any papers on the subject areas in which the physicists so disparagingly referred to work, in any relevant peer-reviewed journal (allowing the analyses etc behind his strongly expressed personal views to be exposed to appropriate review).

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]Could you please provide references to several papers, in the relevant peer-reviewed literature, of such "wrongly repeated" numbers (i.e. no caveating wrt < some value)?

Are you prepared to defend your assertion, concerning "entirely ignored by all physicists"? If so, I assume that a single reference, to a paper by just one physicist, that clearly shows "this point" has NOT been ignored would constitute a refutation; do you agree?

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]Please outline what needs to be (or should be) simulated on a computer.

What - specifically - is the math that could, possibly, be solved? If this is contained in a paper by Wolff, please give a reference to it.

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode]I appreciate that part of this post has already been questioned, and that rtomes has stated answers will be forthcoming in future; this post of mine refers (I hope) to separate challenges and questions.

"I advocate using Euclidean space and variable c." - to what extent does this permit, or assume, the existence of an absolute frame of reference?

"I do not see any differences in experimental results between the two approaches." - what is the range of experiments that you have examined, for such possible differences?

"The difference between these two velocities is the GR spacial distortion formula. It results directly from a WSM equation in the presence of massive bodies." - what is "the GR spacial distortion formula"? What is the particular "WSM equation in the presence of massive bodies" used here?

"The result is to create all the GR effects" - to what extent are you prepared to show, explicitly, this result? In particular, which "GR effects" are you prepared to demonstrate? to not demonstrate?

"[...] it is necessary to realize that in the proposed model, matter is not of constant dimensions. If you use rulers made of matter, they have been distorted by the effects of WSM waves vibrating along with that matter. [...] For example, when you measure c horizontally and vertically, your ruler is changing in size as a result of c changing. It might be argued that this is not a lot of use if you can't detect it." - if the aether tension has an e/m, weak, or strong force dependence (or some combination thereof), then the rulers used may be distorted by different amounts, permitting the anisotropic nature of c to be detected and measured (in principle). An analogy is some of the Eöt-Wash tests of GR (and gravity) - same mass, different composition.

Further, depending on what the e/m (etc) dependence is, this anisotropic c idea may have already been tested, in particle physics experiments involving polarised beams, for example, or in neutral Kaon decay studies.

In the ATM idea presented in this thread, are experiments which can exploit the different dependencies of the aether tension possible, in principle?

[/non-mod mode]

[non-mod mode](emphasis added)

This will serve as well as any other of rtomes' posts on this topic.

I would like clarification on the relationship between "predict the atomic and particle scales at 0.5 A and 1.3 fm" and WSM (and the VMH).

Is WSM the only 'wave' particle physics ATM idea examined, so far, as a possible, consistent, basis for this prediction? If not, what others have been examined?

Given that no WSM-based work has been done on the weak or strong force, or any particles known to exist in the nucleus, is there any basis for thinking that this approach will produce results consistent with this prediction?

In the VMH, what are the atomic and particle scales, for mass (atoms, ions) which we observe to emit photons of z ~>1?

[/non-mod mode]

RTomes. The number of families in the Standard Model of particle physics was determined by the line width of the Z⁰ resonance at CERN/FERMILB. When the Z is formed, it can decay in particle/antiparticle pairs...top/anti-top, bottom/anti-bottom, charm/anti-charm, strange/anti-strange, up/anti-up, down/anti-down, electron/positron, muon/anti-muon, tau/anti-tau, photon/anti-photon, neutrino/anti-neutrino. The more pairs possible, the faster it decays, the faster it decays, the narrower the width of the Z resonance...~90 Gev. The experimentally confirmed results from the work of Carlo Rubbia et al....is exactly three families. The phenomenon is referred to as the Z-pole because it goes off scale when counting decay rates on the x-axis with energy of interaction on the y.This is not a collection of neer-do-well nitwit physicists babbling but some of the most careful experimentalists in history presenting millions of events carefully in their data reductions...and won Rubbia the Nobel Prize in physics. pete

see:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

[non-mod mode]Tidying up some loose ends ...

What properties of the electron do you understand Wolff to have derived?

Specifically, which are "the same results as QED"?

[/non-mod mode]

The distances of galaxies are able to be derived by means other than redshift which is how the redshift versus distance relationship was discovered by Hubble. When a scatter diagram is made of redshift versus distance, galaxies form a straight line with a bit of scatter due to uncertainties in the measurements. However quasars have almost no correlation between any distance proxy and redshift. This is in itself a huge reason to suspect quasar redshifts while accepting that proof that most galaxy redshifts are reliable distance indicators.

However Arp, the Burbidges, Narlikar etc have shown that some quasars are physically associated with galaxies at very different redshifts. This is complete proof that quasar redshifts are not a reliable measure of distance. There are also cases of unusual and active galaxies that have such demonstrated associations but the redshift differences are not generally so extreme. The logical conclusion (by Arp etc) is that quasars are an early stage where redshift is internally displaced and that gradually it comes in line (Narlikar VMH) and that active galaxies are a late stage before becoming "normal" galaxies.

Beyond that I do not intend to comment on the definition of a quasar. I have made that perfectly clear before.

For references see my page Big Bang Bung. I assume that you are well aware of the difference between galaxy and quasar redshift scatter diagrams.

I do not have firm predictions of the mass ratio varying or being constant. This is potentially able to be calculated but is well beyond what I have achieved to date. I think that the LNH values around 10^40 are more likely to vary than the p/e mass ratio or the FSC (fine structure constant). However I do not think that any of these vary.

There are a series of observed LNH values, including Eddington and Dirac's 10^40 and 10^80. More recently a paper mentioned 10^122. All these are related by powers of 2 and 3 (with possible small constants such as pi or 4/3*pi etc) because of geometrical reasons - inverse square laws, space being 3D etc. This pattern may be extended to my ~10^4.5 ratio between major structures in the Universe which is the 9th root of 10^40 (i.e there are 9 steps in levels of structure between particle and Hubble scales). That ratio is also close to the term (1/2)*alpha^2 where alpha (the FSC) is 1/137.036 giving 1/37,558. This ratio is observed in various atomic wavelengths and frequencies and is quite meaningful. This 37558 ratio is close to but not exactly equal to 34560*(1 + 1/12 + 1/288). That may seem a strange expression, but in Harmonics Theory every strong harmonic has secondary strong harmonics mostly at ratios of 12 and 288 to it. In fact, because many QED expressions have power series in alpha or alpha^2, these expressions could equally well be based on 34560. I have direct proof of this in the atomic arena where analysis by the Kotov method of some hydrogen spectral lines produces a value exactly 34560 times the Bohr radius of an H atom.

These LNH relationships are best understood as geometrical based on inverse square and inverse cube. They can be potentially fully solved in my proposal. There is every reason to believe that they are permanent constants of the Universe.

I referred you to the wikipedia article last time. It states:
That is always what I mean by linear or non-linear. (actually 2 is not needed as it follows from 1).
These are the very things that I raise my ideas to have people consider. It is the subtleties of such that are seldom discussed which lie at the source of of physics getting into such difficulties that it cannot progress.

I think that physicists and cosmologists have given undue weight to assuming that the behaviour of particles is somehow fundamental (they even call them that) whereas I see them as derivative properties of the laws of nature. I arrived at that conclusion by pursuing thoughts about these things and trying to find the deepest common aspects of everything.

Please do question those matters as that is fundamental to what I propose. It is the only way to fully appreciate the different viewpoint (I avoided the p word) which allows breaking from unrecognized fixed and hidden assumptions.
Non-linearity of fundamental laws, its implications for waves being not totally stable, that senses require non-linear physics.
How many people consider that particles are evolving in your view? I can only think of a handful, and they are mostly getting rather old.
I think that WSM is at least a very useful adjunct to standard theory for visualizing things. And yet if you talk to Geoff Hazelhurst and others you will find that there is strong denial of such things as real waves producing de Broglie waves by ordinary interference. It seems many people actually want it o be mysterious.
[note something strange happened while editing here]
I should state clearly that LSG is nearly equivalent to GR as it does seem that the shielding case does provide a definite difference.

Yes, the LET = SR is in fact accepted by mainstream physicists I think. This is the least contentious anyway.

I know of no evidence that VMH is inconsistent with that Standard Cosmology is consistent with, but there is plenty the other way.

I don't know of any way to demystify physics (which is really my primary aim) that does not address WSM and the resulting local realism that Einstein argued for. If we don't have a clear model in our minds, then we don't know how to manipulate the maths equations. I think that there are other examples (which I will raise in ATM in the future) where there are implications from standard theory that have never been considered. It is the lack of a clear model in people's minds that prevents this.
Haha! I do understand what you are saying here. The Big Bang repeatedly gets things wrong but a patch up is done. Those that believe it to be wrong are constantly amazed that the evidence they find does not dent the faith of the believers. Humans are weird creatures with huge attachments to belief systems.

I will have a shot at showing the interconnections here as I see them:

1. At the base is the non-linear wave equation for the universe which is simply the wave equation of a tensile medium (aether) with variable speed of light due to tension changes brought about by fluctuations in stretching.

2. From 1 it follows that there are solutions that are spherical standing waves. These include wave structures with wave lengths matching distances between galaxies, stars, planets, moons, ... cells, atoms, nucleons, (quarks?) etc.

3. Harmonics Theory depends on 1 and 2 as its basis of starting, but there might be other ways (it was developed first and then the others to explain it to physicists).

4. The waves that match particles in 2 we can call WSM. Most WSM people do not recognize that there are other waves such as in 2 and 3 and some even argue against it because of what they perceive as a boundary problem. They also do not recognize that non-linearity causes development and LSG etc. So I am an odd one in the WSM community in this regard.

5. LET is a logical consequence of an aether theory, I think making most sense when it is recognized that matter is waves (but maybe not requiring WSM).

5. LSG follows logically from several different possibilities and can be based on particulate or wave aethers. In either case it requires that there is not perfect elasticity, so I think the non-linearity is the best way to get that. Certainly when you have non-linearity, and WSM then LSG follows form that.

6. VMH was developed for cosmological reasons by Narlikar and Arp. However I arrived at the same idea from Harmonics Theory. It follows logically from LSG when the waves are seen to be WSM or similar type of waves because of the interaction of waves between for example a new quasar and other nearby galaxies. There is very much more that could be said on this which would explain why the steps in redshift occur for quasars as Arp has claimed. There is a great logical consistency here. You might note that VMH people have also supported LSG.

I think that gives some reasons for the connections. Some people see much more of these than others. I think that it is in fact older people that see the connections better whereas they are not so good at the detail (I know my maths manipulation skills have gone downhill in the last 40 years as demonstrated in this thread).
Yes, please question those. This is the central part of the concept and if not accepted then the reasons should be fully explored. We both might learn from that exercise about each others thinking processes.

Referring to spherical wave being equivalent to a set of plane waves through a point...
No. I cannot remember the name of a woman who had some great stuff on her site about wavelets who I think had this on her web site in about 1994.

However I have now remembered the name Michael Weiss who also posted in sci.physics about the same time and has contributed to the FAQ there and I am fairly sure that he stated this at one time. I did some searches and it brought the FAQ up at http://75.126.69.23/faqs/physics-faq/ but I cannot find it there. Michael is a very knowledgable and helpful guy and I feel confident that the result is correct - I can even visualize it. Of course I understand that you want a reference. Sorry.

OK, sorry. Point taken. If you multiply this by about 1000 you will have some idea of what people like Halton Arp have had to put up with. It is a testament to his courage and integrity that he continued his research along the lines that he did.

But the EPR case is actually quite shocking when you understand it. There is a whole industry in popular books and articles on this and it is entirely based on a statistics mistake. I do not withdraw the accusation that this a huge bungle. The reason for that bungle rests firmly in not understanding what equations mean. The QM equations have actual waves and the probability of detecting them mixed in together but this is not generally recognized today. Scroedinger and de Broglie understood clearly. Einstein rejected interpretations that didn't fit with clear thinking. Today the field of understanding QM is on the sidelines and people are actually told (by even such greats as Feynman) that this cannot be understood.