<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2235"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2680">Wolf:</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2681">RE: your reference to Cahill (Reg. And “process physics” I
presume)</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2682"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2683">I think: the data of spiral galaxy rotation curves (RC) and
central mass (black hole mass) REJECT Cahill’s Process Physics hypothesis. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2684"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2685">RC</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2686">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] <span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2687" style="mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho"">van Albada,~T.S. et~al., 1985.<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2688" style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>ApJ 295, 305., [8] Bosma,~A., 1981.<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2689" style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>AJ 86, 1791 for NGC3198. </span><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2690" style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2691">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. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2692">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. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2693"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2694">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. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2695"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2696">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. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2697"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2698"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2699">Hodge</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462936639863_2700"> </div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></body></html>