Thus spake Martin Hardcastle
In article ,
Oh No wrote:
Yes, I have read that paper. They use VLBI to determine the motion. It's
a bit more subtle and the analysis is a lot more complex than a simple
shift in Doppler, but they are counting interference fringes, and it is
still a quantum effect. My expectation is that whatever the
overstatement in velocity we get from Doppler measurement of globular
clusters, we will get the same overstatement from any other method which
depends on quantum wave effects.

I would love to see even an outline of a proof that the VLBI
measurements -- which, remember, are measurements of *angular* motion
wrt background quasars -- should be expected to give exactly the same
results as the standard determination in your model once the distance
to the Galactic centre is folded in. `My expectation is' doesn't seem
sufficiently convincing.

Unfortunately, working on my own, I think it is going to take me quite a
time to get that far. I have so far only got as far as a formal proof of
Pioneer, which is a particularly simple case, and a heuristic argument
for the MONDian law which I still need to formalise. The formal proof of
that will be quite intricate, and I aim to publish the main theoretical
papers once it is done. For the last couple of months I have been
distracted from doing it by testing local stars, and I still have a
couple of i's to dot and t's to cross before doing a full write up. I am
hoping that, if I can publish what I have so far, other mathematicians
will get interested in working on more of the details. All I can say at
the moment is that, since redshifts work differently from standard, the
spacing of interference fringes will also be different, so that a
measurement of angular motion by observing the movement of interference
fringes is going to come out with a different answer from the standard
result. Of course consistency requires that it comes up with the same
result as measuring the red shift of globular clusters and making the
teleconnection correction, but the fact is it takes a lot of time and
work to do all these consistency checks.

As a side effect, you would no doubt be able
to predict discrepancies between the interferometric and
non-interferometric measurements of positions of other objects, which
would easily be testable.

That's an interesting thought, one which will be well worth pursuing
when I get the time and opportunity.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email