[General] Process Physics Cahill

[Wolfgang Baer]

Thank you this is some great information.
We have been trying to replicate Cahill's flow experiment without success

His theory may not be right, but I do believe there is a good argument 
to be made for some kind of space flow model
a bit along Bohm's lines

THanks, this is great

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 5/10/2016 8:21 PM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf:
> RE: your reference to Cahill (Reg. And “process physics” I presume)
> I think: the data of spiral galaxy rotation curves (RC) and central 
> mass (black hole mass) REJECT Cahill’s Process Physics hypothesis.
> RC
> Figure CahillRC.bmp attached shows the NGC3198 RC Cahill used in arXiv 
> 0401047 and later in arXiv 0705.27846. His formula suggests a flat 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 equipment that 
> tended to smooth the data. After 1992 the equipment improved and 
> several features became apparent. One such feature is that the RC 
> changes slope at high radius where the pre-92 equipment couldn’t 
> detect. However, the idea of the flat RC had gained hold in the social 
> scientific community. The difficulty has been to explain even the 
> simple flat RC. There are several models that do a fair job if cherry 
> picking is allowed. Process Physics has not improved on other models.
> Also, the RC’s close to the center have velocities over 1000 km/s. 
> This is Newtonian and drops to near (but not) zero very rapidly - well 
> before Cahill’s curve begins.
> Figure CahillBH.bmp attached shows the graph Cahill used in 
> arXiv:0705.27846. I looked in his original paper 
> (arxiv:physics/0608206) where he 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 have used $M/L 
> = 6$. There are many more galaxies that have central mass measured. 
> The general central mass to $L$ graph is much more dispersed (see 
> attached figMcentralvsL.bmp and figMcentralvsL_2.bmp that uses 
> Cahill’s M scale. It appears 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 meaning both 
> inertial mass and gravitational (in the kinetic and potential terms) 
> forms. He then arrives at a point he declares the Equivalence 
> Principle has been derived. I think he has assumed the Equivalence 
> Principle from the beginning and derived it by circular reasoning.
> Hodge
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160511/eefbbb98/attachment.htm>