Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 7/28/13 at 9:18am UTC, wrote Meanwhile I have to correct myself. While the expectation by Michelson and...

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/5/13 at 4:53am UTC, wrote Being uncertain again about my future abilities, I attach what I found out...

Paul Reed: on 2/2/13 at 8:29am UTC, wrote Eckard “Be cautious with the notion nothing. Empty space "exists" ...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/31/13 at 10:55am UTC, wrote Paul, Be cautious with the notion nothing. Empty space "exists". Does zero...

Paul Reed: on 1/31/13 at 5:20am UTC, wrote Eckard "I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the...

Anonymous: on 1/30/13 at 11:40am UTC, wrote Paul, Well, Maxwell imagined electromagnetic waves belonging to a...

Paul Reed: on 1/30/13 at 6:09am UTC, wrote Eckard Sorry this is rushed. The flaw in your thinking is the presumption...

Eckard Blumschein: on 1/15/13 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Please find attached a still unfinished pdf of Jan. 15, 20013 "Michelson's...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Rajiv Singh: "Hi Lorraine, This time, before submitting, I noted that the web page did..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Anonymous: "Dear Lorraine, Thank you, not only for your responses, but also for a..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

sussan betcher: "Such ventures helping to raise public awareness and interest in theoretical..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

sabir rao: "We are looking for the ways how to hack instagram password online and..." in Purifying Physics: The...

sabir rao: "If you don't know a little bit about the free psn plus codes then here is..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

Anonymous: "From the perspective of field theory, the only difference that arises..." in Rescuing Reality

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Community, I could probably have done something better but it gets the..." in Alternative Models of...

appzoro Technologies : "Informative post and all threads. I am new here and wants to share me..." in New Podcast: A MICROSCOPE...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi FORUM
April 29, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Essay Abstract

Enigmas and suspected basic flaws in physics evade mathematical scrutiny if they relate to intuitive pre-mathematical fallacies. This essay focuses on notions and tacit assumptions that are basic to theories. For instance it questions the assumptions that the distinction between past and future is an illusion, time is something a priori given in which objects may move like in space, and any mathematical structure has a correlate in reality. Because it is not biased by an intension to brutally rescue holy grails, it does not question causality, c, or time. Instead it is driven by curiosity about how we go about doing what we do and by the confidence to eventually reveal typical human fallacies. Some key tenets of mathematics and physics proved to be at variance with its results. They include putative realism of future space-time, perfect mirror-symmetries, naïve set theory, singularities, and possibly even Lorentz contraction.

Author Bio

See http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369

Download Essay PDF File




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Good to see your essay appear. It looks very interesting based on the abstract, but I insist on reading the rest before forming a full opinion. It should be fun for me, as it looks like you touch on some of the early childhood stuff I am examining; it appears that very young children make no distinction between themselves and their environment. But once we do start making distinctions, to make sense of things, it's hard to go back to oneness. I guess it's the same for Math and Physics. I wish you luck in the contest, and many interesting conversations on the forum.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Eckard,

Everyone has the impression that time does not have a fundamental mathematical link to physical law, it has to be defined locally. You made the following comment on your earlier essay, topic 369, (Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 21, 2008 @ 21:26 GMT):

"Aren't functions of time and functions of frequency/energy equivalent?"

You made that statement before publication of my July/August 2011 IEEE Potentials article "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants".

I identified the relationship between time, frequency and energy well before 2008, but it took awhile to get the concept published; it experienced a few rejections from a number of traditional journals.

I am aware of the significance of the concept presented in the IEEE paper, but I had to limit what I could include in the text to avoid editor and peer review rejection. The only negative peer review comment was the appropriateness of that type of paper in IEEE Potentials. I was asked by the editor to provide a Benefits section, which was published verbatim; I was careful what I put in that section.

The paper can be accessed through:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=596202
1

Since Jan 2011, IEEE does not allow authors to post their IEEE published papers on their academic or personal websites. A postprint is available at:

http://www.vip.ocsnet.net/~ancient/Constants-Version%20Postp
rint%20Rev%201.pdf

It is now possible to mathematically define the basic units of measure. I would think the physics community would be interested in the concept.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT
Dear Frank,

Admittedly, I did not yet reply to your post because I simply failed to understand how it relates to my essay. I had already tried in vain to understand your IEEE paper before you pointed me to it. Maybe, the referees had also problems to grasp immediately what you intended to say.

Aren't you also an EE? I learned always to reveal and criticize the state of the art before claiming the solution of a problem. Your Figs. confused me perhaps due to lacking knowledge of mine. Anticipate that your reader may need helpful explanations.

If I recall correctly, you once experienced rejection because you didn't obey SR. This is not uncommon. If you are still convinced to be correct, I encourage you to tell us the problem.

With sympathy,

Eckard



Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT
Dear Frank,

"Everyone has the impression that time ... has to be defined locally"??? Perhaps an estimated very few millions of people are not obliged to believe in the relativity of time. Not just Phipps Jr. reinstalled simultaneity. I am sorry, I still did not understand your contribution to that issue.

Peter Jackson quoted in his essay: "A consistent relativistic theory of Earth rotation is still some years away; (2005. p.6) 14

[14] Kaplan, H.G., 2005. The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Reference Systems, Time Scales, and Earth Rotation Models. USNO. Circ. No. 179.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/Circular_179.p
df"

Eckard




Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
I didn't use the proper syntax for posting the URLs

Methodology

Postprint Methodology

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

I think we all know these points you make, but they merge in confused fashion into habitual use of 'point'-based notions and ideas. We hold the mathematical concepts, set theory, calculus, etc., in our heads forgetting where the logical holes are located. It is very good that you continue to remind us that holes exist and show us where some big ones are located. You do so in such pleasant and easy to understand manner. As you say, "Lacking awareness to the limits of idealization implies a lot of logical inconsistencies." I agree with your following statement, "Tolerating an overlap of mutually excluding models is certainly no satisfactory solution." I have several times quoted Norman Cook on this point:

"In the context of nuclear structure theory, the various nuclear models can account separately for different data sets, but the necessity of jumping from one model to another is jarring for anyone who values coherency... and makes me think there are different understandings of what "understanding" means."

I do agree that the usual "dualism" between particle or wave, typically assumed to mean it is one *or* the other based on when and how you look at it, is nonsense. I hope that my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, will provide you a new way to look at this problem, based on physically real particles *and* associated waves. My model is not 'point'-based, but I do not go into spin in this essay.

You will find a number of 'intuition' based essays in this current competition. I think that Daryl, Janzen, Michael Goodband, Israel Perez, and others make some reference to intuition as the basis for questioning certain assumptions. I particularly liked your discussion of the continuum under the topic of intuition. Finally, you provide a large set of references to papers that look to be fascinating.

Thanks for a well thought out, well written, well referenced essay. It is excellent and I wish you good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I admire your brilliant ability to emphatically comment even on mutually contradicting essays, and I feel your comment on mine more fair than I could expect after I quoted Kadin who plausibly at least to me explains why he does not consider photons particles. You might blame my lacking qualification for my failure to immediately grasp your slightly different concept.

While I do not deny that intuition can provide the basis for questioning certain assumptions, my essay tries to show to what extent science has been based on rather shaky intuition.

Well, on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits. My lists of enigma, suspected basic flaws and confessions coincides by chance and only in part with my criticism of arbitrary decisions made from a more or less intuitive background.

I am the nobody to whom even a Norman Cook is a nobody. I recall Jont Allen admitting something similar more briefly: No model (of cochlea) fits all data.



Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Eckard,

You are correct that I find mutually contradicting essays interesting and to some degree convincing. There are a few arguments here that I am unable to decide between, and others in which I wonder if some middleground is possible.

As for Kadin, I do not recall his exact stance on photons as particles. I certainly do not envision photons as material particles like electrons. The question is whether there is any 'local' energy packet (and hence equivalent 'local mass density') as Einstein and Dirac and many others concluded. If so, then this will induce the C-field circulation I have described in my essay. It is my assumption that such localization does apply, as the implications of the alternative seem completely unrealistic to me. And it seems indisputable that photons carry momentum, which is the 'source' of the induced circulation. I hope you might reconsider my approach with this in mind.

You say "on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits." Re-reading my comment I realized what my first sentence sounded like and I disliked my own wording. A good part of the reason that I am mindful of the basic problems with math is because of your previous essays and arguments on FQXi. So I would soften that sentence in favor of the third sentence.

You state that "No model (of cochlea) fits all data". I am not an expert on physiological structure and function, but I believe that biological reality is so many more orders of magnitude more complicated than elementary particle physics, gravity, etc, that multiple models of biology are more to be expected.

What I would NOT change is my final sentence, "Thanks for a well thought out, well written, well referenced essay. It is excellent and I wish you good luck in the contest."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I intend learning from you to regard concerns of others at least as important as my own. Therefore I will try and first tell you what might be of interest with respect to your C-field. You know that I do not understand anything in this area. Kadin wrote: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave psi = exp(imc2t/h_bar)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation rather than a true physical wave in real space." Then he dealt with the earlier established evidence for Wave-Particle Duality for several quantum entities. His Table 1 is convincing to me. The evidence for photons to be particles is just a weak one. I understand the spin of electromagnetic waves as their polarization. And why should wave not have energy? Strong evidence for being a particle is the property of atoms and the like to be arranged in lattices with certain distances from each other. I am also declined to take seriously the arguments by Dieter Zeh and Eric Reiter. Moreover, you pointed me to Michael Goodband. See Tom's reply to my belonging questions to Michael. That's already all I can possibly do as to support you.

Let me once again stress my intention to show that intuitive attitudes are not just to be found if young people are having problems to swallow formalized so called counterintuitive theories but the other way round, at least some of such allegedly rigorously founded theories are actually based on hidden possibly questionable pre-mathematical intuitions. Accordingly I decided to choose the title of my essay QUESTIONING PRE-MATHEMATICAL INTUITIONS and not questioning theories by means of intuition.

I apologize for sending my last reply unintentionally unsigned.

Regards,

Eckard




Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I have read your essay.It is very clearly written,in masterly, beautiful, English language, that many native speakers could not even hope to achieve. There was only one sentence in the whole essay in which the word choice stood out as rather unusual to me. Though it was still completely comprehensible.

I found the essay interesting, enjoyable, easy to read and very relevant to the essay question.It kept my interest and made me want to continue reading to the end.

Very well done. I hope you get may interested readers who will be able to discuss the problems of mathematics with you in an informed way. Good luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 05:30 GMT
Hi Eckard

In enjoyed reading your well written and easy-to-read essay. I agree with Georgina. I would like to make just a couple of comments.

You mentioned some of the problems in physics, in particular, I would like to give a suggestion to the following:

Hermann Weyl warned: We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations.

- Feynman smugly declared quantum mechanics something that nobody understands.

If photons did behave as do heavy particles then they should be expected subject to acceleration. This is obviously not the case. Light propagates in vacuum like to be expected from a wave with constant velocity c.

With respect to the first two issues, I agree and I believe my essay offers viable solutions to them. Since the beginning of the XX, physics became so abstract that the physical and intuitive sense were demoted to a second plane. By the 1930s Heisenberg himself gave up trying to find an intuitive picture of quantum mechanical phenomena. He concluded that it was impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively; Schrondinger, Born, Bohr, Neumann, Feynman and others agreed with him. I believe that the reason for this is because they no longer had in mind some physical concepts that are crucial to accomplish the intuitive picture that they were looking for, namely: the PSR, the aether, the idea that particles are actually waves, and the notion that a field is a state of the aether. Once these concepts are restored in the physical conception of reality all the mysteries of quantum mechanics automatically disappear.

The last issue is also explained by the aether. As it is well known the speed of the wave is determined by the density of the medium. If we assume the aether at rest, at a constant temperature and homogeneous, the speed of light has no other option but to be constant since its generation.

Good luck in the contest

Ps. You missed reference 6 in your essay, could you please tell me the reference. As well, in my entry I replied to your comments about Descartes' aether, Bernoulli, Gibbs and the vacuum, please take a look at my thread.

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 06:44 GMT
Hi Israel,

Ref. [6] is to be found in the line of [5] because the contest allowed just one page of references. The original sapere aude seems to be no longer available via http://www.btinternet.com/~sapere.aude . An impressive list of those who signed [5] and some papers by Paul Marmet also disappeared.

I already replied to your very comprehensive reply to my comment that mentioned Gericke as someone who made very convincing as well as fertile experiments. Perhaps you know that von Essen called Einstein's 1905 paper on moving bodies the worst one he ever read mainly because Einstein did not perform experiments.

While I am not a physicist and I did not deal with Einstein's relativity for all the more than 40 years when I was teaching at Otto-von-Guericke-University, I cannot hide that his method of synchronization looks naively subjectivist to me.

I consider the method by Poincaré (Potier) only convincing in case emitter A and receiver B do not move relative to each other.

Regards,

Eckard

PS: Being short of time at the moment, I promise to reply more in detail and to all others later.



Israel Perez replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 22:38 GMT
Hi Eckard

Ok, thanks for the explanation about the references. I did not know about the comments on Einstein's paper, thanks for the information.

I made a comment in reply to you in my thread regarding the one-way measurement according to Gift. His experiment has no scientific validity.

Best regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 09:46 GMT
Hi Israel,

I do not share your positive attitude toward intuition to which your comment of Aug. 9, 5:30 GMT refers. Reality might differ from intuitively interpreted abstraction. Devlin is certainly correct when he reveals that while epsilontics is rigorous, the interpretation as continuity is intuitive, in other words a questionable petitio principii.

What about S. Gift, may I ask you to briefly explain in what and why he is wrong? Admittedly, I did not yet deal with his claimed measurement. Teaching at the Westindies he seems to be an outsider. However, I only judge on the basis of factual arguments. The reason for me to quote Bruhn [29] was to show how those who used to prejudge simply ignore experimental results and infer from their generalizing intuition that Einstein was a genius who was always correct that anything else must be wrong.

Regards,

Eckard




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Having looked in vain for the word choice, I suspect you meant chosen which occurs twice on p. 3 and once in Appendix B. In the latter case one has the choice between looking at the plane +, +i either from above or from below. Accordingly one sees the phasor exp(iwt) rotating anti-clockwise or clockwise, respectively.

Fig. 1 on p. 3 might be a blasphemy because it calls the birth of Christ an arbitrarily chosen event from which on we are calling a year either a positive AD (anno domini) or a negative BC (before Christ). If I hurt feelings, I apologize for that.

Regards,

Eckard



Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I'm sorry for causing confusion.I just meant the words you chose to use in that one particular sentence would not have been chosen by someone with English as a first language. The rest of the essay is so very well written, demonstrating great linguistic skill.

You wrote :"Let's call most basic assumptions pre-mathematical as to remind of how children get familiar with elementary notions." It would have sounded more natural if you had said "reminiscent of "instead of "as to remind of". Also "children become familiarised" (or -ized) would have worked better than "children get familiar". The meaning of the sentence is still clearly conveyed.I intended the observation of so few errors to be a compliment rather than a criticism. Re. mentioning the birth of Christ, you certainly have not hurt my feelings

Its very well written, fascinating and, for me, educational essay. Well done. Regards, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Dear Georgina,

My mistake is obvious: When you wrote "word choice" you meant choice of words. In German we would write in this case wordchoice or word-choice. I mistook "word choice" as the word "choice".

My essay tries to show that similar mistakes in science are still to be found. I will read your essay because I consider the meaning of the notion reality utterly important. Einstein referred to the perspective of an observer. This might be a key mistake.

Regards,

Eckard




Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:43 GMT
Hello Eckard,

I am happy to see your essay.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
Hello Steve,

Nice to see you again. Perhaps you managed reading a lot of essays. I am mainly interested in what I consider reasonable outsiders like Janzen, Kadin, Kerr, Perez, Reiter, and Merryman whose essay I will look at next.

Regards,

Eckard



Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Thank you. I am always happy to see your deterministic road.

There are several relevant essays. Your line of reasoning is rational, it is the most important. I am going to read yours still one x and the other essays also. It is cool this year. I play like a child, after all, the innocence is our best friend.

I wish you good luck for this contest.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Steve,

Doesn't determinism imply monism, the block universe, and denial of free will?

I consider determinism the belief in the possibility to calculate the future. Therefore I do not see myself on a deterministic road.

Yuri suggested to somehow unite Permanides and Heraklitos. I do not see any factual justification for that. Of course, mandatory idolizing in particular of set theory and of SR led to many desperate maneuvers by those who are a bit coward and maybe even ready to be a bit less honest. Yes, your innocence is my best friend.

Which essay do you consider relevant with respect to the issue I mentioned above? In other words, which are the most hurting ones?

Regards,

Eckard




Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 06:03 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Thus, coherently-cyclic-universe is asymmetric and dynamic as the mathematical representation of universe in entirety is a pre-mathematical intuition, when we ascribe a cycle of it in potential infinity that has actual infinity of cycles.

With best wishes,

Jayaker

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 08:57 GMT
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

Admittedly, I am facing difficulties when I am trying to understand your sentence. English is not my mother language. I have no idea what "Thus" refers to. I would write either "the" or "a" coherently-cyclic universe. Perhaps you meant "a" in the sense you are suggesting it. Well, such assumption is clearly speculative. What did you mean with "ascribe ... in"? I only know "ascribe" in connection with "to". If I ascribe a cycle of a cyclic universe to infinity, shouldn't this infinity then be actually infinite? In my humble understanding a genuine cycle is actually endless. The spiral of (nearly) identical cycles you seem to imagine is potentially infinite. Please accept that I am not interested in such perhaps futile speculations.

Regards,

Eckard



Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Actually I have learned many profound details from your essay and when I was analysing my work with that, I unintentionally started the sentence with, ‘Thus’.

Your descriptions on this article provide me vital intuitions to confirm my assumption that the universe is infinite. Hope you may understand my anxiety of concluding.

You may please visit

With best regards,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph replied on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 10:13 GMT
Error in previous link.

You may please visit

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 18:40 GMT
Eckard,

You really take a sledgehammer to the whole rickety structure. I certainly don't have anywhere near the depth of knowledge you possess, so thank you for adding me to the list of those you consider worth reading, even if my essay wasn't what you may have liked to see.

Reading various of the entries in this contest, there are many more serious proposals to really question the conceptual foundations than I had expected, so it gives me some hope a real paradigm shift might be in the foreseeable future. Possibly after this contest is over, some organized effort can arise from those looking outside current boundaries. It is safe to say there is little momentum within the status quo that isn't fantastical speculation, so maybe the momentum will switch to the outside. As I've put it before, the future is a continuation of the past, as long as current structure can absorb new energy, when it can't grow further, then the future becomes a reaction to the past.

Best wishes and congratulations on a take no prisoners essay.

That list you asked for.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear John,

Your judgment Is seemingly the opposite from other reactions. I copy what Yuri Danoyon wrote to me:

-- Dear Eckard, My correspondence with other Nobel laureate G.Hooft about Blumschein essay

Yuri:"What is your attitude to essay Eckard Blumschein?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/833 I think that it raises for discussion a very important issue for the revision of the foundations of modern physics"

His answer:"I found this essay too long and too boring to read. My superficial search for anything touching upon the foundations of physics led to negative results." --

Frank Wilczek preferred not to answer at all. Meanwhile I got aware that he had advocated for a preferred frame of reference.

Thank you very much for providing the link to cosmologystatement.org So far I did not manage opening it. However, this might be my fault.

Best,

Eckard



John Merryman replied on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT
Eckard,

Those who create, promote and work within the current model are certainly not going to give credence to those who question it. Ask yourself which side of the debate you would prefer to be on; Those advocating for an increasingly fantastical orthodoxy, or those questioning it?

I've been wondering how those within the establishment would respond to this contest question. If Philip Gibbs and [lin:http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1379] Professor Abraham Loeb are representative, then they are projecting on from current speculation, not debating its foundations.

If the foundation is weak, whatever you build on it is transitory.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 22:28 GMT
John,

I looked at Gibbs and Loeb and agree with you. The important things first: You forgot the k of link, and I forgot to ask you for confirmation that the link to cosmologystatement.org still works.

Philip Gibbs wrote to James Putnam on Aug. 11, 2012, 18:05 GMT: “I think more people would agree with you than me but that is because I am ahead of my time :)”! Maybe, he envisions viXra ahead. While I appreciate the possibility to publish anything, I did not yet find any good viXra paper.

P. G. revealed to me why 't Hooft understood that my reasoning contradicts to "the holographic principle of Susskind and ‘t Hooft [6]. Understanding of this deep idea came in a number of steps each of which sought consistency through hypothetical thought experiments."

My understanding is different: I see unitarity reversible because it belongs to the level of abstracted from reality notions. It is elusive if understood as an attribute of reality. Only abstracted probabilities can add up to one. Ontological causality also belongs to the level of abstract notions. I maintain what I wrote about causality and elapsed time.

Best,

Eckard




Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 15:52 GMT
1st submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing similar works for End Notes.

Excellent review of Pre-Math and intuition. Disturbed by statement, "no consciousness for future time", but love "now time is zero".

One (of many) approaches to this contest looks at E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

Comment? (may be used in my End Notes)

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Ted,

What if time really isn't a unit?

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Time is what power acts on to produce energy like length is what force acts on to produce a "mechanical" energy.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Hi Ted Erikson,

Well, elapsed time is in reality always positive as is distance too. Ws = Nm.

I just do not yet understand how your comment relates to my essay. In particular, I would never state "no consciousness for future time" or "now time is zero". To me, consciousness does not matter in objective physics.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 20:52 GMT
Eckard,

News from Gerard

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Yuri,

Thank you for the hint to "Not even wrong". I found:

"... no sign of any superpartners at all. Not only were they supposed to be not too much heavier than the Higgs, but many of them were supposed to be much produced much more copiously, and thus be much easier to see. By now the LHC experiments have shown that such expected particles are absent, unless they are made inaccessible by pushing their masses up to more than an order of magnitude higher than that of the Higgs, a value far beyond what had been advertised as reasonable.

The implications of this attack on theorists by the reality principle are just beginning to sink in. The big yearly conference of superstring theorists was held this past week in Munich, with different speakers taking different approaches to dealing with the problem. One speaker advocated not doing anything until next year, hoping against hope that newer data would give better results. Others took the attitude that it had been clear for quite a while that superstring theory wasn’t going to show signs of existence at the LHC, so best to just work on finding other uses for it. In the conference final “Outlook and Vision” talk, the illustrious speaker announced that all was well, and didn’t mention the LHC results at all. The ostrich-like tactic of burying one’s head in the sand seems to be on the agenda for now, but this will become increasingly difficult to maintain as time goes on and more and more conclusive negative experimental results arrive."

Regards,

Eckard




Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 14:53 GMT
Eckard

You analyse shortcomings in physics well, but the page limit makes a comprehensive list impossible. I was pleased to agree with all, and strongly with most, particularly the need to recognise 'concrete' meaning in concepts, and that 'points' are inadequate in doing so.

I develop these key points in my own essay to find some important results and implications, particularly the quantum mechanical derivation of the observed relativistic effects by analysing particles as non zero spatially and interactions being non zero temporally. Reading your essay I was increasingly surprised you seem not to have gleaned this from mine, or at least not commented.

The minor typo's and grammar errors count for nought (i.e; 'has a correlate..', 1920th, et cetera), as the content excellent. Perhaps as disjointed at times as mine is 'over dense' in it's layers, but it read smoothly none the less.

Figure 5 was no surprise and I'm surprised it was a surprise for many, because it was in a medium not 'the vacuum'. I assert there is no distinction, where most assume one. But, more importantly, were observations also taken and analysed from the rest frame of the air?? or, to look at it another way. If the air were at rest and both emitter and 'mirror' moving in unison sideways. With 'light' the findings would then be different (Kinetic Reverse Refraction). I find that this is a massively important fact, not assimilated into theory, which then allows the non-zero particle interaction to produce observed 'Stellar Aberration', which is in the opposite direction tofindings from the emitter frame (as with your Fig 5 from sound).

Perhaps you may re-check my essay as I think we are far more compatible and complimentary that you appeared to recognise.

Well done, and best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 20:23 GMT
Peter,

I have to react to a reply by Lawrence Crowell. Therefore I will only briefly tell you nthat i do not understand your questio n concerning Fig. 5.

You wrote: "Figure 5 was ... in a medium not 'the vacuum'. I assert there is no distinction ... . But, more importantly, were observations also taken and analysed from the rest frame of the air?? or, to look at it another way. If the air were at rest and both emitter and 'mirror' moving in unison sideways."

Feist's car was moving with 120 km/h relative to the air being at rest re ground. The signal was emitted as well as received by the 220 kHz distance finder E which moved together with reflector R "in unison sidewards" because E and R were arranged on the roof of the car with the line ER perpendicular to the direction of motion. Measurement in a wind channel would also be possible but not so easily feasible.

You speculated: "With 'light' the findings would then be different (Kinetic Reverse Refraction)." Wouldn't refraction require different media?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Eckard

You'd need to understand 'Kinetic Reverse Refraction' (KRR) to understand my question. KRR is well known in optics but not well enough known outside as not rationalised into present theory. All good optics text books cover it, or this is one good link; 'Refraction between moving media'. http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-08/2-08.htm

Essentially, to an observer at rest in the air, the emission axis rotates in the OPPOSITE direction to that 'observed' from the 'car' frame.

You already agree remember that there IS a change in 'medium' (ambulance siren) from the emitter to the air; consider a siren inside the cabin as a headlight bulb, and the windscreen as the lens, the sound and light change propagation frame (co-moving medium) just AFTER emission. Observers inside the cabin, or the light lens, see the light first emitted in the emitter frame NOT the frame of the outside air. Ergo refraction has to occur before any Doppler shift of wavelength (thus derivative f) can be found by any other observer (where the process repeats in reverse). But do read the link, because it's easy to forget again when applying it due to unfamiliarity.

If you then look at my own figure 5 you can see the mechanism which explains both KRR and the findings of your own figure 5.

In a vacuum this becomes the 'Light Box' paradox. A light pulse bounces up and down, but when in relative motion to an observer it would appear to have an angled path so be superluminal. Tat's why Einstein needed Length Contraction. He said the box must then contract to conserve c.

So why would the light pulse not stay bouncing up and down when the box and it's mirrors moved off sideways!!??

KRR and my Fig 5 explain this without contraction of the box, and if the sides of the box were removed then the pulse WOULD stay vertical when the box moved away. Therefore intuition and logic is reclaimed. (as well as Snel's Law in KRR.

That is why Feist's findings are no surprise at all once the real process is understood. Only retained assumptions about how things work prevent this understanding.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 04:18 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for guiding me to "At the end of my Latin". I agree on that "Feist's findings are no surprise at all once the real process is understood". Be sure, I carefully selected and designed each of my five figures with the intention to enforce an important reconsideration.

Admittedly, I failed to understand on the first glance what message you intended to offer with your figures. You mentioned your Fig. 5; I only found four of your figures.

What about kinetic reverse refraction KRR, "a phenomena not yet assimilated into

physical theory" you did not yet explain to me how it may relate to my Fig. 5 where the wave propagates in only one medium with always the same refractory index. All explanations of KRR I found refer to refraction at a boundary between two media with different indexes.

I agree with Don Johnson's arguments in Galilean Electrodynamics 2006, 3-7 against Wheelers SR related illustration of transverse motion.

I will read Shtyrkov's 2011 paper in Russian on the Michelson experiment and have a look at Dowdye's 2006 Introduction in the Extinction Shift Principle you made me aware of. While my Fig. 5 shows reemission, I do not see this a justification for the implications ascribed to emission theories so far.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
With the suggested Cauchy-modified Euclidean notion of number, sinc(x) has no singularity at all. Pebble mathematics declares sinc(0) a removable or cosmetic singularity. I see the latter denotation indicating a wrong notion of number.

I would like to clarify: Kept for appropriate descriptions of physical phenomena must not include any singularity. Of course, the electric or magnetic field of a point charge or line conductor have poles for r=0. However, these poles are artifacts of models that are invalid for r=0.

I anticipate disbelief and hope for objections from theoreticians. Please tell me an example of an experimentally confirmed physical correlate to a mathematical singularity.

Eckard




Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 03:21 GMT
The issue with negative frequency is not hard to understand. First off if I were to build a band-pass filter if this were to select for negative frequencies it would mean I need an inductor with a negative inductance. This frankly does not make sense. How one construct a device to measure or that would admit a negative frequency? Of course one can construct any type of mathematics with a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 17:21 GMT
Lawrence,

Negative mass particles are not quirky. They are the result of neglecting pre-mathematical issues. Strikes against the idea of negative frequency are only reasonable if this idea claims to attribute the negative frequency to physical reality. My essay tried to explain this as understandable as possible to all those who are ready to read it step by step. Negative frequencies are a must with complex function of elapsed time. They vanish with correct inverse transformation back into reality.

The most compelling reason to doubt the existence of absolutely negative mass, energy, pressure, temperature, tachyons, etc. is not that they were not experimentally confirmed. They will certainly never be found in reality if they are just artifacts of faulty pre-mathematics. I see no justification for the intuition that every mathematical object has a correlate in physical reality. On the contrary, It reminds me of the likewise naïve idea that thunder must be made by Thor who was imagined like a man.

You may believe in tachyons. I see them more fiction than science and perhaps meaningless. Do you see any possibility to refute my perhaps more important hint that the mirror symmetry of past and future time, which puzzled Hermann Weyl, can easily be explained as the failure to be aware of a tacit transformation with a complex “ansatz” and perform the due inverse transform after calculating in complex plane based on assumed physically correct only positive frequency. While I am also among those who are too lazy to each time perform all steps of transformation and return, I tend to know what I do and how to immediately interpret results I got in complex domain.

Eckard




Jonathan Kerr wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 02:18 GMT
Hello Eckard, thanks for your comments on my essay, and sorry I took some time to comment on yours, am on holiday and on the road with my partner at present. I found some of your essay interesting - one thing, you say that Einstein's:

"...obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity."

The reason he thought there was no distinction between past and future is that Minkowskian geometry leads to that conclusion, and we often believe our old school teachers. But people are beginning to question Minkowski's work, as I have done in my essay. There have even been some rather desperate attempts to get rid of the lack of distinction between past and future, while keeping spacetime intact. I've argued that these don't work, because in spacetime, the distinction between past and future is purely observer-related, and depends on relative motion only. So it can't be about the collapse of the wave function, or other things that people ascribe it to, if spacetime is right. I've argued that there must be an error in the spacetime geometry, and that we have to look deeper to remove the problem.

I disagree that time strictly cannot be measured at all - a time rate can be measured in relation to another time rate. We don't know what causes these relative time rates, but they can be measured in relation to each other.

Anyway, best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 06:09 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

Lawrence just illustrated implications of the question you raised. Although Minkowski was a teacher of Einstein, he credited Einstein for the basis of his spacetime. I read this in German. There is definitely a good translation into English. I do not even blame the idea of spacetime for useless. Maybe, the divine bird's view on past and future is about as clever as the obviously only approximative linearizing of pressure in acoustics.

I tend to rather blame the not very well educated Dirichlet, G. Cantor and Einstein for bringing naive intuition into science. Minkowski called Einstein a lazy dog who often skipped his lessons on mathematics. I see a clever logical split in Einstein's thinking; he merged the divine perspective looking over all past and future with the perspective of a real observer.

Einstein made a related mistake when he used Poincaré synchronization. This view effectively binds the distinction between past and future to the observer instead to the object it relates to. I hoped Georgina did find out this flaw more clearly.

In all, we may resort in case of Einstein too to the Lessing quote Ebbinghaus made in his textbook "numbers" when he dared to admit indirectly that G. Cantor was horribly wrong:

If someone by an obvious mistake came to a valuable truth ...

Best wishes,

Eckard




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein,

In a comment to John, you appeared to disagree with several essayists who "seem to intuitively believe in the correctness of the very foundational assumption that reality has been built on mathematics."

For this reason I'd like to make you aware of a comment that I posted [to all FQXi'ers] on this topic:

"This essay contest presents a number of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Edwin Klingman,

Just a few spontaneous lines. I will follow your invitation later.

As I wrote in 3rd contest, the claimed freedom of mathematics contradicts to the belief that "reality has been built on mathematics".

In my 4th essay I revealed my view that Hilbert prematurely subordinated meta-mathematics and logics to mathematics, and that I am admitting reality ultimately as a fictitious intangible model of what agrees without exception with observations, experiences and predictions in contrast to illusions, speculations, and mysticism. Any organism without such model is doomed to die.

I do not see any reason why this model should obey merely intuitive conclusions or take theories for finally confirmed. For instance, Ohm was wrong when he concluded that a missing fundamental cannot be heard.

Do foundational question reasonably include doubts in reality? Well, several essays demonstrate readiness to even question such notions like causality and locality in order to save theories that were accepted. I see it already an attack on common sense if causality and limited speed of light are put on the same level with spacetime and unitarity.

While I do not know any evidence against causality, I see complete determinism a naive intuition and at variance with the possibility of a potentially infinite world. To me, free will is just a metaphor for a not yet decided future.

Engineers like me tend to put the 'as close to "nothing" as possible' into the drawer of signal to noise ratio.

While reality is necessarily 'real', I do not share your pessimistic guess that logical coherency is *not* universal. Maybe, it cannot be easily enforced. We all will hopefully contribute to the removal of unnecessary obstacles.

Best tegards,

Eckard



Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I always enjoy your replies, and particularly your mastery of mathematical history, which you use to illuminate many areas.

I agree that "complete determinism [is] a naive intuition and at variance with the possibility of a potentially infinite world."

As for "While reality is necessarily 'real', I do not share your pessimistic guess that logical coherency is *not* universal. Maybe, it cannot be easily enforced" I see the 'logical ideas' we have as due to essentially separate logical structures that exist in our brains, some learned from playing baseball as children, some learned from sitting in calculus class, and these structures are not wholly integrated and fully unified, nor are they universally correct and compatible. The question is then whether these separate maps, or combinations thereof, can 'cover' reality coherently. Maybe, maybe not.

Of course this depends upon the correctness of my view that logic is structural in nature as opposed to mystical in nature, and also to the degree that structures (neural nets) that are connected uniquely in each of us can 'rise above' this dependence on individual experiences to be isomorphic with those of others. It's amazing that a few simple theories like Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, and quantum mechanics can bridge these differences in most physicists minds, but to expect it to do so for the "potentially infinite world" you mentioned seems to me to expect a lot. And this does not even take into account the dimensions of reality of which Kyle Miller speaks.

Thanks for sharing your insights,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Eugene,

Isn't physical reality something objective that does not depend on the perspective of an observer?

What about logical structures in the brain, they are known to be flexible.

LSD in the title of Kyle Miller's essay deterred me, you made me curious. I found not much to agree on and nothing new in it.

Best regards,

Eckard




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Eckard

My submission have been refused, but if you want to read mail me please. yuri@danoyan.net

I can send you for discussion.

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Yuri,

You make me curious. I think my own essay has been radical enough. Maybe, your English was not convincing?

Al the best,

Eckard



Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 12:29 GMT
It easy.You can read my essay.

You are right.My russian English not so good,but text is quite clear.

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 12:17 GMT
No 3 things

Yuri Danoyan

Abstract

Assumptions of physics need reconsider:1)4D spacetime. 2) Gravity as a fundamental force 3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G,c,h). Alternatives have been proposed. 1.Splitting 3D discrete space from 1D continues time.2.Gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe. 3. Only Planck constant as a fundamental dimensional constant.

attachments: My_crazy_theory.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 06:54 GMT
Please try to object:

Poincaré’s method of synchronization assumes that a signal needs the same time from an emitter A to a reflector B as return from B to A. It is obviously correct as long as the distance between A and B remains unchanged. The synchronization suggested by Einstein in 1905 extends Poincaré’s method on the case that A and B are linearly moving relative to each other with constant speed. Einstein was not yet wrong when he argued that that synchronization requires measuring. However, he ignored that the simultaneity cannot at all be achieved by a single round-trip measurement ABA. Instead one needs for instance simultaneous measurements AC and BC with reference to a neutral point C. Having defined an A-time and a B-time, Einstein tacitly assumed A at rest (“Zeit des ruhenden Systems”) but B the moving system. Thomas van Flandern aptly criticized Einstein’s synchronization as desynchronization.

Einstein wrote: “Hence we must not attribute absolute meaning to the notion simultaneity. Two events that are simultaneous if looked at from one coordinate system must not be considered simultaneous events if seen from a system in motion relative to it.”

Of course, an observer cannot judge the temporal order of two observed events without further knowledge. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has been based on the confusion between reality and what an observer measures.

Eckard




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT
Eckard

This link just for you

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6044

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 05:27 GMT
Thank you Yuri,

Having read such good textbooks as for instance Oskar Becker's, I will read Manin's paper like a weak attempt to defend some presently mandatory views, a paper that reveals intuitions behind mathematics but neglects due logic clarifications.

I would appreciate if someone did try and took issue concerning what I tried to make evident to everybody in my Figures.

You now, we are partially supporting each other. I cannot at all judge whether or not your intriguing claim concerning the fundamental constants is correct. What you wrote on 3+1 looks a bit speculative to me. It reminds me of Stiefel, a friend of Martin Luther.

By the way, the expression three plus one was currently used for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the three Baltic republics and Westerwelle. I would avoid such mistakable expression.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Eckard

Big difference between 3+1 and 3:1

Das war also des Pudels Kern ... "

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 15:37 GMT
Eckard

EB; "I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?"

1. M&M. Yes. I've found that probably nothing matters more in unravelling the paradoxes...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 21:01 GMT
Peter,

The issue is indeed of key importance. Shtyrkov (in Russian) tried an alternative explanation. The late Marmet's criticism of the Michelson/Morley experiment was a bit confusing and possibly not entirely correct.

If only you were more careful. You are persistently writing Snel's law. The usual spelling Snell refers to the Latinized name Snellius, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law .

Didn't I point you a while ago to near vs. far field? Wikipedia has been focusing on some peculiarities of antennas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field which are irrelevant for light and sound. My essay reveals the importance of directivity. Feist's transducer worked like a phased array or a collimator.

More tomorrow,

Eckard




Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT
Eckard

The near-far field transition zone is far more important I think than we realise. Yes you did direct me to a link to an aspect, which I thank you for as it did indeed caused me to explore it's more general application as a phenomena than I'd understood, and it's central importance to the process of implementing local c at ALL scales and both at emitter and receiver.

It was discussed in an accepted paper currently awaiting publication, resolving the anomalies remaining from the disproof of Kantor's emission theory experiment. but I expanded that part after more research, particularly of the Kerr and non linear optics effects. The antenna aspect is just a glimpse.

As another astronomer I'm familiar with Dutchman Willebrord Snellius and commonly use the original 'Snel' (as also referred in the Wiki article). I accept the double 'l' has now become more common, but not 'lack of care'. Should we 'dumb down' all spelling to common modern use and U.S. English? Perhaps I suppose.

I agree Marmet's 'n' based red shift via coupling; "It is found that in ordinary conditions, the energy loss per collision is about 10^-13 of the energy of the incoming photon." (1988) for the Doppler effect, but he was simply incomplete.

One other effect is from the lateral motion of the particles during interaction. The other is more complex involving scale expansion of space combined with amplitude reduction (sphere expansion) giving an apparent red-shift. I won't try to explain it in detail here but it also refutes acceleration of expansion.

These taken as a set (with other aspects) the 3D jigsaw puzzle of nature comes together quite perfectly! I appreciate you are one of the few helping the model with attempted falsification.

Note I also posted a reply in the string above (below Aug 19).

I look forward to your 'more tomorrow'

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 06:46 GMT
Peter,

I consider our present discussion innovative, rigorous, and related to a still not yet for good settled key question. Tomorrow is over. I apologize for being too short of time for providing a convincing reply. Wave phenomena are utterly manifold in acoustics, optics, and electro-magnetics.

You pointed me to the almost forgotten Wallace Kantor. This led me to what Ekhard Preikschat wrote on ether theory during the recent 17th annual NPA meeting. I hope, Valev, Perez, and others will join our discussion.

Best,

Eckard




S Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
It's a great essay, but I'm left with a question: Is this projection of an overbearing God archetype in the comments section just a satirical performance art meant to prove how ridiculous prejudice can be, or does the author simply not practice what he preaches?

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 05:47 GMT
Hi S. Halayka,

"projection of an overbearing God archetype"?? Could you please explain what you are referring to? What comments section do you mean?

Eckard




S Halayka wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT
Eckhard,

Perhaps I'm coming off as a little too harsh, and not making myself clear in the process.

I sincerely implore you to ignore anyone who makes comments that don't pertain to the applicability of your essay's point. For instance, some people made some inconsequential comments about the way in which you used the English language to express yourself. As a reader, I'm smart enough to gloss over those kinds of syntax "errors". Surely you're smart enough to do the same when you're reading other peoples' essays and comments right?

Perhaps you're still not catching my drift at this point, and so perhaps I'll give you an example of what I could have done (but ultimately did not do) in my previous, hurtful comment. In order to calculate the drag force vector, you need to calculate the wind's velocity relative to the cyclist's velocity. This involves subtraction, not addition (as you imply in your essay). That is, F = (Wind - Cyclist)^2 * blahblahblach. I didn't mention this in my original comment because ***it doesn't detract from your essay's main point***, plus I'm not a math/physics wizard and I know well enough that I make errors all of the time. Wouldn't it have been extremely annoying and uncalled for if I had come out attacking you by shoving this wind/cyclist trivium in your face, especially given that you had stated in your essay that its calculation was "obvious", and even more especially so given the fact that it doesn't actually matter?

Everyone makes mistakes, so just relax, please! You don't need to point peoples' errors out by beating them over the head. I am begging you, humbly.

I sincerely enjoyed your essay, and I learned about a lot of new things from you and Glenn. Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 06:17 GMT
S. Halayka,

Let's assume 10 m/s each for the velocities of the cyclist and the wind blowing exactly from the side. The felt by the cyclist velocity can be calculated by geometric addition as sqrt(2) times 10 m/s. This should be obvious to yo.

What about mistakes, I have to apologize for misspelling Glenn Gomes' name. In the discussions, such errors happen perhaps to all those who intend to reveal factually relevant mistakes in so many essays.

I hope you did not learn from Glenn Gomes what I consider questionable set-theoretic stuff. I have to risk more "one" scores if I do not hide my admittedly hurting arguments.

Eckard

Misspelling of my name does not matter unless I can be confused with Ekhard Preikshat.



S Halayka replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi Eckard,

I figured that you wouldn't take what I said about him seriously. My main concern is that prejudicial classification of someone based on ethnicity is frowned upon here in Canada (and downright bordering on unlawful) -- and for good reason. Perhaps he was born in Montana, and your classification was totally prejudicial and wrong. So, do you know for sure that what you said about him was true, or are you simply being prejudicial? I won't hold my breath while waiting for a logical, reasonable answer.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = and the cyclist velocity is V = , then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = . Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = ; V = ; R = . The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = . The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT
Apparently the comment system does not care for HTML-like vector notation.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = (10, 0, 0) and the cyclist velocity is V = (0, 10, 0), then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = (10, -10, 0). Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = (0, 0, 0); V = (0, 10, 0); R = (0, -10, 0). The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = (0, 0, 0). The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 12:14 GMT
OK Eckard let us discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment (and related problems) here. I wrote (on Sascha Vongehr's thread):

"If the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is correct, the only alternative to special relativity is Newton's emission theory."

You replied: "Non sequitur. Maybe, the expectation of a non-null result was wrong."

Now we need some common ground for the discussion. Do you agree that, in 1887, the emission theory was the only EXISTING theory able to explain the null result of the experiment?

I think we need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period before moving to your favorite and relatively recent exotic interpretations of the experiment (Marmet, Shtyrkov etc.).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Pentcho, According to sources like Jammer, Stachel, and Phipps, Maxwell, who died already in 1879, was skeptical about Michelson's attempt to measure the velocity of earth re aether. Nonetheless, Maxwell's equations clearly described waves, and Hertz managed to exploit this approach.

Well, Newton in contrast to Huygens had already imagined light as particles. Einstein in 1905 only reinvented that wheel.

However, as far as I know, the word emission theory was first used as to describe unsuccessful attempts by the early Einstein and later Ritz to cope with the problem that Maxwell's equation are not exactly Galilei invariant unless - as argued by Jammer - one drops Faraday's induction term. In this sense, a developed emission theory never existed. Hertz "Electric Waves" 1892 already tried to obey the interpretation of the MMX null result of 1887. You certainly know that Michelson in 1887 did not mention a trifle: When he in 1881 reported an earlier experiment, he assumed an outcome twice as large that they expected in 1887. The corrected expectation was suggested by Potier and then elaborated by Lorentz. Since then it was perhaps very rarely questioned for many decades.

I agree with Marmet on that much effort was spend in order to disprove the null result while almost no attention was devoted to the possibility that the expectation of something else was unrealistic. Until now, the defender of SR tend to confirm SR by only demonstrating that emission theory is untenable.

I see at least four views:

- SR with Lorentz covariance, block time, length contraction, relativity of time

- emission theories including extinction theory (Dowdye)

- neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity (e.g. Selleri, van Flandern)

- Hertzians: preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, c refers to space

Presumably they are mutually excluding each other. Then at best one out of them can be correct.

Eckard



Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
Eckard,

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c). By advancing, ad hoc, his length contraction hypothesis, Lorentz made the experiment confirm c'=c and refute c'=c+v.

Please just confirm or reject the above statement (yes or no). We do need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 21:22 GMT
No Pentcho,

UNEQUIVOCAL was merely a discrepancy between an already corrected expectation and the outcome of measurement. This seemed to contradict to the existence of an aether.

You are correct in that those physicist who accepted this interpretation could either abandon the aether and consider light as particles or try and somehow rescue the aether as did Lorentz.

The speed with which a sound wave propagates in the medium air is independent of the speed of the emitter re medium.

Eckard




Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 22:06 GMT
Eckard,

I don't like the "shut up and calculate" principle but in this case it is relevant. The wrong expectations of Michelson and Morley were based on calculations which can be found in today's textbooks. In these calculations one should simply replace c with c+v or c-v and the null result follows, in accordance with the experiment.

The procedure is tedious but if you wish we could perform it.

Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 03:22 GMT
Pentcho,

Why didn't you demonstrate in your essay that the expectation of Michelson was wrong?

Could you please use the option to provide a link to a file or even a publication of you or someone else that explains your suggestion in detail?

At first, we should specify at least one textbook you are referring to. Perhaps it would even better to refer to something easily available online, for instance in Wikipedia. Prior to calculation the explanation you are promising should unequivocally tell us what is meant with c and what with v.

Eckard



Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT
Eckard,

Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

"Michelson and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:23 GMT
Pentcho,

"In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2)."

Wouldn't this calculation also apply for Feist's measurement? The values he presented in his Figure 7 do not confirm this calculation. That's why my essay called his experiment stunning. I looked for a plausible possibility to explain the undeniable and easily reproducible result of Feist's experiment. My reasoning is quite simple and hopefully understandable from my Fig. 5: The signal was emitted into the air with high directivity. It propagates within it with c. If the air was at rest, it would reach the position R_0 at the reflector after a timespan d/c. While the motion of air does not change this duration, the signal has meanwhile been shifted sidewards to the position R_2 by dv/c. The reflected from there highly directive component of the signal cannot return to the emitter E because it gets further shifted to the right and will arrive after once again d/c outside E. The emitter E can only see a diffusely reflected from R_2 part of the signal that compensates for the rightward shift during return. Seen from E it seems to come from a fictitious position R_2. Hence the length of return path R_2 to E amounts d sqrt(1+4v^2/c^2), and the total time T_2 of travel from E to R_2 and back to E (T_2= 2 + 4v^2/c^2) agrees well with the apparently dilated time alias contracted length in the direction of motion [T_1=d/(c-v)+d/(c+v)].

In my essay I wrote v/c=r with roughly r=0.1 in Feist's measurement. Motion of earth with about 30km/s re ether corresponds to about 30/300 000 = 0.0001.

With the expectation by Potier/Lorentz/Michelson, Feist should have measured cT_2/d = 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 plus-minus 0.0005.

Eckard




Hyoyoung Choi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:49 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein!

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

Very interesting read your article.

In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Article : Negative mass and negative energy

Computer simulation on negative mass

If you read my essay, I will be very happy.

Have a Nice day!

--- Hyoyoung Choi

report post as inappropriate

Hyoyoung Choi replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:59 GMT
For the observation or evidence of negative mass(energy)

In 1998, an observation by both the HSS team and SCP team obtained a negative mass density from inspected field equations over 70years.(field eq. has a Lamda=0)

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M= - 0.4(±0.1)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 7P

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M = - 0.38(±0.22)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 14P

However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

We must to know that not the equation has disposed the value, but our thought disposed the value.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

peff = -Lamda/4piG

Lamda is positive, so peff is negative.

Please view to my article and simulation video

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:48 GMT
Hi Hyoyoung Choi,

According to your bio, you might have the chance to perform scientific work for many decades to come.

Good luck,

Eckard



Hyoyoung Choi replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 03:16 GMT
Thank you Eckard!

Have a nice day!

--- Hyoyoung Choi

report post as inappropriate


Roger wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 05:25 GMT
Eckard,

Hi. Good essay! I like your ideas about how the abstract/ideal doesn't necessarily correspond to reality and about time and points. My comments are:

1. On time, I think that there is no independent thing called time. All time is is a sequence of events that physically existent states go through. If there were absolutely no motion in any existent state in the universe, there would be no time, IMHO. For people that claim that time is a real thing, independent of matter, energy and motion, I'd say: Show me where this "time" is. Point it out. This reasoning also implies that in reality there is no ability to reverse the direction of time. Even if events were to run in the exact opposite sequence (Z to A) that they had been running in (A to Z) , while this may mathematically seem like time running in reverse, in reality, I'd say that time is still running forward because the events in the sequence Z-to-A occur after the events in A-to-Z. Time is just a sequence of physical events. I think this is what you were getting at in your essay if I understood it correctly?

2. On points, I agree that a "point" is not a physical possibility. It seems to me that any state which has one or more of its dimensions as zero (not just approaching zero, but actually zero) cannot exist in reality. This is the problem with infinitesimals. While they're useful in the abstract, if one can never reach the boundaries of an infinitesimal amount (ie, it's always just a little bit smaller), I don't think it exists, at least in our numerical dimension.

Anyways, good essay. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 08:01 GMT
Dear Roger (Granet?),

Your style is different from Roger Schlafly's from whom I am expecting an answer. Perhaps you are also not Roger Pink who used to sign Roger below his posts.

You are questioning that the size of an infinite set is the same as the size of an infinite subset derived from it. While Dedekind did not use the notion set, he published this definition of infinity, and Peirce was proud of having found it independently. They "corrected" the old Euclidean tenet that the whole is larger than its parts and ignored Galileo Galilei who logically correct inferred that the quantifying relations are not applicable for the property to be infinite even if Galileo inconsequently still spoke of infinite "quantities". Any genuine in logical sense quantity is discrete in principle and therefore exhaustible. It does not have the properties of being endlessly extended and endlessly divisible. The mathematicians preferred to deviate from this logics.

When you imagine a series of subsequent states, then you are sharing the view you are denying. As an EE, I prefer to consider elapsed time as continuous.

Dedekind was certainly correct when he ascribe little importance to such sophisticated questions.

Did you realize that my essay also includes a not yet refuted argument against the MMX interpretation since 1887 as the only basis of Lorentz invariance, SR and all that?

Eckard



Roger Granet replied on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 04:30 GMT
Eckard,

I'm not real sure what your point is here, but I'll reply to your comment over on my essay:

Your comment:

What about the property of an infinite quantity to be not larger than an also infinite part of it, you will perhaps agree on oo + 1 = oo. Incidentally, Georg Cantor was not the first one who used the self-contradictory expression "infinite number". Even Weierstrass used it.

My reply:

I agree that infinity +1 = infinity, but I'd also say that infinity > 1 and that infinity is greater than subsets derived from that same infinity. What I'm getting at in my essay is that when you start out with a single infinite set, and try to compare the size of a part of it to the whole set, you have to consider the relationship of that part to the whole within the context of the single set (the experimental system being considered in this thought experiment). Taking the context and relationships between elements into account, it seems clear that the size of the subset is smaller than the size of the single whole set. And, yes, the point of my essay is that I'm questioning the assumption that they're the same size. This is the whole point of this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 5, 2012 @ 18:06 GMT
Roger,

Why not questioning Fig. 38-1 in Feynman's lectures vol. 1 where the relationship to infinity is not obvious? I accept that you are not very familiar with and less critical than I towards some fundamentals of mathematics. The mentioned figure shows a wave packet of "width delta x" similar to the so called Gauss pulse which extends symmetrically between plus and minus infinity. Such wave packet can be observed with acoustic as well as electromagnetic waves. Let's assume it travels from the left to the right then it has definitely a front to the right but an endless tail to the left. An infinite tail to the right would be non-causal because the maximal speed of propagation is c.

Feynman commented [my re-translation from German]: "Such wave packet has no concrete wave length; there is an uncertain wave number that relates to the finite length of the packet."

To me this comment is one more indication of lacking insight. At least the propagation of acoustic waves can me measured with high accuracy in principle and shows how the original N-shape of an acoustic wave gradually mutates into a wave packet similar to the mentioned figure. Admittedly one has to carefully measure the wave and avoid measuring the behavior of the microphone instead.

What about your use of the notion infinity, I am already avoiding the notion "infinities", and I do not agree on your first sentence : "Set theory is at the heart of mathematics".

Eckard




Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 08:00 GMT
Eckard,

The following argument of yours, which is not even wrong, introduces irreversible confusion in our discussion:

You wrote (Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT): "Not even the speed of a moving car relates to the perception of an observer. Of course, in case of a crash, the velocity between the two bodies matters. However, it is not reasonable to ascribe a possibility to measure the speed of a wave or the speed of a car to an observer. Christian Doppler correctly calculated how the relative motion changes e.g. an apparent frequency. In case of a body, the speed of the emitter re a reference matters. In case of a wave, the constant speed re medium does not necessarily depend on the emitter."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT
Pentcho,

You seem to intend detracting from the MMX issue. Of course, emission theory relies on it. May we infer that you are unable to explain Feist's measurement?

I consider what you called "irreversible confusion" just a secondary mistake introduced by Albert Einstein when he postulated that the speed of light is constant without directly specifying what it refers to. He merely excluded the possibility that it depends on the emitter, and by misusing Poincaré's still correct observer-related synchronization he created individual realities of each observer or its inertial system, respectively. I expected Georgina Parrey to clarify: There is only one objective reality and only one true past.

What does confuse you? Is there at all the possibility that a confusion can never be resolved?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Eckard,

The only speed both relativists and antirelativists care about is "the speed of light relative to the observer". Einstein did not have to specify what the speed of light referred to because that was obvious. If he had known that you would blaim him in 2012, he would have written:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which, AS JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER/RECEIVER, is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Initially the observer is stationary relative to the light source. In his frame the frequency, speed of light and wavelength are f, c and L:

f = c/L

Then the observer starts moving with speed v towards the source and if v is low enough relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency he measures becomes:

f' = (c+v)/L

If c' and L' are the speed of light and wavelength in the frame of the moving observer, we have:

f' = c'/L'

and the crucial questions are:

c' = ? ; L' = ?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I like your excellent essay and appreciate your viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.

As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.

You may rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu,

I apologize for not yet having checked your proposals for experiments because I was unable to open the files. I just wonder why you wrote: "When two clocks A and B are

synchronized through a GPS satellite in common view mode, their synchronization is effectively equivalent to e-synchronization." I consider Van Flandern correct when he called Einstein-synchronization a de-synchronization. This adopted from Poincaré method is only correct as long as A and B do not move relative to each other. It introduces an unrealistic observer-related view of reality. True simultaneity of events belongs to the objective reality of the objects where they happen, not to an observer who has merely a delayed picture from them.

Well, there are many strong arguments indicating that SR is wrong. What alternative theory do you favor? I didn't find the words Lorentz and Michelson in your essay.

Sapere aude gives: Phipps Jr. Dr. Thomas E., Urbana IL 61801, USA.

Best,

Eckard




Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Eckard,

We agree on the power of math to distort physical reality. And you have been a consistent voice in these blogs on the limitations of math as applied to physics. I have made a reference to your views on this in my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”.

Since the beginnings of my participation in these forums I have come to respect and rely on your thoughts and ideas. And on your support. I ask you to read my essay and share with me your thoughts on the arguments and mathematical derivations I make in it. Especially my proof of the proposition, “if the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. This, together with Maxwells result, “if light is a wave, then the speed of light is constant” seems to conclusively argue light is a wave, and not a 'particle photon'. And this naturally infers the existence of a 'propagating medium' and the necessity for CSL independent of the 'source' and the 'observer' (if we consider that the speed of light can only be measured 'locally' to the medium of propagation).

A point of interest. Eric Reiter in his essay, ”A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory”, has presented experimental evidence for my 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy' idea. This played a crucial role in my explanation of the double-slit experiment, if you recall! You may be interested in reading about it.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

So far I didn't get aware of many essays with important implications. I have to carefully read your essay as to possibly find something influential in excess of your last essay.

While my Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are merely improved illustrations of ideas I already uttered in earlier essays, my Fig. 5 is new and hopefully the key to the insight that, beginning with Lorentz, a lot of modern physics has been unjustified speculation.

Alan Kadin does of course still adhere to what turned out wrong if my Fig. 5 is correct. Nonetheless my gut feeling lets me support his opinion concerning waves and particles, and he uttered what I also am guessing concerning Hilbert space, cf. the essay by Swingle. You were a mathematician. Can you share our objections to Hilbert space?



You caused me to read and comment on the essay by Eric Reiter. I hope he will reply after reading the essays of Alan and me.

Best,

Eckard



Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 03:40 GMT
Dear Eckard,

What I think of Hilbert space? I like it! As a math-think. But not as a physics-thing. But there are more fundamental formulations in physics wrong for physics, in my view. Take 'particle photons' for example. Or the Spacetime continuum. With 'eventpoints' at each 'instant of time', t. I have shown the Second Law determines 'physical time' to be 'duration of time', Δt. This may help explain the 'missing energy' which goes by the alias 'dark'.

What makes my current essay different is my claim any mathematical model of 'what is' the Universe is metaphysical in essence. The fundamental question is: “why should our mathematical deductions be reflected in our measurements of Nature”? The idea that Nature can be completely described by mathematical models is a metaphysical belief. And in order to prevent physics from morphing into metaphysics, Basic Law of physics should be mathematical tautologies applied to measurements. I show Planck's Law, for example, is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy measurement.

Roger Schlafly also questions Math in Physics. And his essay currently ranks first! While mine lingers between 'being and nothingness'...

Constantinos

P.S. Recalling an earlier discussion you had concerning the existence of 'negative frequencies', you may be interested to know in my formulation the de Broglie frequency and wavelength can be any real number both positive AND negative. Furthermore, I find no need to use complex numbers.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Math-think is certainly not a typo but your creation.

When I asked "can you share our (Kadin's and mine) objections to Hilbert space, I meant to how von Neumann introduced it as the space for physical states. You certainly know he wrote to Birkhoff in 1935: I do not believe in Hilbert space any more. Did he put emphasis on believe or rather on Hilbert space? It rarely happens that someone gets aware that his belief is just a belief and utters this as frankly as did Hilbert who was a finitist, see what member Ellis just wrote to me. More likely the crowd looks for remedies like Zermelo's AC or the meanwhile advanced to something valuable renormalization.

In order to get a more concrete answer I would like to specify my question to include your opinion on Kadin's ideas.

Concerning your P.S.: I never wrote that complex numbers are useless. In order to understand your notion of positive and negative frequency and wavelength I would need a more specific hint. Let me explain as simple as possible why, in principle, one did not need a negative quantity at all in order to describe reality: How large ever something finite might be, we may shift our point of view to its highest value and look only backwards.

Best,

Eckard




Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Eckard

I like many aspects of your essay. I agree with you about the flow of time. And I think that it is the idea of infinity that is the real problem with a lot that is done in theoretical physics. As Hilbert said, infinity is an idea needed to complete mathematics bit it occurs nowhere in physical reality. This is related to the idea that in reality, physical *points* (i.e. entities with no extent) do not exist. From Wikipedia on "ActualInfinity",

"The overwhelming majority of scholastic philosophers adhered to the motto Infinitum actu non datur. This means there is only a (developing, improper, "syncategorematic") potential infinity but not a (fixed, proper, "categorematic") actual infinity". Sounds good to me.

Where I disagree is your statement "SR is kept more directly justified by the fact that Maxwell’s equations are lacking covariance." But Mawell's equations are Lorentz covariant: they were the one part of classical phyiscs Einstein did not have to alter when he developed Special Relativity. That is why for example the transformation between electric and magnetic fields follows directly from the Lorentz transformation laws (see my book with Ruth Williams: Flat and Curved Spacetimes).

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear George Ellis,

I appreciate your effort to read my essay and hope my effort was not in vain when I tried to convey an important message with each of my five Figs.

I have almost nothing to add to what you wrote concerning actual and potential infinity. I already dealt with these questions in earlier essays.

What about lacking covariance of Maxwell's equations, I was initially confused by two arguments:

- MMX

- Maxwell's equations

Did you read papers by Thomas Phipps Jr. concerning Maxwell's and Hertz's equations? I gave just one reference. Others are easily to be found at Apeiron.

By chance I have at hand: "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations" Physics Essays, vol.6, number 2, 1993,

Thank you for your hint.

Sincerely,

Eckard Blumschein




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Daryl,

I apologize for late answering you questions of 22. Aug. 23:56 in Edwin Klingman’s thread.

Do not blame me for sloppiness in language. With “for observers” I meant as observers may observe it. I did not write “the” observer but observers. Different observers at the same location may observe it differently if they are moving with different velocities relative to the...

view entire post




Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Dear Eckard:

Thanks for posting this.

First of all, thanks for correcting my spelling of ideell. I had known that, but I think I confused it with the French.

Secondly, I certainly wasn't blaming you for sloppiness in language. I think that was your criticism in the previous post, which I agreed was an issue, so I was just clarifying the actual intended use of the word "for", which you pointed out could be taken to mean something else. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" and I agreed it was the latter and that the use of the word "for" is sloppy.

Finally, most importantly, from the rest of your comments I'm pretty sure you haven't read my essay despite, where I argued *for* an absolute cosmic time, despite your criticism that there are weak points in my view. I've argued that despite the way time passes in arbitrary frames of reference according to relativity theory, cosmology indicates that there has to be one true cosmic passage of time, against which time scales for relatively moving observers. I've pointed out that this means an absolute simultaneity-relation. Such a universal frame of reference and universal time does not---and cannot, according to relativity theory---come to mean absolute *synchronicity*, though. Unless you're denying SR entirely, you can't claim this because according to the theory two clocks in relative motion can't be synchronised: from either one's perspective, the other's rate has to be slowed. However, as I've shown in my essay, this does not mean that there can't be a coherent universal time that defines absolute *simultaneity*.

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Daryl,

A bit pregnant is impossible. Either one denies the separation between past and future, then one has good chance to win the contest, or one denies SR entirely. In the first case one is a monist who looks at the world from outside, In the opposite case one does not leave the own perspective inside the real world. While I respect those who hope for a third possibility, I am sure, they will at best cheat themselves.

That's why my essay starts with Einstein's "something outside science" and ends with my "trust in inexhaustible chances" to reveal mistakes like those by Nimtz and by Michelson/Lorentz. I anticipate many to either ignore my essay or give me the lowest possible score after they failed or did not even try to refute my Fig. 5.

If I persuaded you to reconsider your belief then you will hopefully not be so naive to frankly utter your change from Saulus to Paulus in public. This could damage your career.

Eckard



Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT
Eckard,

Either one accepts Einstein's 1905 two postulates and sings Divine Einstein and Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, or declares one of them false and sings No one told me about sorrow, no one said I'd be lonely. There is no third alternative.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
Eckard, you wrote: "The postulate of constant c may be wrong if c is referred to the observer while correct if c refers to an absolute space."

You are right in a sense but note that, whether or not Einstein says it explicitly, the conclusions of special relativity are derived from the assumption that the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER or IN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER is constant. Just take a look at some textbook derivation of time dilation: first it is assumed that the speed of light is c in the observer at rest on the ground's (B's) frame and then the miraculous time dilation is derived.

So if the postulate of constant c is wrong when c is referred to the observer, then that's the end of relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
Pentcho Valev,

Einstein's relativity is dead, vivat Einstein's relativity. Georg Cantor's naive set theory is dead, vivat Georg Cantor's naive set theory. Read what Ebbinghaus wrote with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's words: If someone by an obvious error ...

Even if Einstein's synchronization is logically unfounded and if there are an absolute space and absolute simultaneity; There are ample experimental results that obviously confirm for instance the impossibility to accelerate matter in excess of c.

It is true that for instance the atomic bomb was wrongly celebrated by laymen as an achievement of Einstein's SR. I agree with Roger Schlafly that Einstein has been overestimated. I see him idolized, and I contempt idolizing.

My intention is to clarify whether or not already Lorentz was misled by Michelson. So far nobody refuted my reasoning concerning Feist's experiment. Eventually I will show that Einstein's was not wrong in his resignation when he admitted that the now worries him seriously. My favorite essay was written by Ken Wharton. I consider it a beautiful collection of arguments in defense of Einstein whose weakness should be revealed one by one. Did you deal with this target?

Eckard




Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT
Hello Eckard. In English, I do not read this essay with your familiar on the annotation and successfully. That's what I understood. How to avoid mathematical physics determinism neobsnovannoy intuition? Suggest this approach. We do not know the origin of mathematics. On this, we are moving in its field intuitively, without analyzing. You can see the literal math, operates numbers and quantities. And you can see the abstract mathematics. An abstract mathematics is geometry and formulas. The formula E = mc2 literally. Maybe she needed a scientist to make a nuclear bomb. But in school textbooks it unnecessarily. Abstract formula gave M.Plank. It has not yet begun to analyze. Physics necessary abstraction. But this is metaphysics. A bit of metaphysics in my essay "The information - quantum energy balance" of 30 August.

Mistranslation of information - quantum energy balance. Necessary: information - quantum energy balance.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:53 GMT
Hello Vasily,

Neobosnovannaja intuicia = unfounded intuition. Neobosnovannoy = of the unfounded ... ? I can only guess what you intend to say, and I noticed that you did not yet compare physics with balanced control in a power grid (IEB) but you also repetitiously referred to Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Immanuel Kant stated: "Spsce and time are quanta continua." I do not disagree.

And yes, mathematics is ranging from discovered most unavoidable logic to wildly speculating individual creations.

Incidentally, Orenburg is only about 500 km remote from Kasan where Shtyrkov lives. Do you agree with him?

While the English translation of your essay is readable to me, I do not deal with consciousness.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:34 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I think that Lorentz contraction is an imaginary result of special relativity. It follows from the Extended special theory of relativity. There is shown that constancy of speed of light c is a convention and axiom of special relativity, but real speeds of light my be more then c. See also Metric theory of relativity.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Sergey Fedosin,

Instead of humble revelations of which basic assumptions are wrong and providing references to possibly questionable work, essay 1410 offers an impressive bundle of alternative ideas of a single genius, dealing even with ball lightning.

To me, the text of 1410 is a bit hard to digest although I would like to confirm that your English is nearly perfect.

I wondered why my computer warns me about a possibly not trustworthy source when I intended to get explained what SPF-symmetry stands for.



What about my objection against Einstein synchronization, I suspect a round trip measurement should entirely belong to either the past, or in case of preparation to the future in order to be reasonable.

Can you offer an explanation of Feist's measurement?

Eckard Blumschein




Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 08:44 GMT
Dear Eckard Blumschein

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 15:12 GMT
Hi hoang cao hai,

For a moment I felt a bit ashamed because you treats me with the same sentences as you already treated others. Doesn't my essay deserve better? Then I looked at your biography and remembered Vietnamese students of mine. If I recall correctly, your first name might be hai, the last one. All my students from Vietnam, China, or Japan were distinguished by extraordinary high motivation and diligence. I guess, in particular in Hanoi more of the elderly people speak French or German than English.

You wrote: "It would be more reasonable if we develop an essay contest ... ?" I guess you meant "Would it be ... ?"

You wrote: "... the movement speed of light in the atmosphere on Earth averages about 90.000 km / s". Perhaps your command of English is better than your knowledge in physics.

I hope you will be able to nonetheless understand at least in part my claim that my essays 833 and 1364 provide correct and necessary corrections to what you aptly called "inveterate" assumptions.

Best wishes,

Eckard



Hoang cao Hai replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:28 GMT
Dear Teacher Eckard Blumschein

Very sorry for making "teacher" sad.

My name is Hai: English meaning : Sea.

Expect teachers sympathetic to the my English as "computer automatically type".

Really grateful Teacher was pointed out errors "very silly" about the speed of light in air is 90.000m / s (was misspelled 90.000km / s), although this will not change the problem stated in my essay.

The teacher's question about the "Would it be .. (required) .. more next competition to solved the issue has been raised in this competition."

And also expect teachers sympathy for not review essay of teachers is because:

measures that teachers have used is different measures of me, so I do not want to comment when we do not have the same point of view, to avoid the occurrence of "conflicting ideologies", and of course also with the problem the "inveterate" or "deep-rooted" that teacher have requested.

Hope Teacher satisfied.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:20 GMT
Hai,

Higgs boson is named after Higgs, not Higg.




Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:04 GMT
Hello Eckard. Intuition gives some information that you can find the right one. Correctness of the information verified in many ways, this is obsnovanie. "Curvature of space" - a false justification. Kant wrote better understood as having no scientific and educational importance. Kant used the excellent education he received. What is a continuum? Black body radiates heat. That means, the heat in the form of photons? Kontinnum - continuous medium malostrukturirovannaya, simple. Ether, water, gravity, light - continua. Time is of the origin of odnovrmennosti. Shtyrkov Atsyukovsky and right, the ether is. Now a physicist, Einstein, that she does not need air. Origin of the substance, in all their diversity, must explain the physics - biosubstantsy, minerals, metals, and other gases. That physics explains that biology will confirm. In this origin needs air. Physics tells of the origin of matter, in general, without going into details. Poiskhozhdenie with ether - is in the details.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
Hi Vasily,

In order to enable everybody to possibly understand what you wrote I will first try and translate some words into English language:

proiskhozhdenie = origin

obosnovanie = reason

light - continuum = light is a continuum

malostrukturirovannaja = (female adj.) small-structured

odnovremennosti = of simultaniety

Let me tell you what kind of comments to my essay I appreciate:

- At first those which are challenging me to reconsider and possibly correct it

- Support by qualified experts

- High scoring because this creates attention

- Hints to something relevant I was not yet aware of.

Your comment art least fulfills the latter criterion. I was not yet aware of Atsyukovsky. I will certainly find him via www.antidogma.ru and check his work.

I will also check whether you wrote an essay. If it is relevant to my reasoning I would like to ask you for permission to reply here.

Regards,

Eckard




Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear Escard, the paper: Feist N: Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment - ; Proceedings of the NPA 6 (2010), 1-4, Fig. 7. is unavailable for me, I can say nothing about it.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 05:37 GMT
Try this link and look at Fig. 1 for the experimental setup and Fig. 7 for the most accurate result. Don't worry about wrong by a factor 10 numbers (12 km/h instead of 120km/h) on the velocity axis. The red curve shows expected (according to Lorentz's correction of Michelson's 1881 calculation) values of average velocity c_2 in percent of velocity at rest.

While the claimed isotropy was questioned e.g. by Bruhn, the measured data are undoubtedly correct and are to be explained. My explanation seems to be the only plausible one, and it does also plausibly and quantitatively explain the unexpected null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. See my calculations at pages 8 and 9.

Eckard




Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I read your essay with interest. I too take an approach, without regard to the conventional notion of time. In fact my attempt is to extend the principles of TD to the rest of physics with a timeless Geometric approach. It concerns very simple Geometric relationships leading to trignometric expressions between inter-related phenomena. It makes relativistic phenomena quite...

view entire post


attachments: 4_Primordial_Foundational_Problems.doc, 4_GEOMETRODYNAMICS_OF_ENERGY.doc

report post as inappropriate


Vasily Kletushkin wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 07:59 GMT
Hi Eckard. Translation is indeed a problem. I own text, translated from English into Russian, I learn the hard way. Machine translation. I read your answer. The reason for the light, I did not write anything. The women also did not write. On today's physics: Einstein's physics in the air does not need (Latin - aether). Atsukovsky I called in addition to Shtyrkova. Atsukovsky better not to read, write bad waste of time. In my essay should be questions. I can answer them just me. This is a true metaphysician. Sincerely, Vasily.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Eckard,

Let us assume you are right - based on the ether theory (stating that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source), Michelson and Morley should have calculated and expected the NULL result, not otherwise. This implies that the null result is incompatible with the miracles, length contraction in particular, later introduced by Lorentz and Einstein.

On the other hand, time dilation and length contraction are direct consequences of the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source - initially you don't even need the relativity principle for the deduction - see David Morin's text, pp. 12-16.

So David Morin's (valid) inference shows that you are wrong - there can be no reasonable expectation of the null result based on the assumptions that, on the one hand, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, and that, on the other hand, there is no length contraction.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Pentcho,

Morin wrote:

(1) "what experiments showed was that light surprisingly moved with speed c in every frame, no matter which way the frame was moving through the supposed ether. (2) There were therefore two possibilities. Either something was wrong with Maxwell's equations, or something was wrong with the Galilean transformations."

Inspired by Feist and in agreement with Cristov, Marmet, and others I question (1). This means, I see (2) and all other implications unfounded. Morin's chapter did not tell me anything new or anything relevant. Which inference by Morin do you consider valid? The speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length, merely an observed Doppler effect.

It was the disparate attempt to explain the unexpected null result that caused FitzGerald and Lorentz to imagine the length contraction of the interferometer arm as an ultimate remedy.

Eckard



Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT
Eckard,

You believe that "the speed of a wave (no matter whether sound or light) is independent of the speed of its source, and there is no contraction of the real length..."

I tried to call your attention to the fact that the two statements are incompatible. Length contraction (initially introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz) can easily be derived from the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. I referred you to David Morin's text (pp. 12-16) because his derivation is good and easy to understand.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Pentcho Valev,

Sorry, it is not a matter of belief but an experimentally proven and undisputed fact that the front of an acoustic wave in air propagates relative to the air independent of possible motion of the source or the receiver. If you know that a missile can travel faster than the sound it emits then you may conclude that there is no superposition of the two velocities. Otherwise the sound would be heard before the missile hits the target.

What's your problem?

Eckard




Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I posted the following in George Ellis' thread but it has disappeared. (Just now reposted anyway). I am copying it to you now.

Dear George,

I shall clear the theoretical side first, and address the personal allegations/misunderstandings later.

George wrote: “The Lorentz transformation equation ….. is verified every day by the operation of electric...

view entire post


attachments: 2_LT_in_electric_phenomena.doc

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 19:10 GMT
Dear Viraj,

I understand that you are upset because George Ellis deleted your post. Let's see his reaction as an indication of lacking factual arguments. You are quite right; Neither those electrical engineers who are dealing for instance with motors bor those who are dealing with electromagnetic waves need Einstein's relativity.

Yes, George Ellis provided a very obvious example for unfounded belief-based propaganda. In case one cannot easily decide whether or not such statements are correct, emphatically exaggerated claims tend to be not trustworthy.

Let me quote Earl Bertrand R:: "The solution of the difficulties which formerly surrounded the ... is probably the greatest achievement of which our age has to boast." Does this sound serious to you?

George Ellis pointed me to vol. 2 of the famous Feynman lectures. He is right, Feynman was teaching electro-magnetics from his relativist point of view. When I read the text decades ago, I did not yet doubt that Einstein's relativity is correct and I admired Feynman's elegant while speculative rather than oriented on the needs of engineering style. So far I have only vol. 2 at hand. Feynman refers there to his intro in relativity in vol. 1.

More later, best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thanks. I am not really upset, but it shows what kind of a set up FQXi is.

I think, the elimination of my posts happen automatically at FQXi on Ellis' instructions. Anyway, even if it is othrwise, when someone 'reports a post as inappropriate' it is flagged for the administrator to check whether it really has inappropriate subject matter. If the administrator does not use his proper judgement or acts in a biased manner, then FQXi is running this competition for the benefit of a pre-selected few with a definite set of ideas.

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate


Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 12:42 GMT
(Same story as before. The post on George Ellis' threadd has disappeared. So I am posting it here for the record)

Dear Eckard and George,

1. There is a connection between MMX and Maxwell as Eckard has pointed out. In 1878, one year before Maxwell died he suggested an experiment to detect that effects of the second order. It is this idea that Michelson took up and used for the experiment of 1882 onwards.

2. George wrote: “The way a moving charge generates a magnetic field follows directly from the standard Lorentz transformation matrix L^a_b applied to the electromagnetic field tensor Fab, see page 349-353 of Flat and Curved Spacetimes for an explicit derivation of this relation. This is a valid derivation of the theory underlying all use of electromagnets in electric motors and relays. My statement is correct”.

a) Are you not confusing between

Lorentz transformation x’ = gamma(x –ut) and

Lorentz Force FE = (q2v2) (Mu)0 /2(pi)r ?

b) Aren’t electric motors and relays governed by Biot-Savart’s law and not Lorentz force?

Best regards,

Viraj

report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Georgina, dear Constantinos,

Let me explain in what my notion of reality differes from yours. Ken Wharton and I agreed on that there is only one objective reality. Ian Durham spoke of slightly different ones.

I wrote on p. 4: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

It does not matter whether I correct or wrong when I assume the reality of an object of concern. We can neither observe nor prepare for sure and completely such reality because it is a generally assumed attribution, not something tangible.

The past is the domain of reality. The future is the domain of possibility. The notion present means a deliberately undecided mix of both and is therefore not suited for physics. In reality, expected events did not yet happen.

It is reasonable to assume that one and the same object is only once real. Two different signs can be used for instance in order to numerically describe opposite directions. Given a calculation yields positive and negative frequencies. May we necessarily attribute different physical meanings to them? No. Because of lost information with almost always skipped logical steps from reality to the mathematical model and return, one has to check the mathematical result and if necessary omit artifacts, in particular the advanced solution.

Everybody will agree that for instance a negative length is unreal. It can however be necessary to not omit it as long as one operates in a fictitious mathematical domain. See my Figs. 1 and 2.

Regards,

Eckard



Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear Eckard,

you wrote: "the past is the domain of reality". That is an opinion based upon a particular understanding of what reality is. You are I think referring to those things that have been measured or observed. Do things only become a reality upon observation?

I agree that -The- (unwritten) future is open to possibility. However knowing that perception comes after actualised events aren't those things now existing ahead of the output realisation or manifestation of them also in a more foundational way in a domain of reality, (ie. one that is ahead of the experienced present, not the past).

Amanda Gefter has written about each observer having their own observed universe.Something to which I have also alluded. In that context an object can be be observed as a reality more than once, as each observer will manifest the object from the data he/she /it has uniquely received.

While I probably don't fully understand the sign problem you are talking about, it does seem to me that whether there is a rotation to right or left does make a difference as it will alter the data that is received and so the output manifestation produced from it. Which could make an obvious difference for a non uniform source object. I am not saying this to be annoying or disrespectful but just to give another perspective- that may or may not be relevant to your argument.

By the way I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my essay as I respect your knowledge and very sensible consideration of matters.

Kind regards Georgina.

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Escard,

Thanks for the reference. I think that result of Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment by Feist prove again that observer can not with the help of internal two-way measurements of signal speed to find its velocity in space. If you take in account in the Feist experiment Lorentz contraction then the formula for signal speed gives dilation of time.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 23:56 GMT
Dear Sergey,

I agree that - if my explanation of Feist's experiment is correct - the MMX did not refute a medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate. Aether theories must not be excluded. Shtyrkov's measurement seems to be trustworthy.

You seem to be the first one who suggests relativistic effects in acoustics.

Eckard




Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Eckard

I take your essay as querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far: and I agree with you on this. I also agree on your take on time, and on your comment "It is mistake to keep differential equations for primary. They are merely abstractions from the originally integrating relationships" Correct: and those integrating relationships involve boundary conditions or initial conditions whereby global relations constrain local physics - in concordance with my own essay.

I disagree on special relativity, as you know. I believe it's very well established. Any experiments of quality that disagree with it must of course be take seriously: they must be repeated by independent experimenters to check their validity. But you'll find it hard finding experimentalists willing to invest time, money and effort into that project: given all the other experiments that support SR, it is so unlikely it will prove anything interesting.

George

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear George,

I am delighted. You are the first one who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public. I know that there are no experts who dare to entirely agree with me.

Physicists tend to refuse reconsidering questionable applications and interpretation of mathematics. My Fig. 2 points to unphysical symmetries.

Mathematicians are reluctant to question arbitrary instead of logical definitions of basic notions like number, or continuity.

When I wrote "originally integrating relationships", I tried to remind of the physically implemented integrators used in analog computers. I did not write "integral equations". Yes, there are a few processes in reality that can be well described with initial or boundary conditions. However, most processes do not have an exactly defined begin and also no exactly predictable end. You may believe in Adam and Eve. Repair of defect genes requires a larger population.

What about Feist, I deliberately quoted Bruhn because he did not even bother to search for a possible mistake. I see myself proficient enough in electronics and acoustics as to confirm that the measurement by Feist was correctly performed.

In contrast to e.g. the measurement by Nimtz that was too involved as to be not possibly flawed, and to OPERA that also demonstrated how difficult it is to avoid flaws in very sophisticated systems, the measurement by Feist was too simple as to hide an error. While a check of the validity of the experiment is most likely not necessary, my explanation can be wrong. It is so far the only plausible one.

Contests and discussions at fqxi are a market place of old and new arguments.

- I maintain that the ear can definitely not analyze future input.

- The expectation of a non-null result for the MMX was wrong if my explanation of the experiment by Feist is correct.

I am asking myself: Doesn't this render the remedies by Ritz, Lorentz, or Einstein presumably unnecessary? Don't virtually all experiments that are claiming to support SR only confirm what also is valid with a preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, and an objective separation between past and future? I appreciate your helpful readiness to provide hints to antitheses.

Sincerely,

Eckard



Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear Eckard,

George may be the first one in academia "who understood uncommon thoughts of mine and who was courageous enough to support them in public", but you have a number of friends who do agree with you. For example I remarked above that:

"We hold the mathematical concepts, set theory, calculus, etc., in our heads forgetting where the logical holes are located. It is very good that you continue to remind us that holes exist and show us where some big ones are located..."

and I agreed with your following statement, "Tolerating an overlap of mutually excluding models is certainly no satisfactory solution."

So yes, it's great to have someone with 'skin in the game' agree with you, but don't forget your friends! We also agree with your "...querying taking the use of mathematical models of reality too far"

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:45 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I mentioned [20] Nimtz. The community of physicists was unable to immediately and clearly demonstrate in what he was wrong when he consistently measured propagation speed in excess of c. Isn't this alarming? He was of course wrong.

I quoted Bruhn as to demonstrate how arrogantly genuine experimental results are ignored. I vote for more effort also concerning the very basics of mathematics.

When Roger Schlafly suggests to decouple mathematics and physics this might be popular. Of course, many models of reality are not just not trustworthy but they can presumably not at all be rescued by any corrections. Nonetheless, I see any agnosticism welcomed by those who are lazy and coward.

I reiterate what I wrote in 833: If the essence of mathematics is its freedom as claimed by G. Cantor, then mathematics cannot be as fundamental as usually claimed for a correct description of reality.

Thank you for your encouraging words.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
Dear Teacher Eckard Blumschein

Very sorry for making "teacher" sad.

My name is Hai: English meaning : Sea.

Expect teachers sympathetic to the my English as "computer automatically type".

Really grateful Teacher was pointed out errors "very silly" about the speed of light in air is 90.000m / s (was misspelled 90.000km / s), although this will not change the problem stated in my essay.

The teacher's question about the "Would it be .. (required) .. more next competition to solved the issue has been raised in this competition."

And also expect teachers sympathy for not review essay of teachers is because:

measures that teachers have used is different measures of me, so I do not want to comment when we do not have the same point of view, to avoid the occurrence of "conflicting ideologies", and of course also with the problem the "inveterate" or "deep-rooted" that teacher have requested.

Hope Teacher satisfied.

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:02 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:36 GMT
Because my English is shaky I am often not sure whether or not I am understanding essays or discussions correctly. For instance 1410, Sep. 13, 09:04:

"If we have for the particle Mvc then the speed of particle is v. If the speed of particle is smaller then v in the case the momentum of particle is smaller then p and the particle has no energy pc/gamma = Mvc."

- smaller then or smaller than? I am not sure.

I hope my mistakes, e.g. assessed instead of accessed, are not misleading.

I did not even manage to access so many essays. I wonder how Sergey Fedosin selected those who were worth to get notified about his assessment. Maybe he intends urging me to read his essay? Well, maybe it needs just time for me to grasp why his nesting does not fit into a frame of absolute reference? Peter Jackson already often put me in the drawer of the stupid ones who do not understand his visions.

Eckard




Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Eckard,

You present some good ideas here. In particular, I think that set-theoretic issues are very relevant to physics. I have run into the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice in my own efforts to understand physics. A few other thoughts:

1. I agree that past and future are objectively different from each other, and that the future is not yet determined. There are a number of ways in which an objective arrow of time can arise. I prefer to take causality as fundamental, in which case time merely agrees with the direction from cause to effect. But even theories with "emergent time" like Barbour's shape dynamics can distinguish past and future by means of "asymmetry of configuration space."

2. I don't know if differential equations will ultimately be good enough even with boundary conditions. This is because differential equations require a differentiable structure in the interior of the region being modeled, and I think this may be too much to assume. Integral equations are physically better in my view, but much harder to work with mathematically.

3. I agree that although "reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism."

4. I think SR probably breaks down on small scales, but that is a long story!

5. You have some nice diagrams!

I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
Dear Ben Dribus,

For decades I understood SR as silicon rectifier. Only discussions here on FQXi caused me to question it. Such heresy was anyway impossible during my scientific career.

Meanwhile I tend to say beauty and Einstein's relativity are only in the eyes of the beholder/observer. I would, however, like to except the beauty of mathematics to a large extent from that judgment.

You uttered interest in the foundations of mathematics. May I recommend to you some books by Spalt? Unfortunately they are all written in German.

My position is less compromising that Spalt's. He did not point out that Leibniz's infinite numbers contradict to the only reasonable notion of infinity. Mueckenheim wrote: Leibniz distinguished three degrees of infinity:

1) what is larger than every countable quantify (including the mathematical oo)

explanations:

1a - pour tout le monde: comparison: elementary particle, globe, firnament

1b - for mathematicians: infinite and infinitesimal numbers are fictions

1c - for philosophers: fictions with a fundamentum in re.

2) what is the largest of its kind

3) God

Leibniz meant the rules of mathematics are valid in the infinite too. This is obviously not the case with oo+1=oo, etc.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 21:38 GMT
Dear Ben Dribus,

Having just read your essay, I feel a bit drunk from the zoo of modernisms you managed to review like an old expert. From your comment on my essay I got quite a different impression: You would like to be an independent thinker. You certainly were clever to abstain from consequent criticism in your essay, and everybody like you accepts "robust experimental confirmation" as compelling. If you were honest you should consider me wrong because my reasoning does not fit into what you learned.

Let me begin with mathematics. Leibniz called his "infinite numbers" infinite relative to something. Strictly speaking they are countable. Hence his method was correct, just based on a mutilated notion of infinity which was later mystified as infinitum creatum sive transfinitum. You used the notion countability correctly. I merely feel bewildered that you then added a word the I would prefer to avoid: cardinality. I see the distinction between countable and uncountable OK but nobody demonstrated any reason for aleph_2.

What about SR vs. an absolute frame of reference, my Fig. 5 does not yet explain what might be wrong around the experiment by Ives. On the other hand, I am vehemently stressing that spacetime is unreal if it is thought to include the not yet existing future. You did not object to my Fig. 1. Be consequent and honest even if it hurts. Your essay hurts me a bit because it avoids hurting others. You cannot eat the cake and have it. Barbour's shape dynamics may distinguish between past and future by means of asymmetry of a configuration space. The decisive and irreversible step is always the abstraction from reality to a model. Because the future is not yet real, I question the reality of spacetime. Moreover, I agree with van Flandern that Einstein's synchronization is an unnecessary de-synchronization, and the constancy of c re observer is logically inconsistent and was experimentally refuted by Shtyrkov.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 22:19 GMT
Anonymous was me.

I would like to request expert comments on http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Ives_Stilwell_Exp_Flawed_
P1.htm

Eckard




Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 07:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,

I'm finding that it's difficult to formulate a quick response to your probing essay. That probably means that your observations are deep enough and paradoxical enough that at least in some cases there may not be a very simple resolution with today's conception of math and physics.

As you know we share the perception that Lorentz invariance is not a complete description of how wave phenomena work, especially with regard to interactions with particles. There weren't quite enough details of Feist's experiment to fully understand the setup and results. I'm seek out his paper and comment further on that. In general though, light waves are transverse in nature while sound waves and many other mechanical waves vibrate in longitudinal directions in space. Outside of a vacuum EM waves do have a longitudinal component, but that component is not self-traveling. It dissipates quickly. So it's not clear yet how applicable the Feist experiment is to EM.

I fully agree on the point you make that negative frequencies cannot be discarded. In fact, in the engineering world, negative frequency values obtained from a Fourier transform are considered just as real and useful as positive frequencies. They merely signify that the wave component travels in the opposite spatial direction as the positive frequency component. Though an alternate conception allows the interpretation of the wave component traveling backwards in time, that interpretation collides with the interpretation of the positive frequency components. It seems forced to split the time parameter into two separate domains.

If you wish to discuss some of those points outside of this forum please feel free to contact me via the email address in a post on an offer to supply a copy of Sir J. J. Thomson's monograph in my forum. There's obviously a lot to discuss in the points made in your essay.

Thanks for your contribution,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:48 GMT
Dear Steve,

Yes, I am probing to some extent today's conception of math and physics as solicited with the topic of this contest. I don't have illusions. Most contestants prefer offering their speculations while they blindly trust in the basics and authorities I am questioning. Someone who did not understand Einstein, disrespects Cantor and Hilbert, and criticizes or ignores my pet deserves to be rated one.

It is perhaps easier to agree on selected claims of my essay than to acknowledge the intrinsic links between the five provocative figures in it.

Let me begin with a question you raised: Do we need negative frequency? Trained at TU Dresden, I was teaching foundations of electrical engineering at Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg for forty years, enough time for a careful scrutiny of complex calculus and its interpretation. Physicists from a freshman up to a Feynman do not devote much attention to the first steps and tend to interpret negative frequencies at which they arrived. They are even ready to split the time into clockwise and anticlockwise domains.

Presumably you did not yet understand me when you wrote:[negative frequencies are] "just as real and useful as positive frequencies". Go back to my Fig. 1. It illustrates an undeniable fact: Future data cannot be measured in advance. Only functions of positive elapsed time can be subject to spectral analysis.

I will explain consequences in the next post.

Eckard




Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 07:39 GMT
Oh yes! Of course I'm going to rate your paper quite highly. And I can say that your use of English in the essay is excellent. If I needed to write something in German, I guarantee you that you would hear baby talk!

With best wishes,

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Eckard,

you said that you would take a look at my essay because the subject of reality is interesting to you.I am still hopeful that you might get the chance to take a look at it before the end of voting. As I value your opinion any feedback you feel able to provide would be much appreciated.

I wanted to begin the task of answering the set essay question (ie identify basic false assumptions in physics) by looking at the problems, both theoretical and philosophical, that need to be resolved as they are indicative of foundational false assumption/s at play. The list structure was necessary because of the character limit imposed by the competition rules. The basic false assumption has repercussions in many areas.

I did not make the essay about my "pet theory", following the advice we were given by the competition organisers, but I do see its use as necessary to give the most useful answer to the set essay question. Here's a link to a web site that explains more.RICP explanatory framework There is an older version of diagram 1. on that site. I have put a link to the high resolution file of the latest version, used in the essay, on my discussion thread.

Respectfully, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I see it as a false assumption that objective reality is what we see, hear, feel, or measure. You thoroughly dealt with the matter, and I expect you to confirm this opinion of mine. What we see is only a subjective picture of objective reality. I will read your essay in order to check whether you arrived at the conclusion that Einstein's relativity and beauty are only in the eye of the observer/beholder. Presumably you would not win high scores with this correct and necessary insight.

Best,

Eckard



Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT
Yes Eckard I do confirm that opinion of yours as stated in your previous post. By objective reality I understand you to be referring not to a reality that can be confirmed by another observer but a reality that exists independently of observation.

Thank you, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Yes Georgina, and Einstein synchronization depends on an observer. I hope we will nonetheless support each other.

Best,

Eckard




Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:40 GMT
Eckard

Sorry I missed this, having been away on holiday.

“his obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity”

This concept does reflect physicality, it is just misconceived (ie it is not an illusion). As far...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:45 GMT
Paul,

I admire your efforts to preach presentism to those who might share a slightly different view. I hope we can nonetheless respect each other. What about infinity, I agree with you on that one cannot find in reality anything that is evidently absolutely infinite. Assumed infinity of space and time are potential infinities when seen from human perspective.

You seem to defend a "just misconceived concept". Did you refer to Einstein's belief that the separation between past and future is just an illusion? Wouldn't this contradict your explanation "not an illusion".

Anyway, I am more interested in arguments against what I am claiming in my essay.

Eckard



Paul Reed replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
Eckard

If I remember correctly, because you have said this before, it is not presentism. Anyway, I do not care what it is, the point is that knowledge supposed to be objective must correlate with physical reality as it is independently manifest. And it is really quite easy to establish, generically, how that must be. Which brings me to this notion of 'points of view', there is only one, because physical existence only occurs in one form. And indeed, it is from the "human perspective". Precisely what other perspective is there?

I referred to Einstein only in the sense that it was a quote you used. My point, which is correct, was about past, present, future. The point about 'illusion' was that that would have no experienceable substantiation. But there is a physical reality reflected in these concepts of past, present, future, it is usually just not that which actually occurs.

"I am more interested in arguments against what I am claiming in my essay"

Indeed, but if your base concepts about the reality being modelled by mathematical constructions is incorrect, then that becomes a reundant exercise.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 08:44 GMT
Paul,

Human perspective means what you are calling manifest in opposition to ideal constructs including the divine perspective imagining a sight from out side. For instance, a point is not tangible. I also maintain, the very moment is strictly speaking not manifest.

You are correct: If my "base concepts about the reality being modelled by mathematical constructions" were wrong then one could not expect correct results.

You merely failed to show me where they are wrong.

Eckard




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:03 GMT
Dear Steve,

MP3 is clever and uses cosine transformation. Those who prefer complex Fourier transformation have to follow Heaviside on slippery ground: Analytic continuation means fabricating a future from nothing by assuming it equal to zero and splitting this fictitiously extended function into even and odd components. This is a clever way to benefit from elegant calculus. However, one has to know what one did.

If only the education didn't tempt to ignore such trifles like the difference between reality and model and between the real-valued and one-sided functions of time f(t) and their complex-valued two.sided (apparently symmetrical) function of frequency F(omega). The positive and negative frequencies of F(omega) must not be interpreted separately.

Now you will hopefully be in position to understand my Fig. 2 as serious reproach of current nonsense to be found in many textbooks.

Sorry for that,

Eckard




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT
Dear Steven,

My Fig. 3 may look like overly sophisticated. It is however at the heart of a dispute I had with Hendrik van Hees who blamed me for damaging the reputation of my University. While he soon apologized himself for that, it took me a lot of energy to force him to admit that he was wrong.

My claim was and is that Fourier transformation of the real-valued uni-lateral f(t) in IR+ is just redundant as compared to the simpler cosine transform in IR.

HvH was reluctant to admit that IR+ is as mathematically correct as is IR. In my essay 833 I pointed to some related worries about zero and offered a plausible solution to the question how to deal with zero in case of splitting IR into IR+ and IR-. This solution is illustrated in the lower part of Fig. 3.

Best,

Eckard




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Steven,

My Fig. 4 questions the appropriateness of ZFC in physics while it was adopted from Fraenkel himself 1923. At that time Fraenkel followed G. Cantor who denied the 4th logically possible relation between two objects. Of course, something that is incomparable cannot be numerically expressed. The late Fraenkel admitted that Cantor's set theory is merely more colorful than a less bizarre alternative.

Eckard




Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Perhaps I did miss a nuance in your assessment of negative frequencies. It wasn't quite clear what you were claiming. Your posts here do help. I pointed out that, of course, a negative frequency does not have to be associated with backwards progressing time which is apparently your main concern.

And yes, I agree that the cosine transform is just as valid to perform as the Fourier transform. The only drawback is that the result you get doesn't generate the phase relationships between the various frequency components. Which is perfectly adequate in many applications.

So much more than that I don't have the time to devote on this subject. Sometimes it doesn't pay to over-complicate a simple problem. I hope you don't feel that I made a mistake in rating your essay.

With best wishes,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Steven,

My main concern is correct reasoning including correct mathematics. Fourier transformation (FT) vs. cosine transformation (CT) is indeed not a complicated problem. Nonetheless, most experts perhaps including you consider CT just a special case of FT with limited application. Well, CT is absolutely equivalent to FT (except for the arbitrarily chosen in IR point of reference) only with the assumption that reality is real-valued and one-sided. Then FT is twice redundant, i.e., IR contains four identical copies of reality.

I have to fear that virtually nobody here will rate my essay correctly and more importantly accept the consequences concerning symmetry issues in physics.

I will return to the wave issue later.

Best,

Eckard



Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Steven,

You wrote: "As you know we share the perception that Lorentz invariance is not a complete description of how wave phenomena work, especially with regard to interactions with particles. There weren't quite enough details of Feist's experiment to fully understand the setup and results. I'm seek out his paper and comment further on that. In general though, light waves are transverse in nature while sound waves and many other mechanical waves vibrate in longitudinal directions in space. Outside of a vacuum EM waves do have a longitudinal component, but that component is not self-traveling. It dissipates quickly. So it's not clear yet how applicable the Feist experiment is to EM."

Before I got retired I was with at an institute for electronics, signal processing and communication technology. Therefore I got a bit familiar with TEM waves in cavities as well as with acoustics waves and a comparison between them. You are quite right, TEM and acoustic waves are different to some extent. Nonetheless I realized that Feist's result cannot be explained if one adopts the reasoning by Lorentz to acoustics. I wrote that neither Feist nor Bruhn explained Feist's measurement. I should correct me and say convincingly explained. Meanwhile Feist sent me an arXiv paper (24 pages in German) in which he theoretically justified his measurement. I cannot recommend reading it because Feist dealt with many marginalia including Ritz, Pashky, and Marinov transformation. His own explanation is similar to mine but about as geometrical and worrying as Marmet's attack on MMX.

Norbert Feist wrote (my translation): As I was informed by Dr. Karl Mocnik/Graz in December 2000, he had already 10 years ago realized that Michelson experiments with sound have the same outcome as the optical ones.

Just some details: Width of the transducer 2 cm, width of the reflector much larger.

Best,

Eckard




Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 12:49 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Would it be possible for you to write up something additional to clarify the issues you bring up? I believe you are entitled to submit 2 files inside this forum.

I'm thinking it would help very much and be more convincing if you laid out a detailed list of assumptions, dependencies and inferences in a step-by-step manner similar to the procedure followed for a math proof.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your suggestion. In the meantime I wrote a short file forerunner that refers to a post of you.

Best,

Eckard

attachments: 1_forerunner.doc



Stephen M Sycamore replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Rather than respond to Peter's response I'd rather, first of all, formulate a direct response to your notes. I believe you are well justified in questioning whether EM fluctuations always proceed at c from an emitting body. Since we have no means to directly measure that (without involving a test particle) that velocity must be inferred. From a theoretical standpoint, quantum theory does not furnish the tools to model the emission process as far as I know. One reason for that is that very much of quantum theory is built from relativistic or non-relativistic kinematics by-passing dynamical formulations leaving only before-emission and after-emission states.

It would seem natural that the emission process is quite similar to the absorption process except that the sequence of events and propagation of waves is reversed. In both cases the process involves a photon unless the wave fluctuations are non-photonic, that is, involve only an exchange of displacement current. (I'll assume we want to avoid a description involving virtual photons). Such non-photonic experiments could conceivably be carried out by charging moving capacitors. So the resolution of your concern would probably require the consideration of a number of different experiments plus a consistent and rigorous formulation of emission theory. I'd have to see Professor Omar's analysis before commenting on that.

It may also be the case that a proper EM model that demonstrates the Sagnac effect can illuminate the situation. As I've said a number of times, I believe a rigorous mathematical model for rotating objects must be done using SU(2) algebra. Doing so should relate the absolute qualities of rotation to the relative qualities of linear wave propagation, providing an anchor in time and space for the relative velocities.

So yes, any assumption of emission at c is preliminary and requires more investigation.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your cautious response. You might find a more clear representation of Jackson's basic idea in topic 1448 by Kingsley-Nixon where Fig. 1 clearly illustrates what I consider obviously fallacious at least in case of acoustic waves.

1448 is also a good guide to what I consider Jackson's maneuvers. For instance, Jackson, who managed so far only to publish in viXra offered to Ernst Fischer:

"I believe our work is very compatible and could be valuably co-joined to be far greater than the sum of the parts (but you'd have to collect the Nobel). I hope you may agree."

I will either find at least one of Omar's papers somewhere in my computer or ask himself for another copy.

Eckard




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 00:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Congratulations, I'm very happy to see you as a finalist!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 01:51 GMT
Yes Eckard,

It appears that the community has appreciated your work after all. Assuming no further chaotic oscillation in the ratings; I congratulate you as a finalist.

You deserve to have your work seen and reviewed by the experts. Knowing you; I am sure their feedback - even stern criticism - would be worth as much as appreciation from the average reader. But alas; that will be left unknown. May the judges treat you well, in the way that they can.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 07:08 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Steve Sycamore suggested to me something like an attempt to summarize the essence of my essay. Asking myself for the key assumption to start with I tend to focus on the notion of reality in contrast to e.g. Einstein's notion of it. I did not yet reply to your hint on the finding that a child has to learn distinguishing between himself and his surroundings. And yes, oneness is an issue.

All the Best,

Eckard



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
Hello Eckard,

Regarding the statement that "a child has to learn distinguishing between himself and his surroundings," and the issue of oneness; I think this is a key point, often missed, that bears close inspection. If the universe had a beginning, I think it likely that it originated from an undifferentiated state, and that oneness is an essential quality that helps to define existence. We can speak about there being no topology before the first distinction, recognizing that topology is defined by the topological distinction between the two sides of any boundary or surface. In some sense; such distinctions belie the notion that oneness is by nature encompassing, existing on both sides, as well as in the boundary.

Oneness can be referred to as identity, sameness, self-agreement, self similarity, and so on. The Chinese philosophers talk about something called Wu-Ji, the state beyond and before distinctions that create duality or comparisons. Wu-Ji is said to exist before Tai-Ji - which is sometimes translated as 'grand ultimate' - because oneness is assumed to be more fundamental than greatness. The Chinese word for Physics is similar - Wu-Li.

I'm working on a universal protocol for measurement or determination, and step one is to assume oneness. From the individual perspective, who, where, and what I am is assumed to be identical with myself, and not different from anything else. So when a child does not initially distinguish between him or herself and the surroundings, maybe that little baby knows something we tend to forget.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

To me, the assumption of oneness is an important step of abstraction. It has been indispensable for mathematics at least since Euclid.

I would never guess that "little baby knows something we tend to forget". They are blind when they make steps we are not aware of.

I humbly admit being an engineer who decided to abstain from speculations about the beginning of the universe. I see still enough chances even for a nobody like me to contribute improvement in the accessible to logics and experiments very foundations of mathematics and physics.

All the Best,

Eckard




Anonymous wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 04:45 GMT
Congratulations Eckard!

You are finalist!

Yuri

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
Your work is mentioned here

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1383#post_68802

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 20:09 GMT
Anonymous Yuri,

I see LC a tragic figure with rather imperfect education and rude manners. Otherwise he did not write "Einstein's anus mirabilis" and did not write: "some other papers ... such as Tamari, Blumschein, Klingman, Leshan, Merryman which either have factually wrong physics, advance silly propositions and in some cases clearly show a lack of basic understanding of physics." He tends to strongly dislike my criticism, and the contest provides a good opportunity for him to take issue and show at least a weakness in my essay. Obviously he did not find anything in it he could seriously object to. Instead he decided to insult me and others in public without uttering a single factual argument and even without signaling his insult to us. Should I urge him to get factual? You know, I appreciate most if someone reveals a mistake of mine. Frankly speaking, I do not expect a single valuable criticism from LC. So let's ignore him. Nonetheless thank you for the information.

Eckard




Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Eckard,

Let us juxtapose an emission theory and a normal (that is, non-relativistic) wave theory:

Emission theory:

1. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the light source.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

Wave theory:

1. The speed of light relative to the observer DOES NOT VARY with the speed of the light source.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.

As you can see, the emission theory and the wave theory share Proposition 2 which contradicts special relativity. I must admit however that the wave theory defends Proposition 2 much better than the emission theory so in my essay I was forced to use the wave theory, not the emission theory:

Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 20:47 GMT
Pentcho

If you consider both cases, then I believe your essay would become uniquely good.

May I suggest;

2. Is modified to "The speed of light approaching and passing by the observer varies with respect to the observer subject to the speed of the observer."

2a. The speed of light interacting with and passing through the observers lens is changed to c wrt the observer.

The underlying theme of my essay is that in many areas there are TWO cases not the one we assume. I suggest this is a key example.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Peter,

Your post is possibly understandable within the context of a discussion on your essay in your thread.

I asked you there to defend yourself.

Eckard



Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 09:51 GMT
Eckard

I responded to your post on my blog with more links (as you felt one was inadequate) and don't have Google. (I refer to your post about my wishful thinking and lack of knowledge).

You suggest my; "reasoning starts with the wrong for waves in the far field assumption that the wave speed re medium depends on the emitter."

The exact reverse is true. You had understood that a few weeks ago but seem now to have forgotten again. I can find no cause for this except that again you didn't follow my advice for gaining better comprehension. I've suggested we all need to dig deeper to find and remove those assumptions which we otherwise revert back to as a 'default mode' the moment we loose concentration.

In fact this is as true for sound, your familiar subject, as it is for light. The signal from the ear to the brain has a 'wavelength', which varies subject to the motion of the body. I suggest a calculation will show this also differs from the wavelength in the 'outside' medium. It would take a completely fresh view of the familiar to see the important consequences of this; The frequency is inversely proportional to lambda, as speed is controlled by the local medium. It is precisely the same for em waves.

I think my full reply on my string should straighten this out. You say you defer to Steve Sycamore's expert view. I also respect Steve's view and believe he'll unequivocally confirm the above. I'll flag this conversation up for Steve to comment.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 16:57 GMT
Eckard

You asked of; "a single (thus 'local') frame"? I responded on the long string on my blog as follows;



"I agree it does need more explanation. I'm now so familiar with the new simple logic I forget how relatively confusing the previous understanding was.

Perhaps a simple interpretation of Tejunders 'continuous spontaneous localization' will help. That is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 00:13 GMT
Hello Eckard,

A reply to your comment about oneness was made above.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Viraj Fernando wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT
Dear Eckard,

You wrote in your essay: “Those who signed for clarification concerning the twin paradox [5] are blamed for not understanding the twin paradox that the twin paradox is not a paradox but merely counterintuitive. While the signers dispute this, they are unable to agree on an alternative. The majority within this minority prefers only to distrust Einstein’s relativity...

view entire post


attachments: 17_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear Viraj,

I need some time for reading and commenting on your essay. Einstein's relativity is just punctually crossing my line of reasoning. If you are interested in a broader perspective you might read the attached file. I am always happy if someone tells me what he does not understand.

Best,

Eckard

attachments: Robert.doc



Viraj Fernando replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thanks for letting me know that you intend to read my essay and comment on it.

I would like to let you know that my essay directly addressed to topic of the competition – namely the primordial foundational problems (unlike many other essays - yet ironically it is way down in the list).

To quote: “We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts...

view entire post


attachments: 18_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 09:22 GMT
"a physical, not a mathematical, reason to throw away the negative frequency solutions" ?? I picked up this utterance of Edwin Eugene Klingman in a recent discussion.

I have to shameful admit that I too shared the idea of thrown away information about twenty years ago. Complex quantities can also be equally represented in terms of magnitude and phase or in terms of real and imaginary part. Twenty yeast ago I still wondered why the cochlea throws away the inaudible phase and does nonetheless outperform theory-based signal processing.

Meanwhile I advocate for clean use of mathematics. It may sound arrogant and hurting but I do not see an alternative: We must learn to better know what we are doing. George Ellis pointed me to the Feynman lectures. I recall having looked in vol. 2, about ten years ago, for how the author introduced the use of complex calculus in physics. I merely found out that he always calculated correctly. In the mean time, our library got vol. 1 too, and here the author explicitly revealed that he merely adopted what has been common practice for more than 100 years and was what was initially used with quantum mechanics until the receipt "real part of" was dropped without any explaining comment.

My Fig. 3 intends to show that there is no general transformation into the complex domain but a correspondence either between unilateral real time and complex frequency or between unilateral real frequency and complex time.

Eckard



Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 27, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Fig. 2, not Fig. 3, shows to the left the most common FT and to the right the FT that applies in case of QM and also of analytic signals.

Eckard




Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 10:35 GMT
Eckard

Don't feel guilty (your post above). My responses are somewhat long because I try my best to explain myself. Anyway, here is a new approach. An exchange with Ben Dribus prompted me to rewrite two previous papers, and I have just posted the first half, which summarises what I had been saying to him, on his blog (my post 28/10 16.11). And ovelaps with the substance of our exchange here, which stopped at 17 posts. Have a look at that. Sorry I don't know how to do links

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Eckard,

Did you see the Wesley take on Feist? (below). Also Harald van Lintel presented one at the 2003 NPA Conference in Storrs, CT, as noted by Tom Miles in a recent 'Dissidents' post. He apparently found the results of a repeat experiment 'inconclusive'.??

Wesley makes a distiction beween energy velocity and phase velocity.

Wesley_PhysEssays_v17n2(2004)159-165.pdf

Neither perceive the 'missing' point that it is not possible to have a real 'frequency' f without a corresponding wavelength once the detector and wave have interacted (and no interaction = no detection, so only 'apparent' not real f). So deriving local CSL.

I see Wesley as at least partly misguided, and haven't read van lintel.

Your views on all 3 subjects ??

Hope you're well. Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 22:43 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for the hint. I was not aware of Wesley. Here is the abstract of his paper you referred to (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3025664):

"Classi
cal waves in a medium, valid for light and for sound, involve two velocities, the phase velocity c′ and the energy velocity c, which in general are different both in direction as well as in magnitude. Doppler effects for a moving source and observer and for a wind are derived. The out‐and‐back phase velocity of a wave in a wind is proved to be isotropic according to classical wave theory, which explains the Michelson‐Morley null result as simply a classical Doppler effect. Feist has recently experimentally demonstrated the isotropy of the out‐and‐back phase velocity of sound in a wind, thereby confirming classical wave theory and duplicating for sound the Michelson‐Morley null result for light." This seems to be correct. The link you gave was perhaps faulty.

Miles is suspect to me. I will nonetheless search for Harald van Lintel NPA 2003.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 21:04 GMT
Attached is part 1 of the Mistake by Michelson and Morley.

attachments: MichelsonMorleys_Mistake.doc

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Eckard

This may be a mistake, but it is not the mistake.

That is that with the conflation of reality and light reality, light speed becomes the time reference of reality. Which it may or may not be, coincidentally (ie from the perspective that it is what evolution used to develop sight). Also, coincidentally, observational light tends to be constant in that it is the result of an atomic interaction, not collision, and any startng speed is maintained unless impinged upon. That is considering light as a phyical enity, which it is, rather than some mysterious phenonomenon, which it is not. If light speed is actually the fastest rate of change there is, then it becomes the time reference for physical existence. But this needs to be proven. Which requires something more than, 'we cannot see anything faster'!! Precisely how one goes about that is somebody else's problem.

Paul

PS: I have completed a paper but want to read it through, finally. I will post it on my blog but I cannot do links, so if you want a copy send to paulwhatsit@msn.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 09:27 GMT
Paul,

If M&M made a mistake then this may put length alteration in question. Didn't you believe in it? Weren't length contraction and time dilution crutches as to explain the null result of M&M? Are they required if the expectation by M&M was wrong?

While I wouldn't like to be as impolite as was James Putnam towards you, I fear you are overestimating the value of your musing. Even if we agree on that the pre-Einsteinian notion of simultaneity is still justified, you must not ignore all theory. When I was an EE and teacher for four decades, I got quite familiar with electromagnetic as well as acoustic waves, not with photons and phonons.

You did already write a lot in your essay and in discussions.

Providing attachments to your post is quite easy. I am seeing "Add/Edit Attachments" below the line that begins with "Submit New Post". Maximum file size for attachments is 1 MB.

However, I wonder if you will be in position to utter an original contribution.

Eckard



Paul Reed replied on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 06:44 GMT
Eckard

Sorry forgot to check back for a response.

It would be very interesting to repeat/identitfy precisely what the M&M experiments did or did not prove. By definition, light, which is a travelling physical entity, must go slower one way as opposed to the other when its movement is referenced wrt another moving entity (eg earth). The fact that its speed is ‘refreshed’ at the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 00:18 GMT
Please find illustrated how Michelson and M. went wrong and mislead us: Version 2, still far from complete, not even proofread. The consequences should be obvious to everybody. Please do not hesitate to question what you learned from Lorentz, ...

Eckard Blumschein

attachments: 2_MichelsonMorleys_Mistake.doc




Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT
Eckard,

Your short Michelson-Morley document refers to diagrams which are missing. Can you send me a file with the appropriate diagrams at bdribus@hotmail.com? Thanks, and take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 22:47 GMT
Ben,

I considered my revelation of the mistake understandable, in principle, for those who are familiar with the enigma, although it was just beginning to explain it. In particular it took me time to design and draw the figures, select appropriate symbols, and check several references. I decided to make my very immature file public before I got medical treatment in a hospital.

Meanwhile I managed to almost finish the first draft of "The mistake by Michelson and Morley" including four figures and a selected very few of many belonging references. I overwrote the old version while letting the file name unchanged. Just download the file again as to get the last version.

Please do not hesitate signaling to me if something is not understandable to you. My English is shaky because I got the chance to learn and use it not earlier than in 1992 when I was already 50 years old.

Thanks very much for your interest,

Eckard



Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Please find "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley" attached in the version of today, Nov. 29, 2012

Sorry for inconvenience,

Eckard

attachments: Mistake.doc



Paul Reed replied on Dec. 1, 2012 @ 06:36 GMT
Eckard

Good stuff. It's interesting what can be found out by just going back to the original and applying common sense, rather than replayingthe urban myths that have grown up since.

Leaving aside specific comments on M&M, I think, and you can understand the technical stuff, I can't, Lorentz & Poincare pursue arguments that reject the null result. Anyway, they, along with Einstein,ignore it. Effectively they presume the ether, whatever it is, to have no effect. Poincare found the M&M results "rather astonishing". The immediate explanation for it, ie dimension alteration, how that occurred, and its value as gamma is carried through but explained away by timing variations, which do not actually exist.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
Eckard

As per your response in Ben’s blog:

A) Re Fig 1: you will have to explain the point you were making in that post. As here we are back to my original comments when first reading your essay, which resulted in 17 exchanges but no conclusion. That is:

1 “his [Einstein’s] obviously unrealistic denial of past and future in theory is a consequence of a very old fallacy which is hidden within the assumption that our commonly agreed event-related time scale is a basic physical quantity”.

2 “time can strictly speaking not be measured at all”

Time can be measured very easily, but it is more important to understand what it actually is. Furthermore, in physical terms, there is no future, and the relevance of the past is that certain specific aspects of it, are each responsible for the next occurrence in the sequence (ie cause and effect). Einstein did not deny past/future, as such.

B) Re exchange with George Ellis: I will now try and track this down.

It would help if you read my post on my blog of 18 November, which summarises what I have been saying all the time, specifically in respect of Einstein.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT
Eckard

I presume the exchange you referred to ran in 3 different threads in early November.

1 Infinity

There is no such thing as infinity in the physical existence we are examining. Because we are trapped in a closed system, ie a form of existence which is finite. Assertions outwith that form can only be belief, ie ‘anything goes’ and is of equal validity, or...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 3, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Paul,

Where did I write "time can strictly speaking not be measured at all"? Did I erroneously omit specifying that future and abstract time cannot be measured?

Anyway, before dealing with your opinions I would like to reach clarification who is correct:

- Israel Perez who advocates Selleri's mere reinterpretation of Einstein's relativity

or

- I with my file "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley"?

Eckard




Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 06:00 GMT
Eckard

Para 3 of your essay. The next sentence is: "The notion time has been derived from elapsed time (see Fig. 1) which is a concrete, absolute, and always positive measure." Which is correct in so far as difference indicates to us that reality is altering. But the speed at which change occurs can be measured. This is known as timing, the unit of measure being time. What is being measured is the turnover rate of reality (either in its entirety or conceptualised sub-sequences thereof). You cannot measure the future it does not physically exist.

If you are referring to how relativity is wrong, then it is my "opinion" that is correct, and what I have been saying for the past 18 months. I do not know about Israel's comments, I seem to remember reading something by him early on, have you got a reference?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 4, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Paul,

Yes, one "cannot measure the future". I add: One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs.

What about Israel's essay, he recently pointed me to his paper "The physics surrounding the Michelson-Morley experiment and a new aether theory". The "new" theory is a neo-Lorentzian one largely by Mansouri and Sexl (1977), by Tangherlini, by Selleri, and by others, cf. also Van Flandern. Seen by the mainstream, Israel is a dissident. Nonetheless, he did not yet see the mistake I am trying to make aware of. The overlookes mistake even affects the position by R. Cahill and some reasoning by Norbert Feist.

Eckard



Paul Reed replied on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
Eckard

“One cannot even measure the speed at which change occurs because any measured timespan belongs to the past. One can only measure what occurred, not what occurs”

This is a statement of the obvious, so I am not sure where it is taking you. Leaving aside actual practicalities of doing so, which is a different issue to the logically possible, measuring the speed of change is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 5, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Paul,

I question the condition t(b) – t(a) = t’(a) – t(b) for two reasons:

- It is only reasonable if the distance between A and B does not change.

- It also requires that the speed of light is not affected by a common motion of A and B re space.

The latter condition corresponds to the seeming result of MMX. If I recall correctly, it was already Lorentz who had the idea of local time(s). Notice, Lorentz intended to rescue the aether against the unexpected null result of MMX. That's why I consider the revelation of a logical mistake in Michelson's expectation still important.

By the way, if you don't understand the notion two-way speed then I will try and explain it in connection with the opinions by Israel Perez vs. Norbert Feist.

Eckard




Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 15, 2012 @ 05:48 GMT
Eckard

""everything is moving" ??? If the universe is moving, what does its speed refer to?"

No, I am saying we must presume everything is moving, which effectively is the same end result, but the correct expression. Because we have no absolute reference against which to make a judgement. And if you, or someone else you know thinks otherwise, explain to me what that something is,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 07:10 GMT
Pentcho Valev wrote in "Questioning the Foundations - Results" on Dec. 15, 2012, 20:03 GMT:

"It's not a matter of honesty and courage. I am simply unable to understand your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment so at least in my case it's a matter of (insufficient) intelligence perhaps. If I were in your shoes, I would stick to some good textbook presentation of the Michelson's rationale (there are plenty of them) and show where exactly and how exactly my assumptions differ from his."

I anticipate distrust, unwillingness, and more or less pretended laziness hindering the insight that Michelson's famous expectation to measure the aether wind was seemingly plausible but wrong. Therefore I will add a part 2 to my file "The Mistake by Michelson and Morley". I would appreciate hints if the already attached file is not yet compellingly understandable. Isn't the flaw I got aware of quite easily to be seen from the figures? The plenty of literature, including textbooks, mainstream papers, historical studies, and dissident criticism overlooked that two relevant lines of reasoning must be considered together.

- As already the 1887 supplement, Paul Marmet's consideration and Israel Perez' paper correctly calculated, the motion of the arrangement re medium alters the angle of reflection. This was originally overlooked by Michelson 1881 but then corrected perhaps by Potier and Lorentz and now described in all literature.

- Perhaps nobody so far considered where the perpendicularly reflected light returns to the beam splitter. This can also easily be calculated. It leads to the surprising result that no interference fringes are to be expected in vacuum.

Eckard



Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Eckard,

If your assumption of "where the perpendicularly reflected light returns to the beam splitter" is the only difference between your interpretation and Michelson's one, then you should draw the following conclusions from your analysis:

1. The principle of relativity is false.

2. The speed of light relative to the observer does not depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate is correct).

3. The speed of light relative to the observer does depend on the speed of the observer (special relativity is wrong).

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 16, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Pentcho,

Please let's not comment before carefully analyzing. I just mentioned a fake that got blindly accepted from the community because it seemed to confirm theory, and you yourself experienced blind rejection because the result or your reasoning was not acceptable.

Did you really already understand my arguments? If so, I did not expect you to speak any longer of different interpretations of the non-null expectation for the outcome of the 1887 experiment. Even if you feel hurt by the insight that the expectation of non-null result was wrong, you should be forced to accept it.

You and almost all others could hope that I made a mistake, if there was not easily understandable experimental evidence by Norbert Feist too. I do not belittle work by many critics of Lorentz transformation including Stephen Sycamore and Thomas Phipps. I just prefer the immediate and complete falsification of the MMX expectation. I am asking: What was definitely wrong? If I am correct, then there is no doubt: Michelson's conclusion that the result of his experiment excluded the existence of a common frame of reference was wrong and misleading.

Eckard



Paul Reed replied on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 06:02 GMT
Pentcho/Eckard

In 1905 Einstein presumed:

-light starts at a constant speed, ie independently of the speed of the entity involved

-light continues to travel at that speed unless impeded in some way

In SR this is also what he assumed because there is no gravitation, ie it is again in vacuo. In GR he also assumed this, because the effect on light, ie an example of an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
When I wrote my essay, Marmet's paper "The overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment" was for a while not available to me. That's why I did not quote it. Marmet was not quite correct when he wrote that the Michelson-Morley ignored the influence of the velocity on the angle of reflection. Moreover, his Figures are rather confusing. Nonetheless he already came to the correct conclusion which is also experimentally confirmed by Feist.

Eckard




Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 15, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Please find attached a still unfinished pdf of Jan. 15, 20013

"Michelson's Still Illusory Expectation".

I apologize for not having enough time.

Eckard Blumschein

attachments: Michelsons_Still_Illusory_Expectation.pdf



Paul Reed replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 06:09 GMT
Eckard

Sorry this is rushed.

The flaw in your thinking is the presumption of ‘nothing’ as a reference. This cannot be achieved. Neither did people mean this.

“Maxwell imagined light an electromagnetic wave propagating in empty space with constant speed c relative to (abbreviated below as re) this hypothetical medium”.

What he meant was that under ‘perfect’...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT
Paul,

Well, Maxwell imagined electromagnetic waves belonging to a hypothetical medium called ether, and Michelson was possibly skeptical about this idea when he wrote: "ASSUMING then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, WOULD depend on the direction in which it travels” [my emphases].

I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the hypothetical ether and the hypothesis of just one preferred frame of reference called empty space. Likewise I deliberately use the letter c for the constant velocity of light as for the constant velocity of sound although c originally stood for celeritas not for constant re medium.

The question how do the single elements of the world depend on each other via empty space challenged e.g. Guericke to perform utterly important experiments. In contrast to Michelson, v. Guericke was not an agnostic. Your naive style of reasoning would not allow you to trust in the theory of electromagnetic fields.

My file "Michelson's Still Illusory Expectation" tries to show that the reasoning behind Michelson's experiment was still incomplete after Michelson and Morley took the objection by Potier in account.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 05:20 GMT
Eckard

"I do, however, not see the necessity to distinguish between the hypothetical ether and the hypothesis of just one preferred frame of reference called empty space."

So what is the reference against which the comparison to establish difference (in this case speed) is being made, it has to be something. And whatever these entities are, a distinction is always made between 'ether' and 'light'. Also, what is "empty space"? My "naive reasoning" is just analysing phenomena at the generic level. For example, light is a specific physical entity and it moves.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Author Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 5, 2013 @ 04:53 GMT
Being uncertain again about my future abilities, I attach what I found out by Mart 4, 2013.

Eckard

attachments: Michelsons__Illusory_Expectation.doc



Author Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 09:18 GMT
Meanwhile I have to correct myself. While the expectation by Michelson and Morley was indeed still a bit incorrect, they already noticed this, and Michelson was already correct in 1881 in that Maxwell's idea of relative motion between earth and aether was untenable. Please find my explanation in this essay .

Eckard




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.