Relativity of rotational motion confirmed:

My claims so far have all aligned with accepted mainstream cosmology and supported by links. Perhaps not in the scientific mathematical jargon of rpenner, but correct and conveying the proper picture none the less.
You have been asked many times for references supporting your nonsense and have yet to do so.
You can stand by whatever version you prefer my friend, the fact of the matter is, you are convincing no one while you are unable to support such "stories".
You also openly admit BH's are rubbish, and GP-B and aLIGO are fraudulent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On that score alone, I'll stand by the judgement of your peers on this forum as to the nonsense you are trying to portray.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet it is you that have been warned for what you are accusing me of in very recent times and more than once, for not only making incorrect assertions but other flagrant attempts to "trick" or "trap" a mainstream answer while you then shift the goal posts.
If you believe I'm making incorrect assertions, then you know what to do.
But I'm not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

I am sorry, you have no claims, and whatever you type is not mainstream, many a times. I have given you 3 poinst, your typing about them is not mainstream....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Links at posts 55, 56, and 57 show that I am correct.
Who do you believe you are convincing and what difference do you believe you are making.
You don't have to answer those questions of course...as with many other questions you refuse to answer and/or just bypass over, they all tend to show you up for what you are.
I'll leave you to your fun and games now, as you do not have much else.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So silly of you, even when it is established that you are caught with your pants down, still arguing...be graceful.....

 

Ignoring the trolling, the most pertinent point so far is that raised by q-reeus re the DE value at 68% as referenced here....
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/news/planck20130321.html#.V0DvNFR942w
and that as used by Professor Oyvind at 73.7%
These figures seem to change depending on improving precision and the instruments, and again though, I'm not real sure as to what difference or how much difference it makes to the conclusion results of the paper from the OP.
As usual, continuing scientific research and experiments will verify or otherwise those results, certainly not the rantings of any god driven character with some fanatical urge to try and invalidate cosmology at whatever moment he can and whenever he dreams up some fabricated unreal scenario.
Links at posts 55, 56, and 57 show that I am correct with regards to some tangent arguments raised.

 

It makes every difference. Gron et al have claimed the 73.7% figure must be exactly correct - based on their particular implementation of Mach's principle + GR.
A fully tabulated list of PLANCK survey best estimates, for 2013 data and more recent and refined 2015 data, is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results

For 2013 DE data, estimate range is 0.6817 to 0.6964, with a given best fit of 0.6825
For 2015 DE data, estimate range is 0.6844±0.0091 to 0.6935±0.0072, with no best fit given.

So the range has been narrowed and trend is fapp unchanged from 2013 to 2015. There is essentially zero likelihood any future revised data will allow a miraculous jump to 0.737.

My challenge in #5 remains - email Gron et al, direct him to my posts #3, #5 (not partial quotes from), and this one, and invite a response. Which should be quoted in full.

 

Your challenge??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since you apparently believe I only give partial quotes and do not quote my replies fully, I suggest you take up your own challenge.
Perhaps you could also check out the 8 or 9 E-Mails I have sent, and the replies and show me where this has happened?

 

If that word irks for some reason then try 'invitation' or 'suggestion' or whatever - the relevant passage in #5 was perfectly clear.

Maybe those replies were in full - good then. Just do the same if any action is taken this case. I can't be bothered doing a search but recently you were very selective in quoting only passages that suited your position - as i recall over the 'waterfall/river' notion re BH's. But whatever, you started this thread and clearly were tacitly if not outright endorsing Gron's position.
I have presented a counterargument based on both PLANCK survey data, and on a conceptual level.
Therefore, as OP it's fitting you take any action to try and clear this issue up. But if you can't be bothered, i won't lose any sleep over it.

 

I'll do what you suggest: Both your posts at 3 and 5 will be there in their entirety.
Not all our professionals do answer [probably more important things to attend to] but I'll see what happens:
And yes either yea or nay I will repost here.

 

Great. Look forward to whatever comes back. In some hypothetical other universe, our two doppelgangers might actually get on ok. But let's not get carried away with hypotheticals.
[PS; A good idea to also quote if not #66 in it's entirety, at least the link there to Wiki PLANCK survey results.]

 

The E-Mail sent on Sunday morning
thus.....
Oyvind.Gron@hioa.no<Oyvind.Gron@hioa.no

Hi professor:
I am only an amateur at this game, but I did read your paper, http://www.epj.org/images/stories/news/2016/10.1140--epjp--i2016-16091-9.pdf and raised it on a science forum I participate in.
One poster in particular rejects it and I’m sure you are better qualified to argue his point/s.
as follows:


Then Oyvind and Co are in trouble, because the more recent observations have downgraded the 'DE' value to 68.3 %, significantly less than his 73.7%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DMPie_2013.svg

I have pointed out several times here and elsewhere that the persistent and popular notion, even amongst GR buffs, that rotation is relative in the sense given in that physorg article is just stupid:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-gr-contradict-machs-principle.505896/page-2#post-3352410
and this..........................................
See end of 3rd para here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Overview

See last main para here:https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/news/planck20130321.html

While quoted Planck survey results have a small scatter, none exceed 'DE' = 70% and the mean is around 68-69%. Planck survey figures are universally accepted as more accurate than earlier WMAP result that evidently Gron et al are clinging to cherry-picking style. Sad. Evidently an example of 'this is my beautiful baby and I love it too much to let go'.

As per my earlier linked post(s) in another forum, there is no logical sense to the persistent notion of supposedly 'Machian relative rotation' where the rest of the universe is deemed as spinning around some axis. Seems Bishop George Berkekey started the crazed perspective, which has unfortunately taken hold ever since. The logically correct thing is to treat the instantaneous motion of each mass element (in say a spinning flywheel) separately - the 'rest of the universe then can be correctly Machian treated as having instantaneous relative motion of the opposite sign but equal magnitude.



It's an imaginary procedure but no less logical than the EM rough counterpart of a charged particle moving in the magnetic field of some 'distant' current distribution. In both cases, 'symmetric' propagation delay is not part of the analysis.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Thanking you in anticipation of a reply

 

OK, you chose to quote parts instead of my entire posts #3 and #5 as asked, nevertheless that quoted is a fair summary. Except, I do suggest a supplementary email, because without having included the link to the physorg article quoted in your #1: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-relativity-rotational-motion.html#jCp
he won't know what I was referring to in my #3 by "...that rotation is relative in the sense given in that physorg article..."
Also, as per [...] in my #70, I suggest quoting the entire #66, or at least the link there to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#Results
Up to you.

 

I'll post the article from physorg sure, but I did believe the part I left out was irrelevant. Post 66 I took as a rehash of what you already claimed.

 

OK, agreed that left out is not important to argument, but that link given in #66 provides PLANCK survey details that makes the 2013-2015 trend, or rather lack of one, significant.

 

No problems...Planck results will be in sure.

 

No reply, but I did E-Mail another Professional.................
here is that reply.............

Shrug – it looks like a lot of hand waving and is just a rehash of the linear coasting cosmological model (also known as the Rh=ct universe). The first prediction, that the age of the universe is 1/H is simply wrong.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0901


and lots of other stuff comes out to be wrong


http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07460

Geraint F Lewis,

Professor of Astrophysics

Sydney Institute for Astronomy

School of Physics A28

The University of Sydney

NSW 2006 Australia
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

I checked on the "Rh=ct universe" and found this........

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5189.pdf

F. Melia1⋆ and A.S.H. Shevchuk

ABSTRACT
The backbone of standard cosmology is the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solution to Einstein’s equations of general relativity (GR). In recent years, observations have largely confirmed many of the properties of this model, which is based on a partitioning of the universe’s energy density into three primary constituents: matter, radiation, and a hypothesized dark energy which, in ΛCDM, is assumed to be a cosmological constant Λ. Yet with this progress, several unpalatable coincidences (perhaps even inconsistencies) have emerged along with the successful confirmation of expected features. One of these is the observed equality of our gravitational horizon Rh(t0) with the distance ct0 light has traveled since the big bang, in terms of the current age t0 of the universe. This equality is very peculiar because it need not have occurred at all and, if it did, should only have happened once (right now) in the context of ΛCDM. In this paper, we propose an explantion for why this equality may actually be required by GR, through the application of Birkhoff’s theorem and the Weyl postulate, at least in the case of a flat spacetime. If this proposal is correct, Rh(t) should be equal to ct for all cosmic time t, not just its present value t0. Therefore models such as ΛCDM would be incomplete because they ascribe the cosmic expansion to variable conditions not consistent with this relativistic constraint. We show that this may be the reason why the observed galaxy correlation function is not consistent with the predictions of the standard model. We suggest that an Rh = ct universe is easily distinguishable from all other models at large redshift (i.e., in the early universe), where the latter all predict a rapid deceleration.

and the following......

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/446/2/1191.abstract

On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe

Abstract
The Rh = ct universe is a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) cosmology which, like Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM), assumes the presence of dark energy in addition to (baryonic and non-luminous) matter and radiation. Unlike ΛCDM, however, it is also constrained by the equation of state (EOS)p = −ρ/3, in terms of the total pressure p and energy density ρ. One-on-one comparative tests between Rh = ct and ΛCDM have been carried out using over 14 different cosmological measurements and observations. In every case, the data have favoured Rh = ct over the standard model, with model selection tools yielding a likelihood ∼90–95 per cent that the former is correct, versus only ∼5–10 per cent for the latter. In other words, the standard model without the EOS p = −ρ/3 does not appear to be the optimal description of nature. Yet in spite of these successes – or perhaps because of them – several concerns have been published recently regarding the fundamental basis of the theory itself. The latest paper on this subject even claims – quite remarkably – that Rh = ct is a vacuum solution, though quite evidently ρ ≠ 0. Here, we address these concerns and demonstrate that all criticisms levelled thus far against Rh = ct, including the supposed vacuum condition, are unwarranted. They all appear to be based on incorrect assumptions or basic theoretical errors. Nevertheless, continued scrutiny such as this will be critical to establishingRh = ct as the correct description of nature.

 

This appears to be quite a controversial aspect of cosmology.........

 

So Gron et al have nothing to say. While Lewis neatly avoids any mention of the relative rotation aspect, and instead obliquely criticizes Gron et al on the basis their model amounts to R_h = ct coasting universe in disguise. The strange cosmic coincidence arguments of R_h = ct proponents are interesting nonetheless. Add in the strange coincidence of almost perfect match of apparent sizes of sun and moon, and it gets downright creepy!

 

Some answer their queries, others don't......:shrug: I'm certainly not going to read too much into that, it happens all the time.

You've got an answer: If you are not happy with it, try getting one yourself.