writes

Yeah Larsson is here with ideas in an interesting problem area also
without much discussion.

I think the appropriate wizards are impressed with larsson, but for most
he (and smith) are so far ahead only experts in the field can probably
follow it. They aren't here.

You'd think the problem itself could attract
a lot of interest even before reading the proposed solution. Francis
is even well known here. I consider Segal part of the Francis
discussion but so far it has not added much.

It may be superficially similar, but clearly NOT the same.

Francis I think has
expansion everywhere but a redshift varying with the square of the
expansion.

I think that is correct. However note carefully that the redshift is
what we measure, that is the experimental result. The expansion is
calculated from that, so changing the mode of calculation gives a
different result for the velocity, the expansion rate, the density and
the age of the universe. This is seriously significant.

Segal has no expansion in the matter dominated inner solar
system but has expansion in the "empty" Pioneer inertial frame. Both
produce the same apparent acceleration but assign different realities
to the situation.

Yes, but one must critically also include that its compatible with mond,
and that's astonishing. The fact that it also does away with most
(possibly all) the 'missing matter', and the age problem(s) as well is
astonishing IMHO. Whether his theoretical basis is valid or not, the
phenomenological expression makes one stop and pause and consider it's
significance.

Segal has a Minkowski space for us on Earth/matter
dominated space in general and a conformal cone space for
Pioneer/mostly empty space in general. The conformal cone space
creates a cosmological constant which tries to accelerate the
expansion. It only recently (last 2 billion years I think) has become a
bigger effect than the expansion slowdown effect of matter/gravity.

Francis, to first order, has our universe as CLOSED.
The apparent acceleration goes when the recalculated density of the
universe (approx 4x that currently calculated), combined with the lower
expansion rate (approx half).

The conformal cone space is related to torsion/antisymmetric tensor
stuff. What does Francis use torsion for, I didn't quite get that, I
may need to reread it.

Francis can answer for himself, but he has (I think) said that torsion
is resolved on collapse, that is its only ever at a point.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.