[General] Process Physics Cahill

[Hodge John]

Wolf:RE: your reference to Cahill (Reg. And “process physics” Ipresume) I think: the data of spiral galaxy rotation curves (RC) andcentral mass (black hole mass) REJECT Cahill’s Process Physics hypothesis.  RCFigure CahillRC.bmp attached shows the NGC3198 RC Cahillused in arXiv 0401047 and later in arXiv 0705.27846. His formula suggests aflat RC for galaxies. Figure fig_RC.bmp shows data from the observers’ papers.The bracketed numbers refer to references. [7] van Albada,~T.S. et~al., 1985. ApJ 295, 305., [8] Bosma,~A., 1981. AJ 86, 1791 for NGC3198.    Pre 1992 data of RC’s was limited and collected on equipmentthat tended to smooth the data. After 1992 the equipment improved and severalfeatures became apparent. One such feature is that the RC changes slope at highradius where the pre-92 equipment couldn’t detect. However, the idea of theflat RC had gained hold in the social scientific community. The difficulty hasbeen to explain even the simple flat RC. There are several models that do afair job if cherry picking is allowed. Process Physics has not improved onother models. Also, the RC’s close to the center have velocities over 1000km/s. This is Newtonian and drops to near (but not) zero very rapidly - wellbefore Cahill’s curve begins.  Figure CahillBH.bmp attached shows the graph Cahill used inarXiv:0705.27846. I looked in his original paper (arxiv:physics/0608206) wherehe lists sources for the FEW black hole mass data. However, the problem is the$M$ (mass of the galaxy) parameter. What is measured is the luminosity ($L$)(usually B-band). The $M/L$ ratio is controversial and varied. Cahill may haveused $M/L = 6$. There are many more galaxies that have central mass measured.The general central mass to $L$ graph is much more dispersed (see attachedfigMcentralvsL.bmp and figMcentralvsL_2.bmp that uses Cahill’s M scale. Itappears to me the galaxies have been cherry picked. And the calculation of $M$is questionable and not explained.  Cahill in arXiv 0705.27846 seems to use mass (m) as meaningboth inertial mass and gravitational (in the kinetic and potential terms)forms. He then arrives at a point he declares the Equivalence Principle hasbeen derived. I think he has assumed the Equivalence Principle from the beginningand derived it by circular reasoning.   Hodge 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/976e6d88/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CahillBH.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 850230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/976e6d88/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CahillRC.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 1325862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/976e6d88/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fig_RCs.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 1128062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/976e6d88/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: figMcentralvsL.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 2209574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/976e6d88/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: figMcentralvsL_2.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 2113014 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/976e6d88/attachment-0004.bin>