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.

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

Quantum Antigravity: on 4/17/17 at 23:20pm UTC, wrote EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —...

karoly kehrer: on 2/11/17 at 22:12pm UTC, wrote Sounds promising Thanks But reading the remarks It IS confusing HOW COULD...

Steve Agnew: on 8/16/15 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote The dying universe represents a universal decay that is very similar to my...

Steve Agnew: on 8/13/15 at 3:20am UTC, wrote ...and of course, just in time, the decay that I have been waiting for... ...

Steve Agnew: on 8/9/15 at 14:52pm UTC, wrote What we observe when we look up into the night sky are dots of light that...

Steve Agnew: on 8/8/15 at 17:28pm UTC, wrote It is very useful to go back and refine my ideas of a discrete matter...

Steve Agnew: on 6/5/15 at 13:26pm UTC, wrote That space and motion are emergent versus matter and time as emergent is...

John Cox: on 5/31/15 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Steve, Be careful, too, in assuming space is nonexistent. There is no...



FQXi FORUM
September 22, 2017

ARTICLE: Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

doug wrote on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
CIG Theory combines quantum physics with relativity.

This is the MTS equation.

T = %"c"

M = Matter

S = Space (vacuum energy)

www.CIGTheory.com

It is offered as a quantum gravity theory.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
"Quantum mechanics and relativity are based on two different conceptions of time. In quantum mechanics (...) this collapse occurs at one precise time. Relativity, by contrast, tells us that different observers can disagree on when in time an event occurred."

The special relativity's conception of time is the wrong one. It is a consequence of the principle of constancy of the speed of light which is false:

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

For light waves v=c and we have:

f' = c'/L = (c+vO)/L

where L=(lambda) and c'=c+vO is the speed of light relative to the observer. Clearly special relativity is violated.

The relativistic corrections add a factor of gamma but this does not save special relativity:

f' = (gamma)c'/L = (gamma)(c+vO)/L

Even if one advances the absurd assumption that gamma somehow changes the wavelength (L'=L/(gamma)), the formula f'=c'/L' still gives a speed of light relative to the observer, c', different from c. If vO is small enough, gamma can be omitted and the formula c'=c+vO is virtually exact.

Special relativity is incompatible with both non-relativistic and relativistic Doppler effect.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Pentcho,

The view of time is an assumption not a postulate. Remove the silly assumptions and the postulated SR is compatible with QM, as only wavelengths Doppler shift, not 'time'. Frequency is just a number computed from the wavelength MEASURED, and time. How else could you calculate it?

Redner uses the same oversimplification most do. Going straight to 'frequency' because it's the simplest 'observable'. It is only a naive assumption that the wave-length used is the one BEFORE the interaction. As QM says; it is in fact the wavelength as modified BY the interaction that is used. How could it be any other before it 'arrives'? (By the time the 2nd peak arrives the new length is all that can be known). Then 'local c' in all local systems is fully consistent with QM.

Yes all the rubbish attached to SR must be ditched. SR should be defined as Einstein finally stated "entirely contained within the postulates". So ditch contraction and dilation (they're just Doppler shift) and allow non absolute background frames in all cases.

This is the correct tree to 'bark up'. All the problems and inconsistencies are then resolved. The ubiquitous superluminal motion found in quasar jets is allowed, but is only an 'apparent' speed in the collimated cylindrical structure well known in astronomy, not a 'propagation speed'.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT
Frank Wilczek suggests that special relativity's absurd concept of time is the root of evil:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 18:13 GMT
Petcho,

I agree the Wilczek logic is impeccable. It's the concept of time implicit in the 'interpretations' of SR that is the problem. The postulates themselves are not the issue, and only 'apparently' illogical due to the other wrong assumptions.

As we find; Light always propagats at c locally (or c/n in a medium of n= >1).

Everywhere is 'medium'. 100 observers may then be flying through a 'space' on different vectors, but the light in that space always propagates at c. It's just that no lens has access to any light that's STILL doing so, only the light meeting the lens, which has changed to c wrt the lens.

Emitted light signals are Doppler shifted to moving observers. THAT is 'time dilation' and 'length contraction', both simple Doppler shift of signal wavelengths. You are now pointing at the right target. There IS a common 'now!'

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Sep. 22, 2013 @ 13:34 GMT
Pentcho, Peter, John :

CIG theory is a relativistic theory offering new possibilities, and, where Einstein stopped with matter warping the spacetime continuum, CIG theory takes the next logical step and proves that is the spacetime continuum itself that actually turns into matter.

As regards Time Dilation:

"Where there is a different time there must be a different place. Where...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
"What about testing the gravitational time dilation predicted by general relativity? That's actually one of the simpler tests to carry out."

There is no gravitational time dilation. All such tests in fact measure the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Einsteinians test time dilation, the glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

MIT Department of Physics: "The idea of this experiment is, in effect, to compare the mean time from the creation event to the decay event (i.e. the mean life) of muons at rest with the mean time for muons in motion. Suppose that a given muon at rest lasts for a time tb....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT
The Speed of Light Relative to the Receiver Varies with the Speed of the Receiver

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the motion of the receiver obviously cannot change "the distances between subsequent pulses" and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c, in violation of special relativity.

This conclusion is consistent with the classical Doppler effect but one can easily see that the relativistic corrections change essentially nothing - the speed of light relative to the receiver remains different from c.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT
Pentcho,

If we allow that 'propagation' and 'relative' speeds may be different, then all the problems are solved and the flaw in the assumptions surrounding SR is identified.

If two birds in line approach your car head on, flying at 20mph, they're propagating at 20mph. If you are driving at 80mph, you are 'propagating at 80mph. If you meet? Then it all CHANGES, because the first bird finds it's speed has changed! A moment later so does the second. Your car does not however record the distance between them or frequency as being relevant to their propagation speed BEFORE contact. i.e. The car would need to be 'at rest' (0mph) for the calculation we rather stupidly use to be valid. The birds would then impact in turn at 20mph, so at a LOWER frequency.

The flaw in SR is then NOT in the postulates, as they specify propagation speed, it is in the silly assumption about time you identified above. Time signals will 'Doppler shift' on interaction (photons), just like the birds.

That is the DFM, and why it works logically and empirically. Do you have a better understanding of it now?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 11:30 GMT
Pentcho,

Hoffman's quote is consistent with logical analysis insofar as what changes is the speed of the signals not 'time'. But this is inconsistent with emission theory unless you accept that the mechanism for the speed change applies at ALL MATTER INTERACTIONS. So ALL matter particles then re-emit at c.

Propagation speed is NOT then speed wrt the original emitter, but wrt the last re-emitter!. Please slow down and think about the implications. In diffuse media annihilation of the old speed is gradual (gently curving!).

A dense cloud of particles (ions have the highest coupling constant) will then change the speed of light to c wrt the cloud 'bulk flow' inertial rest frame. The ions then represent a discrete 'field' or frame. All such changes Doppler shift the wavelength (computed/time as the familiar 'frequency').

If all detectors are made of such matter, c is then localised by all detectors to c (or trivially c/n) in the observers frame (by 'local emission theory' if you like). Observers then have no access to wavelength in the previous frame, so incorrectly assume the state they compute is in that frame!

It would be helpful if you could comment specifically on what I write as I do with yours, then any misconceptions can be corrected. A poorly aimed ray gun will never annihilate a target.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 23, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Peter,

If you remove the "silly assumptions," then not only does "time" not redshift, but neither does space. None of this expanding universe nonsense that still assumes a constant speed of light.

So the question is how to explain cosmic redshift as an optical phenomena.

One thing I keep coming back to is there really is no reason quanta have to always be point particles. It is a quantity of energy and it is evident that when it passes through the slits, it is more of a field and in fact it seems possible the wave effects are due to this quantity passing through the slits, rather than integral to the light, just as the point effect is likely due to how it is absorbed by the mass of the detector. So as it is passing mass/gravity fields, the inner side becomes more constricted than the outer side and this bends the light, rather than point particles flowing through "curved space."

Then if we extend that effect in the other direction, such that the deeper and emptier the space being traveled through, the less this light field is being absorbed and re-emitted, thus the less it is being gravitationally constricted. So rather than being shifted to a shorter spectrum, it is expanding outward, like ripples from a stone dropped in water. Thus not only is it redshifted, but the light we otherwise compare it to has been blueshifted....

Thinking out loud here...

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:08 GMT
John M, doug, JC.

That's the heart of nature. When waves meet waves they both 'superpose' and interact, so the less dominant can be influenced. A (counter wound) toroid is a closed wave form with much power. (I agree doug, condensed as a twin vortex 'fermion pair' from the 'continuum', but perhaps most only for a nanosecond!).

Now was it JC or Akimbo who asked this and I forgot to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Douglas W. Lipp wrote on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 12:17 GMT
John, As regards your comment:

"It is a quantity of energy and it is evident that when it passes through the slits, it is more of a field and in fact it seems possible the wave effects are due to this quantity passing through the slits, rather than integral to the light, just as the point effect is likely due to how it is absorbed by the mass of the detector. "

The solution to the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
Peter,

I concur.

THX

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
Peter,

I think that if it can be considered that redshift is an optical effect, just as gravitational effects on light are optical, since they don't involve the source being affected, then the whole big bang model falls apart and there is no need to explain everything from inflation to dark energy and all theories built on this model have to be seriously revisited.

Background...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 14:22 GMT
doug,

Great. Louis Pasteur and I agree about space too. But when he found a column of liquid could create a space from nowhere at the top of the test tube, I think certain assumptions were drawn that need more detailed consideration. i.e. There is absolutely no guarantee the 'space' there may not have been the space always there but between the heavier massive particles in the medium so simply vacated as the most visible medium particles were drawn down.

We know very well it's far from a perfect vacuum, and also that we can't get anywhere near a perfect vacuum, anywhere we've tried (and Pamela has just confirmed the Fermi and AMS findings of far more fermion pairs in space than predicted.) So why is it that humans habitually chose previous beliefs and guesses over implications of well evidenced findings.

We also know those particles have a valid rest frame, and high coupling constant. So what happened to intellect? For me there's too little application of the objective scientific method and rather too much 'religious' belief pervading physics. As optical science has proved. When light passes through your balloon it propagates with respect to the rest frame of your balloon, not any other frame.

The balloon is an inertial system giving a dynamic 'discrete field' model (DFM) whatever it's arbitrary motion wrt anything else. The quantum scattering mechanism doing that alone then unifies physics! Am I on the wrong planet?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 16:49 GMT
doug,

Ooops, make that Pascal! I don't think pressure is measured in Pasteurs!

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
"So the motivation of the fast moving observers experiment is that each observer would have a different notion of what that moment in time is, according to special relativity. If the two satellites that are making the measurements are approaching each other at relativistic speeds, then an observer on each satellite would have the opinion that their measurement took place before the measurement of the other observer. If we wanted to take quantum mechanics literally then there is an open question - a paradox of sorts..."

The absurdities of special relativity (consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate) often plague researchers but in the end the old harmony is restored:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 11:04 GMT
Pentcho,

A fast moving observer will encounter signals more frequently. The other clock will then APPEAR to tick faster. It will however be ticking at the same rate.

This is true within any medium rest frame (inertial system). But signals are re-scattered to local c on entering ALL dielectric systems.

I'm at a bit of a loss how this apparently quite simple dynamic and it's implications don't seem rational to so many. Can somebody please explain why?, or falsify it?

Was I away when aliens attended all schools and removed those cells required for dynamic assimilation. Was it to protect us from ourselves? Or is it just me who doesn't understand?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
Peter,

"A fast moving observer will encounter signals more frequently"

Yes. Similarly, an observer running along the fence will encounter poles more frequently, which means that the speed of the poles relative to him is greater (than that in the case when he is just walking).

Roger Barlow: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the (variable) speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Special relativity is violated.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT
The Lorentz transforms are equally valid whether one is moving toward the source or away from the source. The solutions for time dilation and length contraction are identical for equal by opposite velocities of the observer. In special relativity the equation e=mc2, where e is total energy, is possible only if the direction of travel of the observer is irrelevant.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Douglas W Lipp wrote on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
No, no, no.

YES!

Does anyone understand CIG?

Light is constant only when it is light at full speed. "c' is the max, but mass can travel at many percentages thereof. We can call this Dark Matter at a certain speed, or any one of the known particles. It is Dark Matter because the mass when attempting to escape the sun's gravitational pull, is held back to a certain degree and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 27, 2013 @ 07:05 GMT
Pentcho,

What you are calling idiotic intrigued Max Planck, the man who made Einstein accepted. How can this be understood? Perhaps, we may blame in part Planck's reluctance to swallow alternative theories. Michelson's null result was not and is perhaps still not yet correctly digested.

Everybody expected empty space to behave like a sound-carrying medium and to accordingly show two-way behavior as demonstrated by Norbert Feist's experiment. Feist's data do actually correspond to the Lorentz formula: The two-way speed of the wave depends on the squared velocity of the medium.

Michelson didn't like Einstein's "monster" theory. Nonetheless, he hesitated to accept the perhaps only reasonable explanation of his null result:

Light is his own carrier in empty of matter space, which has no preferred point to refer to. Space just constitutes distances.

Feist was certainly wrong when he claimed that his measurement confirms the ether hypothesis. Instead, it shows that the dependency on squared velocity (as calculated with Lorentz gamma and adopted by Einstein) belongs to the disproved by Michelson ether hypothesis.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil II

Einstein's fundamental rationality-killing step: "the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer":

Thibault Damour: "Textbook presentations of Special Relativity often fail to convey the revolutionary nature, with respect to the "common conception of time", of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil III

Harvey Brown: "It is argued that the methodology of Einstein's 1905 theory represents a victory of pragmatism over explanatory depth; and that its adoption only made sense in the context of the chaotic state of physics at the start of the 20th century - as Einstein well knew."

The state was chaotic because in 1887 scientists failed...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 15:58 GMT
"Einstein’s proof that distant events cannot be unambiguously simultaneous (different observers, moving rapidly with respect to each other, may not always perceive the same time-order of events)."

This will perhaps never persuade me. If one assumes that there is a common now, then it is quite natural to me that observers may perceive pictures of reality that are affected as described by Christian Doppler for one-way propagation. Lorentz gamma was fabricated as to rescue the hypothesis that light is bound to some reference point of space. Michelson's experiment did not confirm this hypothesis. Unfortunately, nobody was ready to accept the consequence of the possibility that space has no beginning and no end and therefore no natural point to refer to.

Who is ready to accept that space is not a medium but just distances?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 1, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil IV

"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 2, 2013 @ 08:50 GMT
Pentcho,

If c depends on gravity, how does this affect epsilon_0 or my_0?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 2, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil V

Rationality in Divine Albert's world is so devastated that Einsteinians can safely make career and money by rejecting the idiotic "relative" time introduced by special relativity and advocating, in one way or another, the old Newtonian time:

"If there's one thing Einstein taught us, it's that time is relative. But physicist Petr Horava...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 17:35 GMT
Neil Turok in a Crazy Situation

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

In his book "The Universe Within" Turok refers to the genesis of the madness:

Neil Turok: "In every argument, there are hidden assumptions. The more deeply...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 4, 2013 @ 21:42 GMT
Pentcho,

Hawking did correctly describe the idea of a light carrying aether relative to which the speed of light could be constant.

I don't have his book at hand. Perhaps he mentioned that Michelson disproved the aether idea.

Did Hawking not see the possibility that the speed of light might neither depend on a medium nor on the velocity of the emitter but it may simply equal to the difference between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of the receiver at the moment of arrival divided by the belonging time of flight?

I see this possibility contradicting to emission theories and to SR but not to Michelson's null result. The current variant of Maxwell's equations does not consider convective terms. Where is the problem?

Eckard

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Neil Turok in a Crazy Situation II

String "theorists" are mad at Neil Turok:

Lubos Motl: "Given the local political influence of this chap, I am seriously afraid that the string theorists and other credible researchers at the Perimeter must even be afraid to publicly point out that their director is a complete idiot. If I were employed there, and yes, it could have happened because I was offered a job, at least in a preliminary way, it's more likely than not that I wouldn't be afraid to point that fact out."

Yet I am sure Turok would agree with Motl that "the second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one":

Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics. The speed of light according to Newton depended on your speed and the speed of the source; something that was in tension with Maxwell's equations." According to Einstein, it must be a constant for all observers."

Einsteinians always agree that the false second postulate is true because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 6, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Lee Smolin blames "Newton, Einstein and all the others" for the crisis in modern physics:

"Physics, he [Lee Smolin] says, is in crisis. What is needed is not more delving into the strange soup of string theory, or any other such work, but a fundamental re-working of the common conception of what physics is. Ever since Plato and up to Newton, Einstein and all the others, physics has been...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
From Wiki:

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

The two-postulate basis for special relativity is the one historically used by Einstein, and it remains the starting point today. As Einstein himself later acknowledged, the derivation tacitly makes use of some additional assumptions, including spatial homogeneity, isotropy, and memorylessness.......

END WIKI

Enter CIG:

CIG Theory is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

At "c", mass manifests itself into a new spatial quantity. Mass follows Lorentz transformation percentages as it offers its equivalency of mass into space. From: Black Hole to Dark Matter to Dark Energy (zero % "c" to full 'c")

CIG Theory's single postulate:

Believe It or Not

I sent Neil Turok my theory years ago but never heard back.

He is probably very busy.



I am confused busy.

Pentcho - do you believe in my theory?

I have become Space.

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 23:46 GMT
Watching: The Uiverse:Microscopic Universe on TV

About the double slit and the concept of going back in time (the electrons are sent through, they are looked at on the other side of the slits but before they hit the screen as interferrence patterns; the act of observing them results in the particle pattern on the sreen; hence, the shows comment that the mere act of observing them imparts a manner of going back in time as though they were measured before they went through the slits which also results in a particle pattern on the screen) (refer to the show).

CIG explanation: there is no going back in time; the act of observing the electron waves collapses them; since to see them (observe) they must be stopped; as stopped they turn massive again (from their CIG spatial equivalence); as particles again they hit the screen with the particle pattern)

slow = particle

fast = space (wave sphere)

Tunneling = fast = spatial = classical particle is now quantum space and can "tunnel" through another classical barrier

Use the CUPI quantification

Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple - CIG Interpretation - the particle changes size according to a rate based equation, so it is bigger when faster (and more vacuum like)

The more we know how much debt the government has, the less we know where it is being spent. Stop to find out where it is being spent, lose track of the debt!

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 11:54 GMT
Peter & Community:

I offer that Dark Matter is Darker than Dark Energy and correct a previous post as follows:

In a post on quantum discord, I stated the following, as partially excerpted:

The space within the expanded balloon is massively Darker matter (since the particles are not traveling that terriby fast, though fast enough to offer up new space) as opposed to the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 16, 2013 @ 15:24 GMT
Doug,

I'm a bit in the dark about matter. I find energy less visible than any matter as I don't rely just on human eye-sight to see either.

To qualify as what's known as dark matter all a particle need to be is non baryonic and have a zero EM 'footprint', which is equivalent to the same refractive co-efficient as the continuum (n=1).

As plasma physics frightens so may theorists away it seems to have gone unnoticed that electron-fermion pairs, now allowed to be condensed as matter and evolve to Marjorm electrons and bosons (protons) by the BEH (Higgs) mechanism, have a very high coupling constant but also n=1.

And of course they are what we find when we go and look. They also give the hide-and-seek game away the moment they move, as they diffract light via JM rotation of the optical axis, as the recent VLBA finding.

However, my guess is that if you paint everything black, then you'll be right, because I don't think you can paint the continuum. It's a bit etherial. But does that matter?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 19, 2013 @ 03:08 GMT
Peter,

Then, if it matters, I gather that you are saying that Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter, which does make some sense in the context that you are offering it.

So, my first post was then the more correct (always go with the first choice- I believe they taught us this in school).

Is this the agreement then amongst cosmologists?

Peter's call.

[ ] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

[ ] Dark matter is darker than Dark Energy

THX always for responding

doug

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 19, 2013 @ 13:22 GMT
doug,

'Agreement' and 'cosmologists' don't correspond. 'Seeing' is in the brain of the beholder, judged only against pre-doctrinated expectations.

On a scale of "what effects what we see most easily", we may superficially say that if we shine light on both and move them, then we can perceive effects fro dark MATTER more easily.

BUT. That may only be because we've not been told that without dark energy we may be able to 'see' anything AT ALL! It may be needed for the transmission of light period!!

In that case it would be far easier to detect it's presence; We can 'see things!

So as Popper pointed out, our deepest foundations are still founded on muddy hidden assumptions.

(And it's too dark down there to see them!)

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 20, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for responding. Very reliable you are.

[x] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

As regards the black hole, perhaps this too is darker than Dark Matter. This would balance the MTS equation. Black hole on one side (very dark indeed). Then, all the particles, standard model, then dark matter. Then on the extreme "S" side of the equation, the dark side of Dark Energy. MTS

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 20, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
Article States:

General relativity also introduced the world to the notion of spacetime, a smooth fabric that pervades the universe and gives rise to gravity as it warps and bends around heavy objects.

End Excerpt

NOTE: The spacetime when fully warped becomes the matter. MTS

www.CIGTheory.com (in need of a rewrite) (P.O.Box down)

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 20, 2013 @ 17:39 GMT
doug,

From the poles black holes are more luminous than any emitter in the universe. That is where gamma ray bursts come from! But best not to stray into the accretion disc.

Look at the NASA (blue) shot of the Cartwheel Galaxy. You can make out the accretion streams pulling in the last of the matter from the disc into the toroidal AGN ('SMBH' in old money). It should start jetting in earnest on the perpendicular axis any moment now (the next Bn yrs). We may find x-ray emissions any time. Don't stand anywhere near the axis, it's hot! The new open spiral galaxy is formed on the new axis (that's the unique DFM prediction).

The shear hypersurfaces of the collimations finish the job not done in the torus body. That's what observation, Rees et al and the DFM suggest anyway. The DFM further suggest the process as simply scaled up for the universe recycling ("Big Blast") at rather longer intervals.

If you'd like to escape it pop out into the halo for a while. But no worries for a few (maybe about 6) Bn years yet.

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 21, 2013 @ 01:46 GMT
Peter,

The NASA (blue) shot of the Cartwheel Galaxy was beautiful (at least on GOOGLE images). Thank you.

I agree that the horizon and poles emit, but that portion of the Black Hole which does not emit, that which is still fully curved spacetime (Blackest Part of the Black Hole) does have similarities with that with no curvature (full vacuum Dark Energy), both being singularities. Both Dark. So, I still see some balance in the MTS equation.

Anyhow, I appear to be going in circles so I'm going to quit for awhile.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT
OK

I think we've digressed from the intent of the article.

So, here is my experiment:

Drop off in the Dark Energy vacuum of space various massive objects. (i.e. tennis ball size of gold, lead, carbon, etc.)But, distinctly far from one another.

First, weigh the object to as many decimals places as possible.

Then, allow to sit in space for as long as feasible.

Then, re-weigh.

In this manner, we are seeding Space with a massive object and it is my contention that the object will gain weight as the space itself will provide it's mass-energy equivalent (Cupi energy) to the plant seed, to find an equilibrium between the fields.

Note, millions (billions?)of years may be required for there to be noticeable weight change.

Only thinking theoretically here.

Your thoughts on my seeding Space in this manner.

THHX

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 26, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Regarding this picture:

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2005/11/16/16nov_
gpb_resources/vortex1_crop.jpg

It is CIG Theory's interpretation of nature that the spacetime fabric has become the matter. The two are manifestations of one another, the same thing essentially. MTS

In this manner, the CIG equation MTS combines space, time, and matter.

It is offered that rate of motion (percentages of "c") is the means by which matter offers itself up as space.

Simply look at the picture. The earth is not only warping the spacetime, IT IS THE SPACETIME

doug - off topic again

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 28, 2013 @ 12:28 GMT
doug,

What observation says is that motion does the job. If the nugget is at rest in the QV it has to wait for recycling (over 5bn yrs.) If in motion it propagates builds up an ion shock (pair production) which increases it's mass and interacts (i.e. ionises) it's surface particles.

It will then weigh more as fermions have G mass, as do the protons they spawn. Put a set of scales in front of it's path and you'll see the difference. it's the DFM real physical difference between rest and inertial mass (see my 2010 essay).

Your suggestion is then largely correct; The continuum energy has 'become' part of the inertial system by condensing matter. It's purely a phase transition. unfortunately it's not all gold. The real pot of gold is the theory itself. Unfortunately, like the fermions, it seems it's initially invisible.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 11:03 GMT
Peter ,

Thank you.

Yes, I agree. But the mass cannot be going to fast because as it travels it loses mass as it becomes Space. The Space collapses to become mass (i.e. virtual particles collapsed from space become massive particles). Everything is attempting to reach equilibrium. Time Equilibrium! MTS

Separately -

Going back a few posts:

In a Quasar Cluster Kill post I said:

The Dark Matter halo surrounding Huge-LQG should be darker than the halo of smaller surrounding galaxies, as the gravitational pullback on light in Huge-LQG slows it down to a greater degree than the smaller galaxies will, and it therefore the newly created space manifests itself as denser "New Heavy Dark Matter Space". Is the technology available to confirm this?

CIG allows for the quasar cluster as it offers a varying cosmological non-constant. These occurrences (i.e. the grouping of large galaxies) are no different than the presence of a large molecule in a sea of hydrogen.

So, I should have said "should be lighter" ?????

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 3, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Unifying the Ununifiable in Divine Albert's World

The Newtonian conception of time is (implicitly) based on the assumption that the speed of light, as measured by the observer/receiver, varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v), just like the speed of ordinary projectiles. Einstein replaced this assumption with its antithesis, his 1905 second postulate - the speed of light is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Dec. 4, 2013 @ 03:39 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

As I understand it,

c = c + v = c - v = c

Proton Radius problem:

My current thoughts:

By using the muon, one has approached the proton field within the field customarily seen differently when using the electron.

For instance, the heavier the object (muon versus electron), the denser the field and the tighter it will appear when measuring the proton radius. Therefore, the radius of the proton will appear smaller than when measuring with an electron as your ruler. As an extreme analogy, measure it with a Dark Energy field and the proton radius will be much greater. Now measure it with a Black Hole, and it will be much smaller. The radius of the proton has not changed. The calibration of the tool (ruler) that you used to measure it has changed. The denser (and slower) muon reflects a different measurement since the field it is calibrated to is tighter and reflects the proton at a denser spacetime measurement point.

One's ruler varies with its own spacetime calibration. The tighter the curvature of ones ruler, the smaller will be the proton radius measured.

For correlating ideas please refer to: www.cigtheory.com

THX for trying to understand

doug

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 4, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
Speed of Light Relative to a Moving Observer

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. Pay attention to the velocity of the wave relative to the observer. When an observer moves away from a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is longer and the observed frequency is lower. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

The variation of the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) with the speed of the observer holds for all kinds of waves and is fatal for special relativity. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the above video concerns only sound waves while for light waves the picture is different. Is it? No, the picture for light waves is exactly the same:

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Note however that Dr Ricardo Eusebi does not see the variation of the speed of the wave with the speed of the observer. Why? Because in Divine Albert's world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is valid and Dr Ricardo Eusebi obeys it:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 5, 2013 @ 17:05 GMT
The Fundamental Equation of Special Relativity

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. Pay attention to the velocity of the wave relative to the observer. When an observer moves away from a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is longer and the observed frequency is lower. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

The observer starts moving away from the light source with speed v. The frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c-v)/d, where d is the distance between the pulses. (If v is small enough, the formula f'=(c-v)/d is virtually exact no matter whether the classical or relativistic Doppler effect is considered.)

The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is:

c' = d*f' = c - v = c

where c - v = c is the fundamental equation of special relativity.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Dec. 10, 2013 @ 11:03 GMT
Considering that General relativity also predicts that clocks in different gravitational fields can run at different rates;

And whereas, given the signal retardation by solar gravity, it has been demonstrated that this time dilation predicted by general relativity also applies to light transit time over a given distance and not just the frequency of atomic clocks alone;

May I propose that using the same instrumental set-up that established light velocity value over a distance as 299792458m/s, that the velocity of light be measured in the flatter and freer space-times in space to find out if Einstein's statement is vindicated, page 903, "From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location,...".

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 22, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT
The International Bureau of Weights and Measures says:

"The METRE is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a SECOND.It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299 792 458 metres per second, CO = 299 792 458 m/s ".

And,

"The SECOND is the duration of 9 192 631 770 PERIODS of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. It follows that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is exactly 9 192 631 770 hertz".

IF gravity slows time AND PROLONGS PERIODS, clocks run faster in outer space (higher frequency) and thus the period of Caesium 133 is shorter (shorter SECOND), it will be of interest to Test Reality In Space and verify this prediction of Einstein in the International Space Station or in other Satellites, subsequently leaving us with the choice of either redefining the second or the metre and their domain of validity, or agreeing with Einstein that "the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity",page 89.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT
Further to my last post above. On the International Bureau of Weights and Measures' definition of a second, and the seeming agenda to foist a fait accompli on the value 299792458m/s as the speed of light in vacuum by using the adjective "exactly". In order for this conspiratorial plan to work there MUST BE a further qualification in the definition of the second by adding "at earth surface". This is because Pound and Rebka in their experiment, further corroborated by the Gravity Probe A have demonstrated that Caesium 133 atom will oscillate at a frequency higher than 9 192 631 770 Hz in the vacuum at higher altitude!

According to results from Gravity Probe A, at 10,000km, general relativity predicts that Caesium 133 will oscillate 4.5 parts in 10-10 faster than one on the Earth.

Indeed, given the General relativity equation

tu = td (1 - GM/rc2),

where the subscripts u and d stand for up and down respectively,

an atomic oscillation that takes 1 second on earth surface will take 0.9999999993 seconds in free space, far from gravity. And since frequency is the inverse of period, Caesium 133 will oscillate at 9 192 631 776 Hz in freer space, instead of 9 192 631 770 Hz. Light velocity in free space and not earth surface would be 299792458.2087m/s.

I therefore broadly agree with John Donoghue that once this hidden agenda is abandoned for good, "It would really change 99.9 per cent of physics research".

What next on the agenda to foist the value 299792458m/s on us, since the definition of a second is now shown here to be incomplete?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Eckard,

Being an EE do you mind taking a look at this paper? I submitted it as a summary to the IEEE for an upcoming conference. Out of fear of rejection I removed all talk of light velocity from the paper.

Regards,

Akinbo

attachments: CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper.pdf

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 16:51 GMT
The Metamorphisis of the Ideal Gas Law into CIG Theory's MTS Equation - a New Interpretation (adulteration!) of the Ideal Gas Law

From Wiki:

The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation to the behaviour of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations. It was first stated by Émile Clapeyron in 1834 as a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
The below is to supplement the above post regarding the metamorphosis of the Ideal Gas Law into CIG Theory's MTS equation. While the below is a repeat of a post I placed on the "Faster than Light" article, nonetheless it should appear here to be taken in context with the Metamorphosis, and, based on substitution, the Ideal Gas law can now be substituted into Einstein's field equation as follows...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Dec. 21, 2013 @ 16:46 GMT
Off topic slightly, but stay with me:

Watching TV - The Universe:Beyond the Big Band (S1 E4)

OK - enter CIG Theory

In search of Fred Hoyle...

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

While CIG offers that the new matter is NOT continuously created as the universe expands (rather the expansion is at the expense of mass) (in this respect Fred Hoyle was off topic) and that the Universe DOES change its appearance over time :

Nonetheless there is a steady state aspect to CIG Theory as the new Space unfolds steadily [as the mass goes down , the space (expansion) unfolds]

CIG also looks at each traveling mass as its own "Big Bang" - unfolding over time (rate dependent)

So, we can revisit Fred Hoyle in the context in which CIG Theory offers a new interpretation of the Steady State Theory. Steady creation of space at the expense of mass (conservation of energy)

The theory also vindicates Einstein in that it brings back a certain sense of determinism back into the picture.

CIG Theory

The North Star on Christmas eve is creating the Space that surrounds it.

Can someone see my night sky?

(Does it on Hanukkah too)



Happy Holidays to all

doug

report post as inappropriate


Richard Lewis wrote on Jan. 2, 2014 @ 11:58 GMT
I have developed the Spacetime Wave theory in an attempt to set a top level description for the unification of General Relativity and Quantum theory.

The unification of physics

Thinking about how parts of the theory could be verified in practice I have noted your interest in the possibility of conducting entanglement tests between two fast moving satellites.

In the Spacetime Wave theory, light travels through space as a spacetime wave and the existence of a medium for light wave propagation implies a unique frame of reference even though we cannot by current experiment detect this frame. However, entanglement effects appear to act instantaneously and this implies the need to specify a frame of reference for the instantaneous effects.

The proposal is that the entanglement effects propagate instantaneously in the unique frame of reference of the medium of spacetime.

It can be shown that this proposal would not violate the order of cause and effect since an observer passing close to the effect cannot go on to observe the cause since he cannot go back in time.

However, the experiment using two fast moving satellites does have the potential to measure the unique frame of reference of the entanglement effects.

Richard

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Jan. 11, 2014 @ 14:12 GMT
THE VACUUM

Some thoughts while I have them:

Read (until the math came along) with interest at least part of:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/398/1/cosconstant.pdf

The Quantum Vacuum and the

Cosmological Constant Problem

S.E. Rughƒand H. Zinkernagely

To appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

With regard to, as...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Jan. 12, 2014 @ 17:21 GMT
Note added to my last post entitled THE VACUUM

For those who may not understand CIG Theory, please recognize that the Cosmological Constant varies (hence my use of the terminology Cosmological Non-Constant) as follows:

As the rate of a traveling massive particle increases, it manifests itself as a greater Volume (at "c" it is pure space)(at zero "c" [zero mph] it is a black hole). This greater Volume (low density)(less spacetime curvature), offers itself up as a large (small??)valued Cosmological Non-Constant.

At slow rates of travel, spacetime curvature is denser, and the Cosmological Non-Constant is therefore smaller (larger??).

Question to the community: Does full a curvature entity (black hole)(zero mph) require the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

The varying cosmological non-constant (CIG Theory) varies Lorentz transformationaly proportional to rate of speed, and from zero mph to "c".

See CIG Theory & try to understand (even if I'm wrong) so that you are aware of the theory. You can always throw rotten tomatoes at the theory. But you can't throw rotten tomatoes at it until you understand what it is that is being proposed.

www.cigtheory.com

THX

doug (don't throw the rotten tomatoes at me, only at the theory)

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 1, 2014 @ 18:12 GMT
Clarification/correction:

Where in my last post it read:

Question to the community: Does full a curvature entity (black hole)(zero mph) require the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

IT SHOULD READ:

Question to the community: Does an entity experiencing full space-time curvature (i.e. black hole)(zero mph in CIG Theory) correlate to the smallest cosmological constant (I think so, because nothing has to be added to counter gravity)(the reason for its introduction by Einstein in the first place).

Thank you

doug (it just plain read wrong)(I think it reads better now)

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 1, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
There should have been a question mark.

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 1, 2014 @ 21:00 GMT
To Professor Isham,

My first posting on this article was an offer that CIG Theory is offered to the community as a Theory of Quantum Gravity (on top of all its other reckless claims).

This was only recently realized after having absorbed your simple explanation of what Quantum Gravity is, as listened to on Closer to The Truth (you are all my heroes):

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Paths-to-Quantum-
Gravity-Christopher-Isham-/1672

Thank you and recognize that your explanation of quantum gravity represents the extent of my education in this field. However, once explained in the simple manner presented, it became clear that the MTS equation is an equation of Quantum Gravity and that CIG Theory is a theory of quantum gravity.

While my site posted that CIG combines the mass energy equation with the spacetime continuum, and these claims are self evident in CIG, I never really knew until your explanation that this is what Quantum Gravity is all about.

I hope one day you understand my theory (just ignore the crazy stuff)

Thank you again.

doug

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 6, 2014 @ 02:20 GMT
Regarding previous posts:

I think I changed my mind. With regard to the MTS equation, approaching the "S" side of the equation, that is the vacuum (pure space) side, the Cosmological Non-Constant is getting smaller. Toward the "M" side it is getting larger.

Am I right?

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 11:18 GMT
In another blog topic, Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?, Alan Lowey pointed out on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:37 GMT that not all clocks run faster in space, "It worth noting that pendulum clocks tick or swing more slowly at higher altitudes contrary to atomic clocks. This to me is proof that 'time' can't be thought of as running faster in a lower gravitational field, only *atomic* clocks...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 18:01 GMT
Akinbo,

That's a very interesting point. You have to wonder how such basic facts slip through the cracks and the conversation is about multiverses, firewalls and I might add, non-locality.

The point I keep making, that the basis of time is the physical change which turns potential into residual, ie, future into past and not some metaphysical dimension based on the measures of rates of occurrence, ie, duration, does explain this quite easily, but it's simple, so not interesting.

What if light is its own medium and the presence of mass will contract it? So that as its flowing past a massive object, the light closer to the mass is contracted more than that further away and this causes the path of the light as medium to bend? The problem with treating light as though it's discrete particles, is that presumably what happens to one photon doesn't affect the one next to it, but if it is all connected at some level, it would act like a sort of fluid and the waves and photons are just manifestations of this underlaying nature. Much like waves and drops of water are manifestations of the qualities of H2O. Photons than are units of light, not indivisible particles. Eric Reiter did a very interesting contest entry on this.

Thank you and Alan again for a good laugh. History is not going to be particularly kind to this generation of physicists.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:16 GMT
Yes John, I read and commented on Eric Reiter's essay sometime ago. It is worth reading again as more evidence seems to accumulate against a particle/ photon theory for light.

As to the suggestion that light be its own medium, hmmm that will be a unique feature indeed. Different from other waves we know because traditionally, a wave is a disturbance in a medium.

And it is not flowing past a massive object alone that can bend and slow light. Light passing through glass is also bent and slowed. So what mechanism do you propose for this, or is it contracted as well?

But the big question for theorists reading this is: What then is the relationship between gravity and clocks, if any? Your post suggests like I suggested that there is no direct relationship, any effect of gravity on time-keeping always requiring a material mechanism, with the effect of slowing or hastening depending on the device. For the pendulum this will be the tension in the string and the associated return force.

Your point which is well noted, also requires some mechanical or material action, namely "contracted". But I thought light particles are said to be massless. Can a massless thing be contracted by gravity? I tend to prefer the good old 'refraction', 'wave' and a 'medium capable of being disturbed'.

Akinbo

*How can these auto-italicization be remedied? There is no edit button to use.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:31 GMT
John, PERFECT! Then each action is its own clock and runs according to circumstance (from the Quark star blog). Resolves the dilemma.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 09:34 GMT
Ether in today Physics and Proposal of experimental Verification

What is happening in physic today is that ether is coming back from the back door as a electromagnetic quantum vacuum of QED which is the carrier of a photon and electromagnetic phenomena in generally. This is so called “luminiferous” ether which was in physics at the end on 19th century. Einstein has also speculated on “gravitational ether” which should carry gravity. No need for that because gravity is carried by the variable energy density of ether in QED. Also mass has origin in variable energy density of QED. Relative velocity of rate of clocks has also origin in variable energy density of QED quantum vacuum. Ether was expelled from physics because of historical mistake of Michelson, namely that ether is still and earth moves through it with velocity 30 km/s. That ether is still is right, but when a body moves with it, ether which is surrounding it get in motion too. The latest prove for that is Gravity probe B. Earth turning around the axis is turning also ether around it and gyroscopes on satellites confirm that. Precession of the planets has origin in turning ether and the spiral shape of the galaxies too. Now we need a prove ether exists. We propose that MM experiment is repeated on the satellite. Satellite mass is small and is moving through the ether without pushing it in front of it as the earth do. So we expect that interferometer on the satellite will give a positive result.

attachments: Michelson-Morley_experiment_on_the_satelite.png

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 20:09 GMT
Yes Amrit, ether will come back but not the type of ether contemplated 100 years ago. "Regarding what you call the historical mistake of Michelson, namely that ether is still and earth moves through it with velocity 30 km/s..."

That ether is not coming back either through the back or front door. Why? The contention was that for the near-null Michelson results to be explained by a dragged ether, the dragging must be almost fully so, i.e. the Fresnel drag coefficient must be very high and for this to be so the ether would have to possess a very high refractive index making it almost opaque. A partially dragged ether could not explain the results.

What you should be looking for now is a form of matter that is transparent, capable of transmitting light, capable of interacting gravitationally so that it can be planet bound without any need for dragging and abundant enough to go round.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


JH wrote on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 16:32 GMT
Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.

Math consists of 2 types of consideration – discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).

The number system was created to count things. One thing plus one thing is 2 things, etc. When we talk of a thing in our scale (0.1 mm to 1000 km), we can say the thing is at that point or not. We could cahnge3 scale and still talk of integer things. For instance, 0.1 (mm) could be 100 (micrometers). Hence, a thing has a boundary.

Geometry talks of extended objects. A point can exist in the extended object. Descartes considered the continuous as infinitely divisible. Division presents a quandary in both maths. We can take 1 ft. and multiply by 3 and make a yard. But we cannot always take a thing and make 1/3 of the thing by a scale change. Where on a line is the point of 1/3? There is no such point. Is 1/3 real or is division an improper operation in physics?

Perhaps this discrete and continuous categorization of math is actually describing the reality of physics.

Consider Newton’s idea for light. Light is a particle (discrete corpuscle) traveling and making waves in Descartes medium (called a continuous plenum). The particle causes waves in the plenum. The waves travel faster than the particle that then direct the particle. (Sounds like general relativity – matter distorts space which then influences mass motion.) Quantum entanglement is the result of the wave action on particles. If the frequency of the wave is related to the particle, resonance produces the entanglement.

If the reality were different, perhaps we’d be using a different math.

report post as inappropriate

adel sadeq replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 23:35 GMT
Hi JH,

Please reply to this post so that I may present some work which will be of great interest to you.

You have made a very good conjecture

"Perhaps this discrete and continuous categorization of math is actually describing the reality of physics."

for the rest you can contemplate this (very much tied to JH idea):

http://www.qsa.netne.net/a.htm

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear All,

I submitted a paper to the CPEM 2014. Paper was not accepted.

Dear Author,

The revision process of the papers submitted to CPEM 2014 has finished. Unfortunately, the evaluation of your paper ‘Frequency of Caesium 133 in Free Space and Its Implications‘, ID 48, was not accepted. Please, see below the reviewers' comments and inform them to the rest of the co-authors.

"Paper is not presenting original work or research. It is devoted to review some well known effects on time due to relativity. The proposal presented on this paper to introduce some note on the definition of the second should be proposed directly to the CCTF/BIPM. Actually such effects are taken into account in the operation of the GNSS like GPS, GLONASS and Galileo, among others".

Although disappointed, the unstated implication of the reviewers’ comments is that the definition of a second on earth is already recognized to be different from that in space. Where does that leave the definition of light velocity as the 'universal' distance traveled by light in one second? Why is there 'official' secrecy about this value by BIPM and the establishment? If light velocity is higher in space going by the definition of a second, would signals transmitted to the Pioneer space craft not be catching up and returning earlier than envisaged using the earthly second, and if so where is the Pioneer anomaly after that? If the reviewers, being in authority acknowledge in their comment that the definition of a second using frequency of Caesium 133 is not universal, why ask a small me to direct my proposal to BIPM when they are better placed to do so? Is this how humanity should steer its future?

*See attached paper. And see my posts here on December 22, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT.

Regards,

Akinbo

attachments: 2_CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 10:49 GMT
Just for the records. Similar paper withdrawn by Metrologia, the journal of the BIPM. See Editor's reason and my reply...

"Our decision on your article: MET-100189. We regret to inform you that the Editor has recommended that your article should not be published in the journal, for the reasons given below - I believe this subject is already covered in section 1.5 of the SI Brochure....

view entire post


attachments: CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper2.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 3, 2014 @ 10:46 GMT
Richard Feynman and Newton's Emission Theory of Light

Richard P. Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 08:46 GMT
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

That is, if one starts with the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (as predicted by Newton's emission theory), the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations". If one initially assumes that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, the experiment cannot be explained unless one introduces, ad hoc, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations".

In a world different from Divine Albert's world, scientists would apply Occam's razor and the latter (independence) assumption would not even be taken into consideration.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
In a little introductory book I have which I highly recommend for beginners, 'Relativity for the layman' by J.A. Coleman, here is a response…

The third possible explanation for the inability of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the ether assumed that the velocity of light was always constant with respect to the source which emitted it. This would mean that light always traveled at...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 7, 2014 @ 17:06 GMT
University of Texas Refutes Einstein's Relativity

University of Texas: "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler effect."

That is, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength),

the speed of light waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of special relativity:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
Pentcho,

While relative speed is c+v light can't 'propagate' in the observers rest frame until it finds what that is! i.e. until it arrives (and Doppler shifts).

It is then logically wavelength that changes on arrival. The light going PAST (missing) the observer of course remains at relative c+v.

I suggest that until we distinguish between relative and propagation speeds physics will remain nonsense and your posts will be ignored.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 9, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT
Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler frequency shift leads to the conclusion that the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer (receiver), in violation of special relativity:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary receiver is:

c = d/t

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is the time until pulse and (stationary) receiver meet up. For the moving receiver, "the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened". This means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = d/t' = c + v

where t' is the time until pulse and moving receiver meet up (t>t') and v is the speed of the receiver relative to the source.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 10, 2014 @ 15:48 GMT
Pentcho, Peter,

Doppler blue or red shift does not change the speed c of propagation. This holds for propagation wrt a medium like air as well as for light without a medium. In the latter case the only reasonable reference is the distance between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of arrival. In other words, the speed of the relative motion between emitter and receiver is the speed of propagation. Because there is no natural point of reference in space, there is no point at rest to refer to.

Any moving frame seen in the rest frame of an observer is affected; the "seen" speed relative to the observer is just a seeming one.

Newton's idea of light as particles does not contradict to the wave model if one does not ascribe conveyed potential energy to a quantum of propagating energy.

Incidentally, Newton made an obviously wrong prediction; iirc he imagined the speed of light increasing with more dense media. I read this by chance in the Millennium tower in Magdeburg.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 09:48 GMT
Pentcho, (Eckard).

"Any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler frequency shift leads to the conclusion that the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer (receiver), in violation of special relativity:"

I agree, except that you're lumping in the 'interpretation' of SR with the postulates. I'm pointing out that no matter how much nonsense the former is, the postulates can survive and be consistent with your first proposition; c is relative to each observer. But I point out that rationally that's only valid if it changes speed to the new datum for c ON ARRIVAL and interaction. Not before.

That is also consistent with Eckard's statement that "Doppler blue or red shift does not change the speed c of propagation." Just as with sound, there is an unrecognised difference between propagation and relative speeds.

Even Newton found that, but like Einstein (and most today) couldn't successfully rationalise it. It's the DATUM rest frames, represented by co-moving bodies that change. It'll just be 'unfamiliar' at first.

Eckard,

There's no such thing as a 'seeming' speed! (all speeds found 'seem' to be c anyway!) All physically measured speeds are real local ones. It is RELATIVE speeds that are not directly measurable that are 'arbitrary'.

Contrary to your assumption about space there is of course ALWAYS a local reference frame; It is the nearest or dominant massive 'body', whether a planet, sun, galaxy, or bunch of electrons. That is always the reference datum. If you try applying that (each side of the astrophysical shock or near field TZ surrounding all bodies) you will find the fully consistent logic.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 15:34 GMT
Peter,

If the observer starts moving with (small) speed v towards the light source, the speed of the light relative to him shifts from c to c', the wavelength shifts from L to L' and the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L (experimentally confirmed Doppler frequency shift). Also, we have: f'=c'/L'.

We are to choose between:

c' = c+v ; L' = L (fatal for relativity),

and

c' = c ; L' = c/f'.

Any speculations that go beyond the above choice are irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 19:16 GMT
Pentcho,

Stand beside the start of a travelator and time the walkers passing by as they step on to it. All walk at 5kph (we'll call it 'c'), so they are effectively meeting and propagating in a new inertial system, i.e. in a new 'inertial frame'.

Now I'll show you that you are locked into a belief system that has blinded you to what really happens in nature, the exact mistake also made by mainstream!! Carefully visualise and analyse this scenario from your fixed reference frame.

Before the walkers (we'll call them 'photons') step on they are 1 metre apart (wavelength).

After they step on they are 2 metres apart if the travellator moves at 5kph. So WAVELENGTH HAS INCREASED. OK?

What about their speed? Has that also increased wrt YOU? YES of course! It has doubled to 10kph! i.e. It has changed reciprocally /inversely with wavelength. OK.

Now your eureka moment. Enjoy it; Check their relative 'frequency' of passing you by. You will find IT HAS NOT CHANGED!

It's only if you yourself CHANGE FRAME and jump onto the travelator that you find their frequency has changed (halved) but not only is that not the relevant case but THEN you find their speed c has stayed the same!

The big mistake mainstream have made is treating 'frequency' as a real physical scalar like wavelength. It's not. it's only a metaphysical 'derivative'. You have been falling into the same trap.

The interpretation of SR is false because light changes to the new LOCAL c on arrival, because the datum systems of propagation are in relative motion.

Nothing can be 'measured' until it 'arrives! and that new 'discrete' field.

Shocking at first. But all anomalies are entirely unlocked.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 19:49 GMT
Peter,

Your travelator scenario is irrelevant - it is not analogous to the Doppler frequency shift. The Albert Einstein Institute offers a nice scenario with animations - just analyse it (if you can) and see if the speed of the light pulses (relative to the receiver) is constant or not:

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

stationary receiver

moving receiver

(...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 21:06 GMT
Pentcho,

if I start moving forwards led by a block of glass or lens material to intercept light, I can't measure the light until it does so. It is then propagating within the lens medium (eye ~n=1,38) at c/n wrt the lens state of motion.

That is the exact case for all measurements of light speed and frequency. Despite mainstream beliefs and intellectual failure the frequency doesn't change with the wavelength, its the speed of light that changes. But only the light that ARRIVES!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 13, 2014 @ 20:35 GMT
Peter,

Consider Dopler shift (moving observer) for sound waves:

"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

Do you accept this interpretation? If you do, you will probably understand how irrelevant your lens, processors, wires, optic nerves etc. are.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 09:43 GMT
Pentcho, let's not crucify Peter. If you look at page 5 of the lecture you linked. You will see how unfortunately teachers mislead their students. Peter may have attended one such lecture. In that Washington University, a lecturer taught his students that when source is moving, frequency remains constant and wavelength changes (Which is FALSE), but when observer is moving frequency changes and wavelength remains constant.

The correct position should be that frequency remains constant in BOTH cases, but it is 'Observed' frequency that changes in both scenarios consequent on change in relative speed, while wavelength is constant in the medium no matter whether it is source or observer that is moving.

When a source chases its own waves as the lecturer says, the emission frequency remains what it was when source was stationary BUT because the next wave is emitted in a different position than the previous, the 'observed' frequency changes as you showed in your animation.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 11:12 GMT
Pentcho,

"Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium," In each medium yes. Where propagation media are in co-motion at v wavelength demonstrably changes. If the media have the same refractive index it is only that relative v which gives the Doppler shift. All observers made of matter constitute a 'medium' with it's own rest frame.

But at our present stage of intellectual evolution that's difficult to see and rationalise as it need visualisation of kinetic progression. Still a little too difficult it seems.

Akinbo,

The purpose of providing you with that simple table was to help you avoid making the simple error of comprehension above. I promise I never attended any such lectures. The rationale is one step in comprehension above that which you are applying. You can't be blamed, but be aware; That lecturer was correct for the case I outlined above, (which I note you couldn't refute). (perhaps not entirely correct, I haven't seen it).

But don't be concerned about "crucifying" me. I've learned that apparently it's part of my lot.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 12:01 GMT
Peter,

"All observers made of matter constitute a 'medium' with it's own rest frame."

You obviously believe this is a great insight of yours that the world still does not understand. I think it is an obsession that has killed many discussions.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 14:32 GMT
Pentcho,

Do you disagree with the insight? If you research how a 'GRIN' lens works, then consider two in relative motion, you may perhaps find it to be an eye opener.

There's no hurry. But I suspect, and I hope, hidden truth will always 'kill' discussions straying far from it.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 20:40 GMT
Peter,

"Do you disagree with the insight?"

It is flagrantly irrelevant. A discussion of the Doppler effect can have nothing to do with a discussion of the eye, retina and optic nerve.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 15, 2014 @ 08:24 GMT
Pentcho,

Very relevant. Just not commonly understood. The lens of the eye is a medium, as all lenses, with 'fine structure' surface electrons.

The Doppler effect is the delta wavelength at a change in propagating medium. The delta has 2 elements; relative refractive index n, and relative velocity v!

You will of course find that entirely unfamiliar, but test it in application and you'll find it shows 'relative' c+v as well as 'propagation' c/n and resolves every anomaly and paradox under the sun and beyond.

Optical science evidence all agrees. And as my old physics teacher used to a say; whatever you may believe; "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 22, 2014 @ 15:42 GMT
Analogy Between Sound and Light Refutes Einstein

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 23, 2014 @ 17:17 GMT
Pentcho,

"..so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength.."

QED. 'Perceive' means the detected subjective reality of EACH observer. There are then TWO 'speeds';

1) The 'closing speed', which is c/n in the ambient frame and c+v RELATIVE to any observer at any personal v.

2) The 'propagation speed', which changes on meeting and interacting with the detector (observer) and is always the LOCAL c + v.

The simplistic error we've made is going direct to 'f' and forgetting that nature is about real mechanisms, so about wavelength and speed changes, viewed from any rest frame ('discrete field), and not only about 'derivatives'.

If you study it closely you'll find that better understanding a powerful tool to repair and complete incomplete theory.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 19, 2015 @ 15:07 GMT
Length Contraction and Schizophrenia

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits. So far, this is consistent."

Is it? An unlimitedly long ladder gloriously trapped inside an unlimitedly short garage? Einsteinians? Have you destroyed rationality in science? Einsteinians couldn't care less:

Lawrence Krauss teaches length contraction

Happy Einsteinians

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi Pentcho ,

thanks for linking "the simplest version of the paradox". The coloured diagram is useful but the writer is still equating the manifestations seen with the substantial objects themselves which is not correct. The ladder, source of EM sensory data, and observed manifestation, output of sensory data processing, are distinct aspects of reality that belong to different categories...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 22:56 GMT
While it is reasonable to assume there are substantial objects corresponding to the manifestations observed (Feynman Steak like) it is wrong to assume that the (sensory data)source objects are themselves exactly as they are seen. For analogy: I can see a 1cm tall building through my window (Image reality). I do not therefore assume that I can fit that corresponding substantial building (Object reality) through the crack of my open window. In fact a resident of the distant building might regard my own house as small enough to fit through an open window over there. There is no paradox in this scenario as what each observer sees is not the actual substantial building.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 23:37 GMT
The bug-rivet paradox offers an even more breathtaking spectacle:

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. (...) The paradox is not resolved."

In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" -...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 20, 2015 @ 09:13 GMT
Akinbo,

"A question arises for when the flying ladder comes to rest in the garage. Does it remain contracted in the garage when it's velocity v becomes zero or does it re-expand on coming to rest?"

John Baez & Co do give a partial answer to this question:

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

It is easy to see that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - some even teach that length contraction is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:

Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 20, 2015 @ 18:41 GMT
Pentcho, James Putnam, et al.

It would be nice to hear a comment from James on how he interprets this length contraction hypothesis. Does he agree to the trapping in a compressed state or a re-expansion, which as Pentcho said will tend to violate the energy conservation law?

For a pole 80m long (L) travelling at about .999c (v), its length would contract to about 3.57m (L'). If the barn door is opened and the pole is again put in flight again at same speed, its original length this time will be 3.57m, and its length at a subsequent trapping will become 0.16m (L"). This can go on and on till the pole becomes invisible to the eye.

James has a nice idea concerning on the F = ma equation (Newton's second law) but why he insists on believing in length contraction is hard for me to tell.

It should be noted that the flying pole can vary in speed as it flies, i.e. 0.999c to say 0.75c and back again to 0.999c. Does its length expand when it reduces in speed to 0.75c? If that be the case, then we should be talking of hypothetical length variation and not strictly length contraction.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on May. 21, 2015 @ 03:50 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

"Does he agree to the trapping in a compressed state or a re-expansion, which as Pentcho said will tend to violate the energy conservation law?"

I'll get to your concerns in the future, but, I will speak immediately to there being no violation of the energy conservation law. And:

"...we should be talking of hypothetical length variation and not strictly length contraction."

The effect named length-contraction accounts for both increasing and decreasing length. The length is proportional to relative velocity whether increasing or decreasing. I didn't name it, and it is not going to be renamed, but, it has always been clear that the effect includes both increasing and decreasing lengths.

"It would be nice to hear a comment from James on how he interprets this length contraction hypothesis."

I interpret it according to an accurate understanding of the meanings contained in the Lorentz transforms. Einstein messed the interpretations up. His theory of relativity messed up theoretical physics. If actual interest exists, after I explain why the relativist explanation for two "correct" contradictory solutions holding for the same event is wrong, I will offer an alternative solution to the problem. I presented it here once before with no responses. That solution includes a decreased length for the pole in the pole-barn problem. For clarity in future messages, I usually use the word "light" to refer to electromagnetic radiation.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 23, 2015 @ 10:07 GMT
Hi James,

You may need to clarify your interpretation of what you accurately understand by Lorentz transform and how it differs from how it is generally and officially understood. For instance in your interpretation

- does the mass of the pole increase and reduce depending on its velocity? That is mass increasing as velocity increases and reducing as velocity reduces.

- can the movement of an observer after emission and during light's transit influence light's arrival time? That is, can the arrival times of the light pulses be hastened by moving towards the incoming light or delayed by moving away from the already emitted light when it already in-flight on its way towards the observer?

I think your response will clarify how your interpretation differs from the official or Einstein's interpretation of Lorentz transformation.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on May. 24, 2015 @ 11:29 GMT
James,

Thanks for your response. You say, "...If a traveler is moving toward light that is coming toward the traveler, the traveler will receive the light sooner than if the traveler remained at rest. If the traveler is moving away from the approaching light, the traveler will receive the light later."

This response is sufficient in identifying and clarifying the MAIN bone of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 16:06 GMT
The only thing that you enjoy more than exploring the deep rabbit holes that are the nature of physical reality is dragging others down into those same deep rabbit holes. I have to admit, though, that your questions do make me think…

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 23, 2015 @ 11:41 GMT, “Concerning travelling at light speed, you may want to consider the 'photon existence paradox'...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT
Steve,

The intention is not to waste time in rabbit holes. I think bringing up paradoxes are a way to find out where we may have gone wrong in our theories and where better to examine and attack than the fundamental postulate (the root) on which Special relativity stands. If it can no longer stand on that postulate then Special relativity must either collapse or be reformed upon a more correct postulate.

Thanks for pointing out that photons are ALWAYS in flight. I know this but deliberately emphasized it to block the escape route for an answer such as that the light arrival time can be varied because the observer's position was different at the time of photon emission and not while it is in transit.

You always say there are problems with relativity, is it at the root, stem or the branches you never say.

If you cut a tree at the root, the reward is that the diseased stem and its branches like twin-paradox, grandfather paradox, barn and pole, black holes, space-time will perish. Even mass-energy equivalence may require a new mechanism to explain it. James in his essay has questioned the concept of mass. It is likely even you do not have an all encompassing definition of what mass and energy are.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 03:19 GMT
Ohhh...indeed, what mass and energy are? You do have a wonderful poetic way of expressing reality...since math is not your game, poetry can be to blame!

You love to mix it up...that is okay with me since mainstream science needs some mixing up. Science is so afraid of metascience that it forgets that its mission is to understand, not to die on the sword of the mainstream.

What we can do here is simply point out the flaws of relativity, not to deny it obvious successes. MEE is extremely and continually successful. Gravity slowing of time is demonstrated in so many ways. Why fight the obvious?

We need to focus on the soft underbelly of relativity, not on its strong points. Only by showing an absolute frame of reference and by showing that space and motion are emergent can relativity every be supplanted by a more effective theory.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 9, 2015 @ 14:52 GMT
What we observe when we look up into the night sky are dots of light that represent objects with time delays all of the way back to the CMB. The CMB represents a hard stop for observing the universe it would seem and the universe evolves from the CMB into an increasing order. The CMB accretes into electrons and quarks, quarks accrete into atoms, atoms into stars, stars into galaxies, galaxies into clusters, clusters into superclusters, and superclusters into large scale structures.

Despite the paradigm of an ever expanding space and that resultant chaos, what we observe is an ever shrinking matter into ever increasing order. Instead of reforming that reality, science invents invisible dark matter and dark energy to make it all better.

Perhaps it would be better to reformulate the universe into a shrinking working fluid like a discrete aether, which along with discrete time delay augments the limitations that science now faces with continuous space, motion, and time. In a universe driven by shrinking aether, attractive force makes perfect sense and gravity and charge become versions of photon exchange scaled by the time delay of the universe size.

Discrete aether would not then exist in space, discrete aether would exist along with time delay and matter exchange instead of continuous space, motion, and time. Discrete aether would then simply augment the limitations of space and motion and allow science to unify gravity and charge and quantify the notions of dark matter and dark energy in space.

A shrinking or dephasing aether introduces new terms in the virial equation for gravity and momentum. In effect, the matter changes of stars represent a new force in space that couples stars to each other and shows how galaxies bond. This new force eliminates the need to patch GR with dark matter.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 13, 2015 @ 03:20 GMT
...and of course, just in time, the decay that I have been waiting for...

Universal Decay

I love it when science reports the decay of the universe but calls it dying instead of decay. Go figure...

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 16, 2015 @ 17:55 GMT
The dying universe represents a universal decay that is very similar to my decay constant, 20% over a Byrs. The paper is available as draft Galaxy and Mass Assembly...at Low z and is quite technical.

The paper reports a trend for three times, 2.25, 1.50, and 0.75 Byrs as 2.5, 2.25, and 1.5 e35 W/Mpc3 for Hubble constant of h70. This trend means an even colder universe today. In fact, the Virgo supercluster is only 0.32 e35 W/Mpc3 given its 0.11 Byr time size while the Sloan survey shows the universe at 11.5 Byrs peaked at 41 e35 W/Mpc3, 128 times that of today.

Boy it looks like winter is coming for the expanding universe...but science has dark energy to keep us warm instead. Except that if the universe is shrinking instead of expanding, the opposite is true and there is no need for dark energy to keep things warm.

report post as inappropriate


karoly kehrer wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 22:12 GMT
Sounds promising Thanks

But reading the remarks It IS confusing HOW COULD AN EVERLASTING AND ENDLESS UNIVERSE DIE?

report post as inappropriate


Quantum Antigravity wrote on Apr. 17, 2017 @ 23:20 GMT
EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity — https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com



I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific discovery

of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.



Present day quantum gravity theories suffer from

too many mathematical space dimensions, and from

too few conclusive experimental results.



My hypothesis is simple, clear,

and subject to easy empirical verification :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com



Should you have any questions or need clarification,

I am more than happy to answer.

report post as inappropriate


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.