[QUOTE=davar55;282048]
Relativistic red-shift, due to gravity against photons, is small.[/quote]Do you think that your claim of "small" releases you from responsibility for explaining it?

[quote]There is a minor red or blue shift due to relative velocities of
the distant objects which must be factored in, but it too is
relatively small compared to the distance factor.[/QUOTE]1) This isn't even true! There is no restriction on the Doppler red- or blue-shift that compels it to be "relatively small compared to the distance factor". It is quite possible for a particle to have a relative velocity of 0.9 c when it is only 0.9 meter away from the observer.

2) Even if it were true, see question above re "small".

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282082]Do you think that your claim of "small" releases you from responsibility for explaining it?

1) This isn't even true! There is no restriction on the Doppler red- or blue-shift that compels it to be "relatively small compared to the distance factor". It is quite possible for a particle to have a relative velocity of 0.9 c when it is only 0.9 meter away from the observer.

2) Even if it were true, see question above re "small".[/QUOTE]

Let me cover these three points:

1) Any relativistic red-shift is explained by the monographs explanatory
description of the nature of gravity, plus Einstein's "experiment".

2) The Doppler red or blue shift in light we receive from distant objects
is directly related to the relative velocity of the two objects (one of
which is us). The monograph didn't say it, but since the universe is NOT
expanding there is nowhere nearly a relative velocity of two galaxies
that approaches c (the speed of light). Hence this factor is relatively
small.

3) See 1 above.

[QUOTE=davar55;282091]
2) The Doppler red or blue shift in light we receive from distant objects
is directly related to the relative velocity of the two objects (one of
which is us). The monograph didn't say it, but since the universe is NOT
expanding there is nowhere nearly a relative velocity of two galaxies
that approaches c (the speed of light). Hence this factor is relatively
small.[/QUOTE]Stop dodging. My example was a particle at 0.9 c relative velocity that is just 0.9 meter away -- e.g., a linear accelerator, not a "distant" "galaxy". We can observe and measure the Doppler shift in radiation from such a particle.

We observe the Doppler shift of radiation from [I]nearby[/I] objects just as readily as that from "distant" objects -- but your "skin" theory has no explanation for that! (Not to mention that it never explains how emission/absorption spectral lines at particular frequencies, not just maxima/minima in the intensity of continuous spectra, are blue-/red-shifted ...)

If you're not going to honestly address the flaws in your theory that can be readily demonstrated in a laboratory, then you may as well admit that your theory is just a toy concept with which no one else need have any serious concern.

I have read the first part, the "interpolation" included, up to "exposition" (excluded). I will continue to read. The theory is nothing new. Isaac Asimov had EXACTLY the same theory in his science fictions books, and I believe is even not his original one (it could be older). Instead of "skin" he called it "subspace". Intergalactic ships could punch thru it and go somewhere else, light years away, and they also had "subspace communication relays" (I have read all books NOT in English, but translations, during my youth, and I am not sure that I translate-back the words into the right English terms that he used) that allowed a ship to communicate with another in "real time", instant, over the "subspace", even if the other ship was light-years away.

edit: his advantage is that in sf books you don't need to explain anything. Who cares about particles moving with 0.9c at 0.9meters in front of him? :P

[QUOTE=LaurV;282140]
edit: his advantage is that in sf books you don't need to explain anything. Who cares about particles moving with 0.9c at 0.9meters in front of him? :P[/QUOTE]Oh, does davar55 claim that his theory applies only to sf, not reality? If so, I missed that.

If he'll clarify that he's dealing only with sf, then my responses to his invitations to comment will differ.

(Did Isaac Asimov reject the Big Bang theory, as davar55 does? I thought that was Fred Hoyle.

I suspect that Hoyle might also have been on the same side of the AGW dispute as davar55. At least, anti-AGWers like to claim so.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;282143]Oh, does davar55 claim that his theory applies only to sf, not reality?

(Did Isaac Asimov reject the Big Bang theory, as davar55 does? [/QUOTE]

"his advantage" in my post referred to Asimov, not davar55. In SF books you (Asimov) don't have to explain anything. This was a spear targeted to davar, who HAS to explain its claims, as long as he does not say this is a SF book.

And if it is a SF book, I would love reading it!

(and no, Asimov did not reject the BBT, AFAIK).

[QUOTE=LaurV;282147]"his advantage" in my post referred to Asimov, not davar55.[/quote]... of course. :-)

I'd love to hear davar-sm-cmd explain the Higgs particle
to me.
(Paul finds it trivial)

David

PS I am familiar with Alice and the treacle well.

[QUOTE=davieddy;282162]I'd love to hear davar-sm-cmd explain the Higgs particle
to me.
(Paul finds it trivial)

David

PS I am familiar with Alice and the treacle well.[/QUOTE]I'm also a bit muddle headed about the Higgs mechanism. So I did a bit of reading and found this comment on a blog:[quote="Some random poster"]If the Higgs didn’t exist then all particles would be massless and travel at the speed of light (or we’d need a major new theory). But there are virtual Higgs popping into and out of existence in ~10^-26 seconds (Variation of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). They couple to particles like the electron and proton slowing them down and giving what we view as mass. Think of the Higgs as the floor covered with the tennis ball flufff. Have little kids run around. Now put Velcro bottoms on their shoes and they slow down because they are coupling to the floor.[/quote]Spelling, capitalisation and formatting as per the original.

[quote=cheesehead;282132]Stop dodging. My example was a particle at 0.9 c relative velocity that is just 0.9 meter away -- e.g., a linear accelerator, not a "distant" "galaxy". We can observe and measure the Doppler shift in radiation from such a particle.

We observe the Doppler shift of radiation from [I]nearby[/I] objects just as readily as that from "distant" objects -- but your "skin" theory has no explanation for that!
[/quote]

I was explaining cosmological red shift, not Doppler red/blue shift.

Are you perhaps in your example trying to have me explain
the recent cern neutrino-faster-than-light result?
It's explained in the monograph as neutrinoinos "skimming the skin".
(Yes the monograoh anticipated that result.)

What's hard to understand about Doppler and light?
It's just the big bang / Hubble / expansion confusion that
makes intergalactic measurement in any way confusing.

[quote=LaurV;282140]I have read the first part, the "interpolation" included, up to "exposition" (excluded). I will continue to read. The theory is nothing new. Isaac Asimov had EXACTLY the same theory in his science fictions books, and I believe is even not his original one (it could be older). Instead of "skin" he called it "subspace". Intergalactic ships could punch thru it and go somewhere else, light years away, and they also had "subspace communication relays" (I have read all books NOT in English, but translations, during my youth, and I am not sure that I translate-back the words into the right English terms that he used) that allowed a ship to communicate with another in "real time", instant, over the "subspace", even if the other ship was light-years away.

edit: his advantage is that in sf books you don't need to explain anything. Who cares about particles moving with 0.9c at 0.9meters in front of him? :P[/quote]

I loved Asimov's books too. Yes some of my inspiration for this
monograph came from a desire to put some of his ideas into an
explainable science framework.

So I needed to begone the big bang.

The monograph isn't and couldn't be all new, that's not how
science grows. In the 14 pages, I estimate about 10 new ideas
by the author, the rest is accepted scientific theory, used as a
context.