Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity

[RussT]

[Moderator Note]This thread has been created by splitting out posts from the MOND - a general discussion thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=44142).
[/Moderator Note]

And once again, here it is!

flat orbital: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS28.pdf

[Jerry]

And once again, here it is!

flat orbital: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS28.pdf

Sigh.

Once again, an anomally has been observed, quantified, assigned a cause, and integrated into the theory that produced the anomalous data in the first place.

[Cougar]

And once again, here it is!
flat orbital: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS28.pdf
You may want to check out Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity (http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-040715.pdf). (The comments are not positive.)

[RussT]

You may want to check out Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity (http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-040715.pdf). (The comments are not positive.)

Yes, I know. I have read the whole thing.

I have also taken Ken G's and Publius' comments in the different threads on this into consideration!

I have also fairly extensively checked out his Website and other papers he has authored.

Now, he is OFF on some things he is inferring from this, BUT, because he has come at this from the 'Bottom up", so to speak, he cannot quite see it as I do, having come at it from 'the top down'.

What Tom Martin is seeing as 'absurd' is "HIS OPINION" and does not negate the possibility that Cahill's 'self-interacting' background 3 space does indeed exist.

Just the fact that he is showing that 'space' is pure gravity, should cause a whole lot of people to go HMMM, just for the simple fact that there are billions of galaxies out there with what...2 to 4 MILLION sols of mass (gravity) jammed into a very small area of space...a massive black hole in their cores...where did all that gravity (mass) come from?

[Cougar]

....there are billions of galaxies out there with what...2 to 4 MILLION sols of mass (gravity) jammed into a very small area of space...a massive black hole in their cores...where did all that gravity (mass) come from?
Is this a rhetorical question? :o I suspect the early universe was quite dense, and once it came out of thermal equilibrium, lots of (H/He) mass clumped together pretty quickly, apparently.

[RussT]

Please see my response on the SN 1a thread...ie, don't look for what is wrong, look for what is right.

[Nereid]

Sigh.

Once again, an anomally has been observed, quantified, assigned a cause, and integrated into the theory that produced the anomalous data in the first place.If RussT, or any other BAUT member, wishes to start a thread on Cahill's (ATM) ideas, I will move this post (quoted above) to that thread.

Having moved it, I will ask Jerry a number of questions about the claims made in this post.

Until then, let's keep this thread focussed on MOND, and the theories which reduce to it (in the appropriate limits) shall we?

[RussT]

What has this got to do with MOND?

[Edit: Apologies to VanderL; he already asked (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=809832&postcount=173) RussT much the same question:I notice that RussT did not answer VanderL's question.]


Hi Papageno,
Personally, I find Dark Matter unsatisfactory and ad hoc, and MOND ad hoc. To me, reliance on Dark Matter is like standing on a precarious rock in the ocean in a rising storm. MOND may be a better rock, but I am looking for an even better one.
TT

I was simply responding to the above.

As to VanderL's query, he posted that at 1:30pm, you posted...I notice that RussT did not answer VanderL's question, at 5:39pm!

This thread is about rotational curves for galaxies being able to be answered correctly, which Mond is an attempt to do as well as DM, and TEVES has been brought up as well, so I certainly thought that bringing in something else to compare DM and MOND to could be helpful.

But its not a problem, there are certainly other threads (or I could start a new one) to be able to discuss Cahills concepts.

[RussT]

Just a note.

After reading more of Mr. Cahills work, I must admit that he has wayyy more wrong than I orginally thought (I already indicated that he was off on numerous things)

What he does have right though is the 'background' self-interacting gravity field, which is DM. Also, because he is using his definition of quantum 'inflow' foam as the Fine Structure Constant (which is wrong), BUT it may mimic what Dark Matter is really made of, and so may still work to show galaxy rotational curves and other mass discrepancies.

In essence, he has taken his one finding of the 'background' gravity field, and tried from the 'bottom up', to apply this to way more than he understands about how it all works from the top down.

[Nereid]

[Moderator Note]This thread has been created by splitting out posts from the MOND - a general discussion thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=44142).
[/Moderator Note]