Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 3/18/10 at 18:35pm UTC, wrote Hello dear Quanticmessenger, Nice to know you.A real pleasure to see your...

Peter Jackson: on 3/16/10 at 11:46am UTC, wrote Sounds like you're getting organised QM. But I believe we should never...

QuanticMessenger: on 3/12/10 at 3:34am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I’m positive that with an open and receptive mind, coupled...

Peter Jackson: on 3/11/10 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Hi QM. Thanks for the interest. I've just actually deleted the reference...

QuanticMessenger: on 3/11/10 at 3:28am UTC, wrote Hello Mr Jackson, I, for now, just have a simple question ; can you tell...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/16/10 at 10:47am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina, Thanks for your answer, I see better your point of vue and...

Peter Jackson: on 2/15/10 at 11:50am UTC, wrote Georgina You can be more help than you realise. I have great sympathy...

Georgina Parry: on 2/15/10 at 3:46am UTC, wrote Peter, I regret to inform you that I am not one of the six influential...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, Gary, It seems to me that some phenomena seem more suited to a..." in The Reality of the...

Steven Andresen: "Hi Georgina Just a quick message to show I'm still here. I'm in the middle..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Physics, in its arrogance, disagrees with the wisdom of the people of the..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Robert McEachern: "Gary: "It describes the state of the subject system before it is observed..." in The Reality of the...

Thomas Ray: "Gary. I ceded the war--and my sanity--to Lorraine a while ago. :-) Best, ..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Gary D Simpson, The Category of this thread is listed as: Ultimate..." in Alternative Models of...

Pole Smith: "I am so delighted to be here and to find this awesome post. Hauz Khas..." in Retrocausality,...

Pole Smith: "One of the perfect stuff to read and I am so delighted to have this awesome..." in Retrocausality,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
July 26, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Perfect Symmetry by Peter A Jackson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our budding physics student takes his hero's Einstein and Feynman's words seriously and sets out to learn a 'new way of thinking' to test if it's our thought processes that limit what's ultimately possible. He finds a voyage of discovery to a new privileged reference frame.

Author Bio

Born Kent 1951 Consultancy & design bureau, architecture, yacht design, aero & hydrodynamics, marine engineering, energy/renewables, fundamental physics research, occasional journalist.

Download Essay PDF File




J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 22:41 GMT
Mr. Jackson,

I have read your essay, but you did not make it easy. Your efforts to be glib and "cute" unfortunately seriously obscure whatever real, underlying message may be contained in your essay. I'd like to see your ideas expressed without all the glibness and cuteness, and maybe with a little less apparent anger at the establishment?

I certainly do agree with two of the points you made. You wrote, "The evidence suggests we've reached a dangerous time in our evolutionary cycle. The ability for WMD production at will, combined with continued warlike tendencies." Yes, absolutely. Evolution has equipped us with brains optimally suited for survival in a hunter-gatherer society, but science has armed us with weapons of mass destruction. A precarious situation indeed. Will wisdom catch up with science before we've undone ourselves? I think the jury is still out on that one.

Elsewhere you wrote, "Forums like the FQXi are the foundation of a fresher approach, a model for review funding and should be central to physics." I agree with you about this, too. If you believe this is true, however, why did you use the forum it provides to take such a glib, "scatter gun" approach in what you wrote rather than offering us a serious, cogent, well-reasoned essay? Just curious.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 12:50 GMT
Pretty well all fair comment Mr Smith. My reasons may not be good from all frames, but;

'Cute'? Sorry, but he genuinely was a pretty cute chap, who always saw humour and irony in the most serious of situations. Glib? There's no space for full analysis of such a fundamental subject in an essay, but it's all sincere.

'Anger'? I tried to be objective, but you're very perceptive. I feel frustrated more than angry, but do feel we'll all have the right to be angry if we get wiped out due to poor physics. But by then it may be a bit too late!

I'm glad you'd like to see the full papers. I'd like everyone to see them and will seek guidance on how to post them here.

'Scatter Gun Approach'. Excellent analogy. After long frustration, this was a 'one shot' chance to get an introduction to what may represent a complete new architecture into print, including basic evidence, plus the genuine conceptual 'way of thinking' background, and making the point that no model is any use if no-one ever inspects it! This needed a shotgun not a rifle.

The essay is written only to whet the palate, to be a little different, to catch attention and arouse interest in the real meal. I know it won't be to many scientists taste, but the main course will be rather more so.




J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 19:39 GMT
Mr. Jackson,

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, frustration is a better name than anger for what I sensed in your writing, along with a well-read, active intelligence lurking there. Frustration is understandable when we are brimming with ideas that seemingly have no suitable outlet. Good luck with getting a fair hearing for your ideas. This FQXi Community appears to offer a level playing field for new ideas. Perhaps next year's essay competition will be on a topic which would allow you to apply your new architecture and new conceptual way of thinking. In the meantime, keep your powder dry.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 13:53 GMT
JCNS; ..along with a well-read, active intelligence lurking there. Frustration is understandable..

Thanks for your kind and helpful comments. I'm attaching the fuller 'Article' here, which is better explained and evidenced. Your comments would be gratefully appreciated.

Many Thanks

Peter J

*** Please refer to the updated article posted on September 25, 2009 ***

attachments: UnificationArticle19.8.pdf

this post has been edited by the forum administrator




Irvon E. Clear wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 16:17 GMT
Modeling symmetry as the ultimate law of physics is an interesting proposition. It seems natural and it balances a mathematical equation as well as fulfills our human expectation of confirming that our environment is founded with rational purpose. But, and we all know that this irritates human nature...the pieces never seem to perfectly fit. How many exceptions to the rule are there in physics? Isn't that what fuels the ever expanding search for the ultimate model...the ultimate explanation of all of the exceptions?

What if the universe was the result of a singular creation event that actually created all possible objects, forces and relationships at that initial point in time? What happens next? All possible objects, forces and relationships begin to disappear as they have to successfully coexist within an environment that allows them to survive. And the evolved environment would actually become the result of many other evolved environments. The survival environments would then become the basis for observed rules of survival. Why would we expect the environments and their rules for survival to be the same? Why would we project what happens at the current kitchen table as a necessary result in some other distant environment in both terms of space and time?

And the most important point to me is why would we expect that observing the rules of survival will necessarily lead us to understanding the rules of creation?

Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading your work and I appreciate the fact that it is creative, entertaining and relevantly aware that we all share the human experience.

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 18:52 GMT
Mr. Jackson,

Apologies for being slow to respond. You invited me to comment on your longer essay, which I have now finally been able to review. Not being a professional physicist, I am not able to comment intelligently on many of the specific issues you raise in the essay. Commenting in a more general way, however, it appears to me that even this longer essay is too ambitious, trying to cover far too much ground (i.e., addressing far too many topics) in the space of a relatively brief essay. I would recommend narrowing the scope of your thinking to one or two main points and exploring them in detail rather than trying to cover so many points. I applaud you for offering a series of specific predictions at the end of your essay, but, again, I believe that providing a rationale for each of those predictions could form the basis for a series of separate, detailed, narrowly-focused, in-depth essays. I hope this is helpful.

Best,

jcns

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 16:56 GMT
I'm glad you found it entertaining Irvon.

But I confirm it was indeed equally deadly serious. The point was not to suggest perfect symmetry but to demonstrate how it is, actually, in reality, achieved, along with unification. My light treatment of the background to finding it seems to have distacted people from the core solution!

Q; "But, and we all know that this irritates human nature...the pieces never seem to perfectly fit. How many exceptions to the rule are there in physics?"

Truly dozens.

Anomolies, inconsistencies and violations abound, and we can't unify Relativity and QFT because we have a few basics wrong. But we don't need to throw out Relativity, just fine tune it, and understand QFT a tiny bit better, using the work of George Stokes and Christian Doppler properly for our model, and we have a Eureka moment, the simple symmetrical solution.

The really magical part is that it fits all the evidence and gets rid of almost all the exceptions and paradoxes above!

If it's too obscurely hidden in the essay try the Article at the foot of the 4th post here.




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 17:32 GMT
Thank you graciously for your applause and very useful viewpoint Mr Smith.

The Article was shortened from a 60 page comprehensive paper (exc QGrav) but the subject scope itself was a problem, viz;

Proposing what may be seen as a fundamental paradigm shift requires all relevant parts to be addressed or we get; "yes but it can't be right as it doesn't explain...x.y.z."

Then I have to follow the 'scientific paper' rules for it to be taken seriously, and include; The Problem being addressed (many think there isn't one!), Explanation/Argument, Methodology, Full Evidence, History, Consequences, Conclusions, Predictions. I knew if I left out any aspect it'd be jumped on! (and, to be fair, my target audience is professional theoretical physicists as well as the science educated public).

I understand what you're saying, and am considering taking a tiny aspect for a short 'letter' which could lead to the unfolding of the whole new picture, which really is of fundamental importance to progress, and has uncovered what's termed the 'Holy Grail', the unification of STR and QFT.

But I suppose what I'm also doing is testing my theory on how bad a state the world of physics has got itself into since I started the experiment. I fully expect to be completely ignored and branded a 'crackpot', to prove my hypothesis, but we'll see! (I expect the minimised math will expose the conceptual limitations of many).

Do you think you understood all the basic premises? Just ask if you didn't.

Peter Jackson




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 14:02 GMT
Anonymous; "An axiomatic construct is no better than its weakest axiom. All the validation in the world will not protect theory against a single falsification. The human species will not come to an end through attack".

I love your confidence, but that doesn't represent any degree of falsification of the model. Indeed the proposition that we may not survive a disaster isn't falsified...

view entire post





FQXi wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 16:34 GMT
This is an updated version of the author's article "Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification allowing Relativistic Invariance".

attachments: UnificationArticle24.9.9.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 16:14 GMT
Mr Jackson

An essay that is crammed full of thoughtful and insightful challenges to the status quo of ‘Physics’, and certainly proposes clearly ‘What can ultimately be possible in physics’. This may be one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in physics for a century that is if it is acknowledged, however this may not be comfortable to the established Physics community. As you identify a change in mind set will be called for and the ability to acknowledge that the new ways of thought are surely not to discredit what are already taken as accepted truths, but can lead to an expansion and identification of new theories.

Congratulations for this challenge and I would welcome a response as to your thoughts on the continuation of how you will probe deeper into the comfort zone of the ‘Physics community’.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 09:38 GMT
"This may be one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in physics for a century that is if it is acknowledged,.."

Thank you for obviously taking the trouble to follow the link and read it. I was beginning to think no-one with any broad knowledge of physics would. You may have disproved my essay postulate that the overdue big breakthrough will not now be recognised. However I'm not convinced 'One swallow doth not a Spring make'. Your comment about the change in mindset needed is perceptive.

"I would welcome a response as to your thoughts on the continuation of how you will probe deeper into the comfort zone of the Physics community"

I don't feel I've probed ANY comfort zones yet, and I'm not sure it's possible. The complacent boney fingered cries of 'crackpot' now hit all, evidenced or not. A man can discover the Holy Grail, stand and hold it aloft and cry out (and Email!) the truth and evidence, but the self preoccupied masses will now completely ignore both him and the grail itself. I thank you for taking that sip and recognising it. Please pass it on, (and any advice is welcome). The Article is now posted on http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047

Peter Jackson




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 14:34 GMT
I've come across an astonishingly incisive and pertinent quote from Einsteins '52 paper to solidly support the model;

"..there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other. The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable rôle even in scientific thought.

"Relativity and the Problem of Space." Albert Einstein (1952) English translation published 1954

This has now eventually 'played a considerable role' in (my) scientific thought and, with the advantages of space exploration, has now lead to the answer he was searching for.

It must now also play a role in others.

Why has everyone gone quiet out there!!??

Peter J




Charlie wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Not only a brave essay, telling us truths many won't want to hear, but the paralell message is seemingly dressed as just 'an example' but really isn't is it! I've just read your linked article twice, and realised it really is the major fundamental breakthrough we've all been waiting for! After SR I'm sure Minkowski said something like 'from now we don't have space but limitless numbers of spaces' long befor Einsteins similar comments. They never did link that with the Fresnel Stokes work. How obvious - I can't believe we missed it, solving so many anomalies, and what perfect symmetry!

How self interested most of us are, not recognising, maybe not even reading, the content. You're right. Things need to change. I wonder how long it will take, if it's not too late already! BUT;

Just one area in your DFM 'model' you don't seem to cover. The quantum mechanism for the phase transition at the shocks. I suspect you may have an answer but didn't want to add further content, - but it really has to be addressed.

It's a shame you slightly camaflaged the content, but I see why, and it's even more shameful most haven't seen through the thin veil.

Very best of luck.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 17:33 GMT
C; "I've just read your linked article twice, and realised it really is the major break...."

Congratulations Charlie, you're only the 2nd too see it!! I'm sure some 'scorers' don't even read things, or they're not as bright...!

C; "Minkowski said something like 'from now we don't have space but limitless numbers of spaces'. I've double checked; Cologne 1909; "..endlessly many spaces". You know your history! Thanks, I've now included a ref. in your honour!

You're right about the shift mechanism. It is of course related to the simple single oscillator frequency modulation we use for EM waves with FM radio. 'wave bundle' spin particles are just the job. You're right, I was trying to condense the published version but I've now included it. It's no use leaving obvious gaps just to keep it concise.

I was wondering if I'd 'screened' the real content too well, but this has been more of a test of how perceptive and receptive the site and it's populus are, the real experiment to genuinely tell us 'what's ultimately possible' for the human race. You may or may not be pleased to hear you're one of only two exceptions proving my postulate! (so far). Though perhaps you're the only 2 who've actually read it!?

Many thanks. Do post any more queries or thoughts.

Peter




Nick Stewart wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 15:58 GMT
My field is telecommunications. Your essay caught my eye as a valid commentary on problems in science, as an interesting neurological problem analysis approach, and most interestingly introducing the rich fruits of that approach. From the previous post I now also see your fundamental experiment, and unfortunately I'm sure you're prediction is correct. I was surprised by the low marks, until I found out authors are 'community', and that also seems to prove your point!

It was your comments on frequency modulation, and related problems with communication through shocks, that really prompted this post. Your model anticipates possible problems with the Voyager 2 link through the shock, although not specifically. Have you heard anything about this or was it simply derived as it appears?

Brilliant thinking. Streets ahead, but probably too far! Best of luck

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 10:09 GMT
Nick S; "..most interestingly introducing the rich fruits of that approach"

Thank you Nick, fruits apparently still not noticed or tasted by most! You seem to suggest authors may be marking down the 'competition'. I'm sure nothing perceived as of genuine worth would be. I'm a little more concerned how few (from the 'community') have your perception!

Nick S; "..anticipates possible problems with the Voyager 2 link through the shock".

Hmmm, yes I suppose it would do, there should be significant frequency shift and interference! I haven't read anything about this. NASA seem to be playing quite close the their chest on this at present. Do you know anything? It should have gone for previous missions too, though less so. Yes it is simply derived from the model, which you've done better than me!

Nick S; "Brilliant thinking. Streets ahead, but probably too far."

Thanks for your kind words, probably simply just too far for most to pick up without it being based on numbers, and if I'd have thought in that way I'd never have found the model! Catch 22 I suppose.

The judging is of course on the essay itself, at face value, not the model, only scantily outlined as a sub plot therein. The superficial postulate of the essay is designed as self proving. It has been so as it criticises present limiting factors, which relate to attitudes, so won't be liked! As you've noticed, if readers can't get beyond this it also proves the fundamental postulate. Whilst this may be the right site this is not really the place to introduce new physics. It's the new though processes that are the more important for humanity.

If you have any info on the shock communication issue I'm intruigued. Many Thanks.

Peter Jackson




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Peter,

Interesting essay. Cross-disciplinarity is important, gaining overview over the whole of physics. I appreciated the abundance of quotes. You give meaningful thoughts about how we may achieve the ultimately possible in physics, rather than what's the ultimately possible. The essay title remained cryptic for me with respect to the essay content. You mention perfect symmetry once as a minor point and there are some references to aether drag. Did I miss the deeper meaning? The forum discussion and the comment you left at my blog gave me a bit more information. I'll have to catch it another time.

May I quote your essay on my blog or twitter page?

Regards.

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
Hi Arjen.

I see your essay is doing deservedly well. Yes, it seems you missed both the symmetry and the deeper meaning.

I won't go through the top 3 layers in detail, but essentially the postulate is now self proven. It proves Stokes right when he said; 'how can we know how we might have thought had we learned differently? Thinking about how we think, and how else we might be able to think, can be difficult.

But the real test is in the model itself, how many could recognise that it's real (just 3), and what perfect symmetry it gives. I believe you could be just the 4th to see it, so;

Using the postulates of STR as written but not the assumptions, and testing varied assumptions using modern science, a model arises which rather simply melds it with your own field. Consider the frenetic cloud of oscillating 'photoelectrons' that grows in size and activity around mass proportionally to velocity. If light cannot pass through it at anything other than 'c' (as the 2nd postulate says), and remembering that Doppler shift is equally proportional to relative speed, what would be the consequences? You may think from single Protons to Galaxies and larger.

Let me know how you get on, or ask any questions. And if you think the essay may be worth more than a derisory 2.3 by all means give it a score!

Best of luck.

Peter Jackson




Aaron P wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 01:06 GMT
It's been keeping me awake for a while, the essay and the article, but I've just got it, and so simple. Genius! I now also see the problem you have. Unfortunately my main area isn't math and I'm not eminent enough to help much, but;

Did you know there are something over twelve superluminal phenomina out there, with as little good explanation as the lensing anomolies? your eureka moment should solve a lot more issues than you may think.

I've given you the top mark,which is less than you deserve, unfortunately I'm not part of the 'community'. I can't believe so few have seen it, but of course that's exactly what your essay predicts! I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'm watching with interest. I'm also watching the sky with a lot better understanding. Thank you. Can I cite your article yet please? I quite understand if you feel the time isn't yet right.

Aaron P

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 10:37 GMT
Hi Arjen, and Aaron

Yes of course you can refer to or cite my essay, and linked article, if with respect and moderation.

AP; "Did you know there are something over twelve superluminal phenomina out there, with as little good explanation as the lensing anomolies?"

Thanks Aaron, yes, and that we've been very 'head in the sand' about them so far. I'm also about to update the paper itself with some more surprising V2 data about the heliopause, fulfilling another prediction of the model.

Thanks for your support. Sorry I kept you awake, but aren't those eureka moments worth waiting for!

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
Hi Peter Jackson,

I used your full name because both Peter nor Jackson alone are not unique enough as to avoid confusion, and PJ is not yet as understandable as AE.

To me the title "Perfect Symmetry" was very confusing. As I wrote in my essay, my "attitude is at odds with prominent doctrines including conjectured general symmetry [Wigner, Nobel lecture]". You might be surprised: To me perfect symmetry almost in any case indicates an artifact that is based on improper use of transform into complex domain in combination with the belief in a spacetime that exists in advance from minus infinity to plus infinity.

You seem to claim much more than do I. I cannot even comment on your suggestions to explain a lot of problems. In particular, I do not yet understand what reference point your phase shift refers to. Since you seem to have valuable experience outside the field of physical speculations, you will hopefully be in position to give a detailed and relevant example of what can be derived from your work. I would even more appreciate if you were so kind elucidating why the attached measurement by Gompf might be wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

attachments: 1_M291.html

report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 05:15 GMT
Dear Peter,

i admire your essay for the frankness of approach to the subject. We all know that Universe does have a logical design of its evolution since birth with Big Bang. Although we lack precise cosmological measurements, specially for the early universe, we find that the physics evolved till now meets only our present day universe understanding. However, it leaves many unsolved mysteries too that came about because of lack of knowledge about the early universe. Instead of spending huge sums to build higher & higher energy accelerators, we can never hope to duplicate the conditions prevailing at and near the birth of the Universe, when the total mass and energy of the universe got created.

It is therefore necessary that what we consider holy in the present day Physics, may not really be so valid in the early period of the universe. To illustrate, i have conjectured inconstancy of the physical constants and changing strengths of the four force fields over the period of 14 billion years life of the universe. Only then we may be able to reconcile the Physics valid for the entire period of the history of the Universe. Moreover, the search need not be confined to what are the constituents of dark matter, non-baryonic in nature, vis-a-vis visible baryonic matter. One should go to the source matter created at birth- primordial matter. that has given rise to both the dark and visible matter. early unkverse cosmological experiments conducted with precision & accuracy from out in space are likely to solve such mysteries in the years to come. In my essay on this forum, i have provided some perspectives that may or may not be true eventually. Thus, i fully agree with author when he indicates the need for an open, unbiased and wide mind.Only then we can hope to get freshness in approach required to unravel the unsolved questions in Physics today.

report post as inappropriate


Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 09:26 GMT
Hi Peter,

Are you quoting Stokes with 'how can we know how we might have thought had we learned differently?' Or do you refer to the quote on Stokes wikiquote page? (just have a look at who updated that page, clicking on the 'history' tab).

I've not yet made my mind up for the definitive rating. I didn't manage yet to get through the links you referred to.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 13:18 GMT
Hi Eckard.

Phase shift was a misleading term, sorry, to keep it symmetrical just think of simply Doppler frequancy shift. The symmetry is; As mass moves it builds up a 'photoelectron' cloud of thickness and density proportional to velocity (wrt the surrounding local field). Symmetrical with (or actually "equivalent to") this is the degree of doppler shift required, also increasing with relative velocity. The third and perfect symmetry with this is that the oscillation rate of the photoectrons also increases in the same way, just like modulation for FM radio (done by single crystal oscillators).

By 'mass' I'm talking everything, from a single Proton, through humans, spacecraft, planets, solar systems etc to galactic clusters, (see Cl 0024+17).

It's termed the Discrete Field Model, it's completely falsifiable, and all I claim is that I haven't been able to yet. It follows the SR postulates but not the wrong assumption about there being no 3rd frame (field). AE said there are many fields in relative motion ('52). If only someone was listening!

Probably too late now as Popper also wasn't listened to and ruling paradigms along with the arXiv lock and 'Nature' are prematurely sealing our fate!

Couldn't open the Gompf link, but I can explain why it's flawed. Imagine a large cluster moving right to left across Hubbles lens, a local group moving the same way within it, M87 moving the same way within that, then the jet doing another 0.98c. That's exactly what we keep seeing, not just that one, there were dozens by the 1960's. But they seemed to breach postulate 2. They don't. Light will do 'c' through all local fields. The evidence is now a bit overwhelming and updated every day. It solves lots of astronomical anomolies, (working on them now). May post again soon on viXra, or perhaps the 'Skeptic Adversaria'.

Example? Too much choice!; Check out how fast the solar polarity shift wave passed Voyager 1 before (13 days) and after the termination shock (100+).

Thanks for your interest. Are you No4 to see this or still a bit confused? (don't think about the implications too much without warming up your brain!!)




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 13:36 GMT
Hi Narendra

Thanks for your support. I liked your essay and different perspectives. I couldn't possibly have had my own eureka moment if I'd have gone the same physics & maths education route as everyone else. The problem is; that puts me out on a limb, possibly like you, and having to decide - can we really be bothered to keep on summoning up the courage to run the gauntlet of crooked pointing fingers and croakey voices of pagan warlocks shouting "crackpot"? Does the human race really deserve its privaleged frame? I try not to watch the news too much, and mix with inspiring people instead in case I feel it doesn't!

See my last post. It was even sketchier than the essay, any questions on DFM just ask.

Very best of luck

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi Arjen

Exactly that, ..but I hate verbosity!

Hoped you'd got to read the Article, attached below. Also working with top guys in the field on some major Astronomy angles, but won't post a draft yet.

The essay isn't a scientific paper, but does many things; Tells a fable, Introduces in outline a genuine new way of thinking, Gives a direct true answer to the essay postulate, Exposes the complacency and poor attutude & methodology of many we rely on for mankinds progress, and even suggests some improvements! but what it really does behind that, to use the words of the few readers above who've noticed, is introduce the fruits of that new way of thinking. - so, perhaps actually showing us a new current limit.

Except that I may need a good quantum physicist to assist. (maybe who can also do a few sums to do the job more quickly).

Do read, and ask any questions. (It also informs QG)

And I'm rooting for you at the top of the list!

Ever visited the Channel ports, or Kent?

Peter

attachments: UnificationArticle20.10.09.doc




Mark Stuckey wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 19:03 GMT
Peter,

I have a response to your comment, "The job in hand is to identify the evidence from among all the worthless theory. This will never be done while physics is a 'closed shop' with most of humanity excluded and all new theory labelled 'crackpot'. Even the arXiv site effectively excludes 99.9% of humankind. The real problem is information overload. We have to develop better systems and ways of thinking to view, analyse and interpret it. But there really aren't that many crazy theories. The job of weeding out the majority with zero evidential basis would be easy. Objectively considering the rest a little more difficult."

I understand Mike Lazaridis is responsible for donating $150M of his own money to Perimeter. I don't claim to know his motive, but if it was his intent to maximize impact on the development of new physics, simply spending the money to support a few scholars (many of whom are well established and would continue their work anyway), is clearly not the way to go. Rather, he could have contributed to a community of scholars who review crackpot ideas, facilitate communication between like-minded theorists and moderate open discussion and debate, e.g., via an essay contest. An organization like that is far more likely to contribute to the next new paradigm in physics. Someone should tell Mike that he'll get more bang for his buck at FQXi!

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 20:54 GMT
I agree Mark, though when you say 'Mike Lazaridi's own money' on Perimeter, I suspect half may otherwise have gone in taxes! so it's good for physics, and we shouldn't knock it.

But you're right, it could be more effectively spent to meet his aims as it now seems to have just become another part of the problem (living on old legends with the 'establishment') and in no way a solution.

We know both GR and QM can't be right, I think Mike L has actually said there's a new big step just round the corner, but Perimeter scientists won't now find it, focussing on their own personal agendas like everyone else while it hides under their noses. (or actually in their unanswered Email IN boxes!!). And I was very sad to find that included Dr Smolin. I thought perhaps the new director may have been a 'new broom' but it seems not.

Even THIS site suffers a lot from that. - You may have noticed my essay is actually a test of how much people read and understand the work of OTHERS. Not that much it seems! My self testing postulate was THAT's what limits physics, and it's currenntly self proving!

Cest la vie!

PJ




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 20:53 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your very fast diagnosis. Even if you are sure that the Gonpf enigma has been resolved you might like to look at the paper of concern. Try

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M291.html or

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/Eisenmanger.pdf

Regard
s,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 13:59 GMT
Thanks Eckard, checked it out, very interesting, but not sure what direct relevance it had. I couldn't see a conflict with the model. Can you identify what the relevant enigmatic 'measurement' was?

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Peter,

Call me a pedant. As also did Galilei, Gold, and Ren, I do not swallow indications of obvious contradictions in science. They have to be clarified.

I am upset that the public persistently refuses to take notice of the fact that Gold and Ren falsified a Nobel price awarded tenet.

Well, the result of Gompf et al. is not equally important but I got the impression that any correction is unwelcome. Why?

As I already mentioned, the result "measured" by means of Single Photon Counting essentially deviate from direct measurement by a streak camera:

- They gave a too large width.

- They show a bell-shaped function of time different from what was to be expected according to theory as well as direct measurement

- Both deviations together can be explained as effect of a superimposed random artifact.

- The SPC-measurement did not show significantly different results with filters for different colors. This is also only understandable as effect of the suspected artifact.

As I told here, Prof. Eisenmenger himself admitted that the SPC results are at least questionable, possibly wrong.

I would otherwise not have any reason to put the SPC into question. However, the refusal of any objection by PRL reminds me of the regime that ruled my country until 1989. Likewise, Al Schwartz is ignored when he insists: Somebody should look. Why?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 15:22 GMT
Hi Eckard

I'm not convinced that SPC is a valid or accurate methodology here, for various reasons; The technology is unproven. Right back from Neville Mott we've known particles are propagated and re-absorbed back into the field so there's no guarantee those emitted will not be the same as those counted.(it's the same resolution as the Muon paradox). Particles can't be conserved if we're to achive unification so we'd better get used to the concept or we'll never get unified! (no-one has ever witnessed a long range photon or muon, and the Japanese recently witnessed particles having 'changed' when checked at range. And lastly, there's no corroboration or inductive proof.

An interesting result none the less, but I can't take it too seriously, and predict it will end up being used to prove something entirely different.

Very different to my DFM, which has full inductive proof, but, following the postulate of my essay, hardly anyone has even properly looked at yet!! have you?

That's life Eckard. So the only question now is, how much longer for?

Peter




Julian Day wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 23:58 GMT
Proff Jackson

I'd saved your link and have just managed to read it. Why is it hidden on here and viXra? Are you just trying to make a point about our shortcomings or are you really having trouble geting it reviewed? Have you spoken with any other Astronomers yet about how it resolves the lensing anomolies? Or Cern about dark matter implications? Why on earth is your community rating where it is? Are other authors 'community'. I think I see what you're saying now. Do let me know, But best of luck.

Julian

report post as inappropriate


Anders wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi Peter

I am very interested in your triple helix morphology. I do understand how it has also worked very well and have seen the eureka moment some of your posts have mentioned. I know the Einstein quotes but did not know Feynman said the same. When was this?

I wish you very best luck with your perfect model, which I wish I had discovered myself.

How can I learn the different way of thought?

Yours Anders

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 11:36 GMT
Hi Anders

The Feynman quote was from one of his books, possibly the one titled something like the Joy of Discovering Things? - or if you were talking of the 'Nature will always find a simpler way' quote it was from one of his NZ lectures.

I'm afraid the Triple Helix Morphology might take a while to learn as it did take a few decades to develop! It took a whole new career and research path, including neurology. Part of it is having to learn to think naturally in 3D, checking things against an almost infinate criteria base, on progressively detailed levels, and projecting forward complex implication matrices of different combinations and sequences of decisions, all in a structured framework of intuition. Marrying art and science is also key. Maybe I should just have smoked a few spliffs!! I'll try to analyse it much better some time.

Congratulations on finding the power of the model Anders, it shows some mental capacity dexterity just to recognise it! I still beleive in the postulate of the essay, that you'll be in a tiny minority.

But watch this space!

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for an encouraging hypothesis wrt Gompf.

I looked in vain for the abbreviation DFM in your essay as well as in youe paper Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification. Is my guess Doppler Frequency Modulation close?

I do still not yet understand what you meant with symmetry. Hopefully you do not refer to the putative mirror-symmetry f(t) = f(-t) or the like.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 01:25 GMT
i am revisting your essay and feel happy to go through it again in a 'short'manner. I am no expert in the field of Physics and Cosmology where i am dabbling presently. I for one agree totally with you about the need to EXPAND PARADIMGS in Physics or any other field. Total knowledge is contained already in our Universe. By dividing our activities into various ' specialisations' we have only harmed the growth towards the truth. We are spread out too thin and are losing our grip. Our mind is capable of expanding to the universal mind, if only we know how? Soetimes i wonder about the system of refernces/quotations. Are we just dummy duplicates. Philosophy is an open branch. i will even agree that one may hardly been doing any new research except to present the same in a differnt way what others have already done. What is unique an individual does what another individual has never done earlier, to me present a dilemma. Most of what i have done has been in one way or the other, depends on what others have done, said about or divulged to me in their personal talks to me. Originality at core is hard to find in the system that has been evolved.

Sometimes i feel the more we interact the more confused we become, it is better to listen to the silence within our minds in a quiet contemplation, without any disturbance from others! Bravo, young man as you are far younger to me!

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 13:50 GMT
Hi Eckard

.."I looked in vain for the abbreviation DFM in your essay as well as in youe paper Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification. Is my guess Doppler Frequency Modulation close?"

A brilliant guess Eckard! Actually wrong, but as good a title as the real one; 'Discrete Field Model'.

Unification has however proved to rest on the replacement of just a mathematical construct, the Doppler formulae, with an actual quantum process for doppler shifting EM waves. This shows us the locked door we hadn't noticed, and also gives us the key! You're now one of the first group to take a peek through it. (most still won't beleive there's a wall let alone a door!).

..".. I do still not yet understand what you meant with symmetry..".

Nothing so impotent as a putative mathermatical equation Eckard, the symmetry is inherant in the solution; The realative field velocity is proportional to the shock particle propagation density, is proportional to the Doppler shift required is proportional to the rate of oscillation. And the energy always stays constant, finally showing the true logic of the photoelectric effect.

Thanks and Congrats

Peter

P.S. How's this for a quote; "We'll never understand what we see while it's screened by what we seek"




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 14:15 GMT
Very wise Narendra

Popper said our survival relied on our ability to challenge paradigms.

You say; "By dividing our activities into various ' specialisations' we have only harmed the growth towards the truth".

We've invented our own divisions, nature doesn't have them. But in the same way we have to specialise to pool our brain capacity. Science is currently an example of the worst possible way this could be done! Individuals with good specialist but limited expertise, guesswork, maths, pomposity, complacency and ego. If we put a team with the approach of most current scientists together to design and build a complex building - we probably wouldn't even manage a Lego model! The human race deserves better.

"..Originality at core is hard to find in the system that has been evolved."

An interesting view. I don't know if I was first annoyed or pleased to find myself the victim of anticipatory plageurism, but as I like thinking positive I was pleased. I may end up guilty of the same once I'm dead! My definition of 'impossible' is that it's never been done yet, and is being done thousands of time a day. We're all one off originals Nerendra. (PS; I'm now 57)!

Stay positive. Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

Please find support at 527.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


George Schoenfelder wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

Your essay inspired my short story that follows. In particular it is based on your words, “The logic of claiming that all good theory will get noticed and rise to the fore is flawed in our present system…funding [is] central to physics…Do we really risk extinction [of our freedom]?” Its themes are 1) physics will always have serious consequences to the free...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Don wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 23:50 GMT
I'd like to thank you giving me hope with physics again. Someone suddenly seemed to switch the lights on last night when I was thinking about the mechanics in your paper, it suddenly all fell into place. I wonder how long the commmunity will take to notice! Can you do a really simple thought experiment for evidence? that surely must be possible, and work!? I expect to hear a lot more of discrete fields soon (ish!)?

Best wishes.

Don Hudson

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 11:25 GMT
Hi Eckard

Thanks for your support. But I'm afraid I've failed so far with the 527 ,and I'm not a numbers man or mathematician - do I get any clues?

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 12:26 GMT
Hi Don

I'm glad you had that moment. It's a wonderful feeling isn't it. I liked your analogy with someone turning the lights on.

Don; "I wonder how long the commmunity will take to notice!"

I hadn't anticipated the posts here 'letting the cat out of the bag' so much, but it's an interesting part of the process. I'm in a very strange position, as I really want my main...

view entire post





Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 13:20 GMT
Thanks for the excellent story George.

Yes I do appreciate and understand it. And I would say there is NO chance of that happening, and I would say it with confidence. The reason is that it would make you feel better, and that is important on this world. But I can't. And the reason I can't is that if people belive it can't happen it may increase the chances of it happening!

For the record I thought your essay was horribly underrated George. I think that proves my superficial postulate that most authors only see their own agenda. Bit I'd like to invite you, as a scientist, to look under the superficial. And by the way, when I said 'extinction' it was not just of our freedom but genuinely suggesting we may not even get NEAR the dinosaurs as a species now physicists look at ALL potential advances that break ruling paradigms as automatically crackpottery. There's no worse fascist 'regime of fear' than that.

I have to summon up some courage, and need help from you. I have actually now discovered and demonstrated exactly HOW maths has fooled us, and why we havn't been able to marry QM with relativity. Highly unliky I know, and I can see your eyes glazing over, but prove me wrong (and look at the above post) and think about this;

AE invented the 'mathematical construct' of 'lateral waves' to allow SR. They have no quantum or physical basis. The Doppler equation describes how wavelengths change, but again is a 'construct' and can't physicaly make ANYTHING change! If we can show how equivalence can work WITH a quantum field ('ether'- that supports entanglement), with the Quantum mecahanical process, we can start catching up with 100yrs of lost physics. I'm in the awful position of having found this. What the ***king hell do I do!! Just forget about it?? I sometimes wish I could! A few from a little down the food chain have confirmed it's right and are excited (and have given me good public ratings) but seem scared of sticking necks out! Please have a look and check it out properly for me, and let me know if I'm a crackpot or not! (and help disprove my lead postulate!).

The original webarchive paper is on; http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047 I can't publish the latest one solving astronomical anomolies yet as it's 'being considered'.

Very best regards, and hope the adjudicators give your essay the credit it deserves too.

Peter Jackson




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 14:52 GMT
Dear Peter,

I meant the discussion [/unlink] on my essay. Look there for your name.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 13:24 GMT
Dear Eckard

Thanks, I hadn't read the content of the many posts on your essay, and thanks for your support.

At one level my excercise here is a test of how seriously we've taken Poppers views on paradigms. This site should be their best chance. The jury's still (literally!) out.

I didn't want to use it just to 'showcase' the discovery as that's not the purpose of the competition, but it did give a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what's wrong and what is limiting us. The bottom line is we've forgotten that nature is actually not a mathematical construct.

I'm having some interesting thoughts about your wave, see my notes on your posts, but I will probably revert. We seem to have a few glimpses of the same genuine reality from different reference frames in these essays!

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 12, 2009 @ 17:54 GMT
Dear Eckard

I re-read your essay. It's amazing how much we can miss when skimming over a lot of essays. I referred to glimpses of reality in your posts, I think between us we have a pretty good picture!

In my current paper I think I identified why we can't unify physics conceptually, it's because we need to actually achieve physical frequency modulation of light, and mathematical constructs themselves can't do it. I'm now sure I know what does. You may understand the rest of the picture if you have the Discrete Field Model in mind. (it's under consideration by a PR journal but I'd expect rejection as some isn't 19th century physics).

But you seem to have done the bit I couldn't;

"Sinusoidal and exponential functions are not subject to the restricted reduction to a basic singularity. Therefore they alone are unfit to describe real processes." and; "Differential equations are not the primary relations in physics but they arose by stripping off the link to reality and hence they opened the door for ambiguity."

Absolutely brilliant. I hope you don't mind if I quote you. I may revert to your posts shortly to discuss waves a little more.

Peter




George Schoenfelder wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 04:57 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

Yes I completely agree “WITH a quantum field (‘ether’- that supports entanglement).” I provide a model of this in my essay’s section 6. I feel the same sense of responsibility. Would you agree that we have basically arrived at a similar place but in different ways?

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 16:23 GMT
George

Yes, I do agree, and I think Eckard (link to his essay above) is there too. He has an excellent analysis of exactly where maths lost touch with physical reality (see quote 2 posts up).

And if you haven't read his essay you must do so.

I plan to check out your website asap.

As collaberative papers carry more weight than individuals we may need to consider this, unless we can persuade a suitably 'eminent' person to look.

I feel we may need to deal with the left side of the brains of the science community first; Pick a small and entirely provable but interesting part of the picture first, then build on it piece by logical piece till they suddenly see the whole jigsaw picture filled in for themselves.

Or if you have a plan let me know!

Peter




George Schoenfelder wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 01:35 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

I have a hunch you will appreciate my website and books. I look forward to your critique.

I have read Eckard Blumschein’s essay and as you predicted I liked it. I responded to him on my FQXi page on 10-30-09 regarding his work and “fields” in general. The next day he said he would respond to my proposed “field” criteria when he could. He has not yet. Perhaps you could review our conversation at my page.

Expanding on our shared sentiments and the Blumschein paragraph you pointed out, “Sinusoidal and exponential functions…and hence they opened the door for ambiguity”, I would say that mathematics is descriptive and not mechanistic per se. It numerically describes empirical data points such that they can be interpolated and extrapolated. Math is simply a very useful numerical French curve. Like the French curve it is very good when the interpolation and extrapolation are close to the dots. However, it is not so good when the dots are spread out, as for example between the data of SR, GR, and QM. It is no wonder that a largely math oriented audience would loath any essay that calls for a physics model that not only connects the dots of SR, GR, and QM, but also the innumerable dots of embryogenesis. Clearly a lesson of embryogenesis is that a very important part of the universe is indeed mechanistic. It follows that physics needs an all-encompassing mechanism and not just more isolated curve fitting.

I have the following plans.

1) Publish my works in peer review journals and collaborate with coauthors.

2) Computer simulate mechanistic approaches like that of my “framed quantum dynamics,” FQD. By the way, I was notified of this FQXi contest because two years ago I applied for a grant that was rejected to this end.

3) Make and test heterodox double slit experiments. Specifically, based on FQD, I have a unique prediction in mind that is not in accordance with established or accepted predictions. It is simple enough I can perhaps do it myself. Of course, the coup de grace would be for the unexpected empirical results to be congruent with the computer simulation mentioned above. I can elaborate on these experiments if you like.

4) Other

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear George

Nice plan. I also planned the peer review route but it seems only 1 in 1m even get read unless it's about something very obscure and quite short.

That gave rise to my 'top layer' postulate that we may now be done for. When the real answer to the problems does arise, however well evidenced, it will be buried in a mountain of unpublished paper, hidden behind scores of worthless unfalsifiable theories and would never even get read let alone understood, analysed, evaluated and recognised.

I have to smile at the fools who say the peer review system must work as all good discoveries have come via that route. They seem to be the same ones who think only maths can be used to prove anything, and who point the boney fascist finger and cry 'crackpot' so often. The lack of the simplest logic among those who are supposed to be using the scientific method beggars belief!

I had a eureka moment which formed my model, but from the posts only a handful of others have shared that so far, recognising the result = unification. I'm not sure you're one. Could you advise, or check again and let me know if you see any issue there? I've tried to disprove it many times and failed, finding even the most bizarre prediction it can throw up to be already observed.

The new paper currenty under consideration (Hah!) makes it clearer, but I'd like to know and understand any perceived issues at all with the first one.

Many Thanks Peter




George Schoenfelder wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Peter,

When you said, “I’ve tried to disprove it” I take it you mean by “it” is “unification”—yes? I think any explanation of a unified field must include the aether as you suggest. Thus, I am for you and want to understand your work better. It seems to me that your work relates to my essay’s section 6.

I do not think we are crackpots. However, communication is never easy. Part of the problem with the “establishment” is they don’t take the time necessary to really dig in, and thus wind up talking past each other. If you and I do not take the time to understand each other’s work then we are as bad as they are.

So, I think both of our works need to be like your “new paper…[and be] clearer.” To that end it would be good if you stated your “it” thesis in a succinct paragraph or two. If you like I will do the same with my essay’s section 6. That way we can be succinct in where we agree and disagree.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 14:53 GMT
George

I agree, including that communication between scientists is horrifically bad.

My "it" is my model.(which, yes, does allow unification). I've tried to disprove the model in every way. It's come up with lots of predictions, but when I've researched them each one has come up proven! Apparant superluminal motion, (See Nimtz, Berkeley, M87 etc etc). Shapiro delay anomolies (see Evelyn Gates comments; 'must be missing some physics' or having to 'change the cosmological model' etc). EM waves slowing but resuming 'c' instantly on release from BEC (Lena Hau at Harvard). Planetary probe approach anomolies (just found that hidden away as strange 'winds'). Flyby anomaly etc etc etc. all explained!! As well as all the SR paradoxed resolved. It's frightning!!

I'll give you a series of conceptual bullet points here. I don't like doing this without the evidence attached as it invites scepticism, but, as you know the evidence and logic exists, try these.

The Discrete Field Model; (DFM).

* Retains the postulates of SR as written, but not all assumptions. Equivalence is maintained.

* The crazy cloud of oscillating free action particles that grows around an accelerating proton is present around all mass and proportional (1/137th




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Peter,

I cannot and I will not comment on your ideas. Just a hint: I guess your last post remained incomplete because you used a forbidden symbol, maybe a smaller sign.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 09:50 GMT
Hi Eckard

Thanks, yes it was a forbidden symbol. Completed key points here.

I understand it's not your field, but part of the problem is that it overlaps a number of 'fields'. Any thoughts are welcomed.

I believe the point for you is that it demonstrates very similar issues with regard to present understanding of the complexity and characteristics of waves. A simple conceptual point is; why do polarisers have to work in two planes, i.e. 3 dimensionally, with transverse waves?

* Retains the postulates of SR as written, but not all assumptions. Equivalence is maintained.

* The crazy cloud of oscillating free action particles that grows around an accelerating proton is present around all mass and proportional (1/137th upwards) to velocity through all background fields.

* 'All mass' includes all particles and loose groups of particles including the immediate space around them, at all scales, up to and beyond Molecules, Planets, Heliospheres and Galaxies.

* There are "an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other." (A. Einstein. 1952). These are not just 'systems of co-ordinates' but real discrete fields or 'regions of space' around all mass.

* At all such field boundaries perturbation generates oscillating particle clouds in 'shocks' & halo's.

* EM waves travel at 'c' through and with respect to all 'regions of space', or 'dark energy fields'.

* Maths does not create physical Doppler wavelength shifts. The dense clouds of oscillating particles do this by modulating frequency in a similar way to FM radio modulation.

* The frequency of EM waves is thereby shifted at shocks, maintaining 'c' through each field.

* Spacecraft, astronauts & measuring instruments all have their own fields. Size, density, oscillation frequency, and ergo Doppler shift are all subject to relative velocity, giving beautiful symmetry.

* All anomalies of SR and the main anomalies of Astronomy (lensing delays, superluminal motion, galactic fringe stability, Pioneer/Voyager and flyby anomalies etc.) are resolvable by the model.

* The model allows a preferred 3rd background frame, allowing a quantum 'dark energy' field but also invariance and equivalence.

* Lateral waves are recognised as mathematical constructs and not real physical entities. Particles in motion oscillate but EM waves are the variation of a real property through a real medium.

* Individual particles, including photons, are not conserved. 'c' is maintained by field energy and energetic 'wave bundle' particles are condensed by local perturbation, and absorbed ('annihilated').

It's not a theory but a model, and one that's passed every test I can find to throw at it. It also helps prove your postulate about mathematics. If you can think of other tests do please advise.

Thanks

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 13:36 GMT
Eckard/George

Someone has just 'pointed out' a flaw in my logic and understanding of SR. I hadn't used the relativistic velocity addition equation.

Bless!

But it has helped clarify for me another area where math has caused us to loose touch with logic and the physical world.

He passed on a nice website description of the relativistic adjustment to ensure infinity (an aberration in itself!) the division by 1 plus vu/c2. (link below). Of course the paper also provides my DFM 'Third Frame' condition of observer B measuring relative velocity of A and C, where a simple velocity addition or subtraction must be used (whether relativistic or not). The site is http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity
.html

Now eshew the normal route of resorting to equations and retain logic; If A is a galaxy, moving at z=4 towards a gas jet C (as say M87) doing 0.98c, then the apparent motion between the two as observed by B can, and will, be well over c.

(again whether each is relativised or not). One may be moving quite slowly but the relative speed observed still be superluminal.(M87 is actually a special case,- but more another time). It's the same simplest of equations but with a minus sign if they're moving apart.

It's a pure victory for numbers and self delusion over nature and intellegence that's stopped us recognising our failure of logic here - till now. It's similar for the Doppler equation and wave function.

That's far from all the story but let's take straightening out physics in easy chunks as simplicity seems so difficult to believe!

Please let me know if the above analysis is clear enough as it's now in the paper!

I am sometimes flabergasted by our dimness, but I'm sure you guys can see the logic!?

Best regards, Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear Peter,

While I disagree with John Baez in decisive other questions, I cannot see any flaw in what you quoted.

Admittedly I do not understand what you meant when you wrote:

"If A is a galaxy, moving at z=4 towards a gas jet C (as say M87) doing 0.98c, then the apparent motion between the two as observed by B can, and will, be well over c."

What do z=4 and M87 mean?

I understood u = velocity between C and A, v = velocity between A and B and w = velocity between C and B, with C,A,B in line.

You refer to u =(w-v)/(1-wv/cc) which I consider never larger than c.

Regards,

Eckard

--

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 10:10 GMT
Hi Eckard

OK, Forget 'z' (to do with redshift & galactic recession velocity) and just consider a galaxy 'A' moving across the sky left to right with respect to the observer at rest frame 'B', at a velocity 'v' of 0.4c. A gas jet 'C' is moving (right to left from the observers frame) towards the galaxy at velocity 'u', say 0.98c. ('M87' is galaxy Messier87 which has a gas jet recently confirmed at 5 to 6c across Hubbles frame and reputedly doing 0.98c in the local frame).

This is the alternative condition correctly referred to in the web paper as requiring simple velocity addition equation, whether each ones speed is relativised or not. No other logical option exists and it's well known, but the implications are not well understood! You're right about the normal conditions result never being greater than 'c', But relativise 0.98c and 0.4c if you wish, and when you add them together they still come to far greater than 'c'. i.e. the relative speed between A and C is superluminal viewed from B. Remember this is not necessarily when viewed from A or C according to SR, but does give valid apparent superluminal motion from the 3rd frame 'B'. Many relativists would deny this is possible, and that's where it all relied on maths not logic and went wrong.

Now to your sound waves. Consider standing at the centre of a football stadium. With 80,000 people cheering which way do the molecules bump into each other? Wouldn't they get a bit confused? If you're in a soundproof box with a long tube or directional microphone sticking out how could you pick out a sound waves from two people shouting something specific from that direction when there are 79,998 other waves they have to fight their way through messing up the wave pattern? Analog superposition can only go so far! Sound energy propagation, like light, is a lot less simplistic than maths and current science would have us believe. Or am I missing something? (I'm no expert on sound but that one may perhaps allow a relatively easy experiment!?).

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Peter,

You may trust in my knowledge: The physical aspects of acoustics are not at all enigmatic but well understood. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of discrepancy between theory of hearing, physiology and psychophysics.

What about your A, B, C, I do not understand why do you question the impossibility of any relative velocity to exceed c? You wrote:

"galaxy 'A' moving across the sky left to right with respect to the observer at rest frame 'B', at a velocity 'v' of 0.4c. A gas jet 'C' is moving (right to left from the observers frame) towards the galaxy at velocity 'u', say 0.98c.

At first, I do not understand why it matters if you choose just B at rest.

Secondly, if I understood you correctly, A, B, C are not moving along a common straight line in which case the calculation I referred to was applicable.

Thirdly, your description seems to be very imprecise: "across the sky left to right" and "right to left".

If you maintain that superluminal velocity is possible, could you please exactly describe the mutual distances and relative speeds AB, BC, CA and what apparent speed you are considering superluminal?

Maybe, you refer to an understandable source?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 13:59 GMT
Eckard

The choice of 'B' simply derived from the Baez link I gave you; http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity
.html

The comment 'across the sky' in context is to make it clear 'B' is a separated 3rd frame, observing 'from a distance', as A and C, approach each other, along a "common straight line".

We can use the standard formulae to relativise the velocity of A, and then similarly the velocity of B. Let's say the relativised velocity of A reduces from just below c to 0.95c. (slower clock). And say the same calculation for the relativised velocity of B reduces it to 0.39c. (all standard stuff).

As the Baez paper, (see the 'alternative' example) and every good textbook, confirms; The 'closing velocity' between A and C, as observed from rest frame B, (say a light year or more away) must then be a simple velocity addition.

This means when they meet their relative velocity according to B is 0.95 + 0.39 = 1.34c. i.e. Superluminal.

This is actually what we observe, and in very many cases. M87, first seen almost 100yrs ago and confirmed at up to 6c recently by Hubble, is an exceptionally high one, but there is another good explanation for this.

The important point is that an assumption made by most following SR is that such observation is not possible. Astronomers run a mile from mentioning it as it appears to conflict with the general understanding of SR! It does NOT however conflict with either postulate, or reality, and in fact also explains many other anomolies.

Do you understand the basic logic of it now? (Don't try to follow the rest of the logic through too far without understanding the rest of the model or you'll meet a lot more paradoxes).

Where it went wrong is where we let the link between maths and logic be severed. We've forgotten maths can be self consistent yet still not actually describe physical reality.

Think about it and ask any questions.

So can you also explain exactly how in current physics is the signal of a clear small voice preserved when crossed at all vectors by 80,000 other different and similar sound waves?

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion you might refer to an optical illusion.

What about the superposition of sound waves, I did not get your point. The SNR is of course a negative dB value of considerable size. Not even the ear can hear a single voice out.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
Hi Eckard

I hope you're not taking wiki-science to seriously! although in fact the most serious science can't presently rationalise observed apparent superluminal motion with the assumptive error made following SR.

If you're in a bar and see someone at the other end of the room throw a beachball towards a dart player, (at 4mph, at 90 degrees to your view) and the dart player throws a dart at it, (at 9mph), at what speed might you logically expect them to appear to meet?

If their velocities are close to light speed and relativised the total would still come to well above light speed. But if a priest was there, whose interpretation of his religion said they could only be seen to meet at a lower speed, would you a) Believe him and just puzzle at the paradox. b) Think he was a fool or drunk and want to check for yourself?

The overwhelming observational evidence matches logic and the bit of the SR evidence that says in that case velocities are added, not the conflicting supposed bit of SR, actually only assumption, which seems to say we can't see the difference as more than 'c', because they can make some maths with a flawed basis appear to agree!

Once relativised how might you imagine so many optical illusions could arise? This is the key to the problems we have, which we'll never solve till we come out of misguided religous denial.

With regard to the sound scenarion. The ear would obviously send too many signals to the brain! You've forgotten the directional microphone I referred to. Use the most sensitive fine directional mike imaginable, clear a space around a girl calling and point the mike at her. Now have 80,000 others shouting from the stands from all angles.

As I understand present physics, if she was alone in the stadium her voice would travel via variations of actual particle movement translating the signal from particle to particle in 'wave' variations. With 80,000 other waves, many of the same tone etc, crossing this, superposed at all angles, one might expect her 'signal' integrity to be destroyed by the very confused particles! They cannot move in all directions at the same time! I understand from interpolated observation however that the directional mike will successfully pick ut her voice, which could then be further 'cleaned' spectroscopically.

The postulate therefore is that the quantum mechanism for translation of sound wave energy signals may be a little more subtle than 19th century physics suggested, possibly involving the more complex internal particle oscillation we have so far reserved only for EM waves.

Does that help clarify the question? Or might it be an inaudible illusion?

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Peter,

Are your arguments valid? Even without gamma, could addition of the velocities for two objects moving relative to each other yield a higher velocity than twice the larger one? I cannot imagine this. The observed 6c must have a different cause.

My experience with interpreting high speed videos of welding arc phenomena tells me: It tends to be difficult or even impossible to conclude from observed apparent speed of propagating bright cathode jets on how fast the particles move.

I recall that Nimtz also claimed having observed superluminal propagation of signals. While he was never taken seriously, his mistake was not obvious. The strongest arguments that he was wrong were the facts that he neither could demonstrate a useful application over many years nor did he himself understand what happened. The signal processing community attributed his mistake to his use of inappropriate measures of velocity. Indeed, Nimtz never managed to measure a superluminal front speed. I criticize that his use of complex calculus included future time.

When training students, I let perform some 1000 of them an experiment where an electric impulse traveled along a 50 Ohm cable of 10 m length within about 50 nanoseconds corresponding to 200,000 km/second. I mention this as to remind you that light is much faster than your beach ball and the frequencies/wave lengths of the impulse which are, in principle, illustrated in Fig. 2 of my essay, traveled altogether with the same velocity 2/3 c. A larger than roughly c = 300,000,000 m/s velocity of an electromagnetic wave would require the product epsilon_0 times my_0 to be smaller than roughly 1/c^2. Do you imagine the velocity of a particle possibly larger than the velocity of light as in case of supersonics? Didn't this imply to conjecture a force in excess of the electromagnetic ones?

Let me invert your idea and assume propagation of light, for instance from the sun, towards points A and B of nearly opposite directions. You are arguing that this corresponds to the sum of both velocities, i.e. 2c, right? If we look at this, does it contradict to gamma? I do not think so. A photon that traveled left and then moved right after being reflected from A will arrive at B on the opposite side not with a higher velocity than c but later.

Your idea with the directional microphone sound funny for an expert. I still did not get your point. Superposition works well except in case of non-linearity. Of course, sound waves propagate in media with discrete molecules. However, this merely utters itself as noise.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 14:59 GMT
Hi Eckard

You took a brave step indentifying the departure of mathematical constructions from physical reality. One more similar step will give you the proof. But you can see the start of that step when you say;

"Let me invert your idea and assume propagation of light, for instance from the sun, towards points A and B of nearly opposite directions. You are arguing that this...

view entire post





Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 6, 2009 @ 16:58 GMT
Eckard

I think the models' just passed a stiff test from Arjen Djikesman, about refraction. Check his posts if you'd like to see.

Do let me have any comments.

Best wishes

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 7, 2009 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

When you supported Nimtz's claim having measured superluminal propagation of signals you lost my support. His claim did not and will not provide a technical application. It was proven wrong several times.

I also do not appreciate your speculation (in the Dijksman thread) that light is a wave that propagates within dark matter which you seem to imagine like ether.

What about the addition of velocities, I would like to remind you of the possibility to observe constructive and destructive interference between an original wavefront and the reflected one.

I apologize for no longer discussing here. I will try and explain instead what I consider lacking comprehension in the basics of mathematics. See my comments on the recent FQXi article.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 8, 2009 @ 11:29 GMT
Hi Eckard

If you're still following; You obviously missed the key bit on addition of velocities. It's an unavoidable part of the present paradigm that in the circumstances of a 3rd frame observing two others closing on each other, the velocities, whether relativised or not, are simply added or subtracted. See the 'other' condition in the Baez link I gave, and also Ned Wrights excellent site, referring to why apparrent superluminal relative velocities have to occur.

Interference between wavefronts is central to my question about sound. How can 80,000 wave fronts crossing from different angles not interfere at all?

We've all been a bit 'head in the sand' with our unquestioning religious adherence to old paradigms. Dark matter and the dark energy field are facts we must face up to. It seems Einstein was right and nature "has revealed to us" the answers, already there surrounding accelerated particles, but we have to be prepared to look.

Science is about questioning and testing. I agree with most of your postulates, but I don't beleive you'll make any real progress, or find the real answer, until you look further outside the box. But I wish you luck.

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 11, 2009 @ 12:10 GMT
Peter,

no further discussion, just a joke: Sensation: Photo-printing many thousand times faster than light: A 314 km long piece of light-sensitive paper behind a mask is wound like a spiral around a central point with a distance growing from 100 km to 100.000,001 m and exposed to a flash light exactly within the center of the spiral.

Enjoy,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 14, 2009 @ 20:53 GMT
Lovely model Eckard

But the wavefront of the white 'developing' part of the paper couldn't possibly travel round the spiral at greater than 'c' of course. The mind boggles at what shape the spiral has to take up with contraction!

It took over 200yrs before anyone cound countenance Newton being challenged, then we put on a big spurt. One day physics will progress again, I wonder if it will take just as long.

Best wishes

Peter




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 15:06 GMT
The velocity of a wavefront propagating in space is always to be measured orthogonal to the front.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 13:34 GMT
Eckard

Spot on. But superposition is also important, as is consideration of non information carrying phase and group velocities (similar to your photo example).

If you're still not happy with Nimtz and Chiao et al's work have a check on the increasingly rapid evolution of the Wiki page on superliminal motion since the publication of my first viXra paper. It seems like a bit of a snowball effect. (the 2nd has now been sent for posting - in the Astronomy section).

Science is catching up as we write, and suspect it may may be very useful for your own work to keep your finger on the pulse!

Peter




PJ wrote on Dec. 21, 2009 @ 21:10 GMT
Eckard.

Lovely detailed article in the latest New Scientist about how a top Oxford mathematician objected and rebelled so much about what we'd now term 'Alice in Wonderland' mathematics of such things as imaginary numbers and quaternions, loosing touch with physical reality, that he wrote a book in parody. He used a pen name and called it 'Alice in Wonderland'!

They call him 'Conservative'

He may yet end up canonised!!

Do you know the book?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 11:46 GMT
ok guys, new shorter paper dealing with how the DFM resolves astronomical anomalies, and other inductive evidence etc. just published; http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041

I hope you'll find it solid, groundbreaking and inspiring. But please do give me any comments on it or ask any questions.

Hope you have a good Christmas break.

Peter




Jamie wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 00:03 GMT
Hi Peter

I've been watching your posts, and don't think Eckard really understands what he's looking at. I was sceptical myself as your predictions seemed quite astonishing, and to challenge SR, though I now understand better. BUT!!

NASA have just issued their rather overdue LUNAR LASER RANGING RESULTS, the first relly accurate experimental test of SR. They do not follow the predictions of SR, but they match your predictions perfectly!!!!! This must be almost as significant as Eddington!!!

It's no wonder they were delayed, the papers, from the Goddard Space Flight Centre, are exceptionally thorough and accurate (both on arXiv). They don't draw any wild conclusions but are a massive bombshell none the less. Congratulations, you have another solid supporter. I can't now believe how I didn't see it myself!! I enjoyed reading your papers, and am now looking forward to the third. I hope yopu enjoy the NASA papers.

I hope you have a splendid new year, but I know what troglodytes surround us so wish you the best of luck.

Jamie

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 11:47 GMT
Hi Mr Jackson ,

I read this thread and I see two errors ,foundamentals ,about c and the dark energy ,one is invariant ,constant and the other doesn't exist.

I agree too like Eckard about the propagation of the light .

That has no sense that dear Peter .Really .

When you speak about the sphere light ,could you develop a little your point of vue please ?

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jude wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 16:05 GMT
Hi Peter

Just to let you know that, unlike Steve above, there are people out here who DO understand the brilliant logic and simple science of your model.

Steve; If you don't understand what the Schrodinger Sphere of expanding light is you'll never even understand the problem let alone the answer! The whole point about Peters DFM is that is shows how 'C' can be TOTALLY invariant, without paradox!!

I really do fully understand you essay as well now Peter, it must be very frustrating. A bit like Planck discovering the quanta, but the physics world ignoring him or saying it's nonsense. I'm working in medicine now so wouldn't carry any weight in fundamental physics, but be assured there are some with fully working mental capacities out here!

I really do wish you the best of luck with our colleagues (I like the word Troglodytes above!). I't be the most deserved Noble prize ever!!

Jude

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 14:44 GMT
Hi Steve.

I see some of your points are quite well answered above. But to illucidate:

1. 'c' is, if anything, even more invariant in the Discrete Field Model as in the 'simple' version of SR without the DFM. The Doppler shifting witnesses this by evidencing it's change at the boundary of each field in relative motion.

2. The new NASA results are fully consistent with this model and nothing else, including, unequivacally, the 'non DFM' version of SR!! (Thank you Jamie for spotting them). I've now read them and they're exceptionally well considered and high quality papers that should dispell a lot of misunderstanding. Links;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2

http://arxiv.org/abs/0
912.3934v2

3. So Dark Energy doesn't exist! I wish you'd told me sooner. And there was I believing all the latest data from space, Astrophysicists, and the Sloane Digital Sky Survey showing it made up, along with dark matter (halo's etc) 73% of the matter/energy in the universe!! Actually there must be something there if it has Impedence etc. etc, and a temperature (2.7degrees). It exists anyway in the model as models are for testing hypothesise. This one has passed all tests so far!!

4. I am, like Jude, a bit concerned at your lack of knowledge of light spheres, which added to your limited knowledge about dark energy does unfortunately seem to degrade your opinion! If you do some more homework you may see a different picture. There's plenty just on the web!. Then read the actual papers on the DFM.

To help; If you imagine a light bulb flashes in space. The light will travel from it at 'c' in all directions, so the 'wave front' will form a sphere, expanding at 'c' (or, in fact, the opposite surfaces expand at 2c relatively).

If some of the light enters a galaxy heading towards the bulb it it slowed down (and Dopler shifted at the halo) in relation to the light going past the galaxy. This, along with smaller light path and GravLensing effects, gives the Einstein lensing and Shapiro Delays, (Lensed light delayed componed measured by spectroscopy at over 3 years in one recent case!).

Let me know if you understand or not once you've read the NASA papers etc.

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 14:56 GMT
Thanks Jaime

You were right, it was nice to read the NASA ranging papers and see the results confirmed exactly as the DFM prediction. No surprise of course, but it will be a surprise if the 'Troglodytes' as you call them don't completely ignore or dismiss them!!

This site is supposed to be for free thinking fundamental physics. We'll see if the adjudicators match up to that or not!!

It doesn't look like many have noticed the NASA papers yet, or maybe as it disproves legend they're simply in denial. All part of normal human failing.

Thanks for your very kind words anyway. And if you're not too scared of being called a crackpot by the uninformed and the simply slow please do spread the word. It'll be interesting to see how many insist NASA are talking rubbish!

I've mailed NASA to congratulate them and am adding a citing and Epilogue to my current paper on GPS evidence. Look out for it on the viXra. Thanks

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 7, 2010 @ 15:10 GMT
Hi Jude (or Hey!).

Thanks for your support and enthusiasm.

It really is nice to have it confirmed that there are other intellegent beings out there.

I'm honoured to be compared with Max Planck, though, despite it perhaps not looking so, my real hero has always been Einstien. He did say; "The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to gravitational fields, but not to the total field." and "one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory." (1952).

No-one seems to have taken much notice of him, but I have and I'm really glad you agree I seem to have succeeded.

Whether or not the rest of physics notices is an entirely different question! I feel your reference to a Nobel is embarrasingly premature, and it's mankind I'm concerned about not prizes (my trophy cabinet really is stuffed full allready! - Google; SolentIRC), but thanks for the thought. I'll add you to my (small) fan club.

Very best wishes

Peter




Anonymous wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 12:50 GMT
Dear Jude ,

AHAHAHAH FIRST YOUR NAME ,

second ,like say a friend ,take your med

3 I invite you to see understand my theory ,The theory of Spherisation ,A GUT of Rotating Spheres ,all is said my friend .quantum spheres ...cosmological spheres ...universal sphere.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 12:54 GMT
Thus Jude you can imagine the importance of your message for me .

Dear Peter what do you think about my theory of the spherization ,I am curious .

Thanks

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 12:58 GMT
I insist still we have no proofs about Dark energy

I think you are more a business ùman than a real scientist ,just a suggestion .

I invite you to study the real foundamentals .

Good luck

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 13:04 GMT
Like the expansion ,just false too .No but I DREAM or what ,an eternal expansion where all goes everywhere in a infinite universe ahahahah oh My God

Your lack of pragmatism is ironic in fact .

I think many don't understand well the real physical 3D system and IS SPHERES in rotation around the universal center .You want speak about light and you don't understand its real universal aim with the gravity .The evolution and the realtivity are for you a confusion thus I can understand your posts .

I repeat what do you think about My theory of Spherisation ,a GUT of rotating spheres .If you can of course .Jude you can too .Let's critic in total transparence .

Reghards

STEVE

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 13:17 GMT
In conclusion too ,

I invite you to re read the Posts of Eckard about the light .You shall unerstand better what is a sphere of light ,quantum too and its linearity ,contant.

Superluminal

Dark energy

infinite expansion

...FALSE FORTUNALY FURTHERMORE

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 12:01 GMT
Steve

SD; "Dear Peter what do you think about my theory of the spherization ,I am curious."

I can't find it anywhere Steve, Please explain or give me a link and I'll comment.

SD; "I insist still we have no proofs about Dark energy"

I certainly agree there's little proof of exactly what is is. There is however plenty of evidence of a number of its characteristics. To start with, if something is at 2.7degrees it must be 'something', and has energy! The WMAP data also seems quite conclusive, and is the best we have. The whole point of models is to test postulates when there is no final proof yet.

SD"I think you are more a business ùman than a real scientist ,just a suggestion."

What is a 'real scientist' Steve? I'm certainly not a businessman! I agreed with Eckards and Lewis Carolls view of the 'fantasy' direction maths was taking and decided to take a more scientific route, taking Einsteins and Feynmanns advice to 'find a new way of thinking'. The best way I could find was to train as an Architect - learning how to assimilate great amounts of complex fact and theory into visualisation. AE also said; "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

I started as a mathematician, but went back to more inductive methods and now consider myself more of a proper scientist!

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 12:06 GMT
Steve et al.

Following the quite conclusive NASA evidence and analysis in Daniel Gezari's arXiv papers on Lunar Ranging I added a postscript and citations to my own 3rd paper, under consideration at the time, focussing on GPS evidence. It is now published. I'm sure you'll enjoy reading it;

http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

Relativistic GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 12:23 GMT
Steve

SD; "I invite you to re read the Posts of Eckard about the light .You shall unerstand better what is a sphere of light ,quantum too and its linearity ,contant."

I agreed with almost everthing in Eckards paper, told him so, and marked him highly. I'm not a specialist in sound, but this particularly relates to the more fundamental questions of; The need for ultimate Realism, that 'theory has to obey reality', and the damage Cantor, his set theory and approach to infinity has done to the progress of physics.

I've seen nothing in Eckards posts contradicting accepted Scrodinger sphere science. We only appeared to disagree on Nimtz because he claimed information transfer at over 'c', which was indeed wrong, 3rd frame observation is not the same.

The DFM is the first model ever to return to total reality but including it with locality, to unify SR and QFT, and to match all observation. (and using the postulates of SR). I have as of yet seen or heard no actual criticism or probem identified in the model itself.

It also exactly predicted the unexpected NASA lunar ranging results!!

I hope you may respect that by actually reading it and deriving sensible scientific questions and observations.

Thanks. Peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 12:45 GMT
Hihihii thanks dear Peter ,

Like that I know you in fact hihihi .I am arrogant but I am a real nice .

About My Theory ,I am young you know 34 years old and I am a very very veryyyyyyyy bad administrator thus you can encircle my economic situation ,catastrophic hahaha but I evolve .It is the reason why I haven't website or publications,even my certificates I have stop before the certificate .(Medecine,geology,agronomy in Belgium(UMH,FNDP).Is it important ?No evidently and fortunaly for the sciences .I just continue my works ,quietly and pragmatically with an analyze in all centers of interest,you can see the spherisation everywhere even in a flower ,my two passions horticulture and playing music(piano,guitar,djumbe),let's look around you ,you shall see the sphericality of creations .Even with your eyes and brains ,these spheroids ,all appears in this ultim reality ,the sphere.A fruit ,a flower ,a seed,an egg,the wheel for the rotation ,pulleys ,rotors,motors....the favorite human sports with spheres,the glands,the elementary particles ,the stars ,the planets ,the moons,the spherical waves,the form of a tree ,all is balanced in this sphericlity and its laws.

It is like that in fact ,our universe is a sphere in evolution towards a perfect balance between mass systems and their complexifications .

About the light ,do you know the photosynthesis,you shall find interestings extrapolations in this biological ,complex system .

Don't hesistate to ask me details about my theory I will answer you with pleasure.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 12:47 GMT
the rela sense of the light takes all its sense with the biological lifes and the evolution where the gravity builds in fact in this line time constant .

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 17:58 GMT
Ps of course I respect you ,arrogant but nice and sincerely in the respect .

Could you tell me more about your predictions please ?

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 18:10 GMT
Hi Steve

Are you Belgian?

SD; "the rela sense of the light takes all its sense with the biological lifes and the evolution where the gravity builds in fact in this line time constant."

I assume not Walloon, I've read it a few times, but it still sounds more like Double Dutch! (an english expression for incomprehensible). But I'm trying.

Can I guess and interpolate about your spheres concept; There are spheres of all sizes which surround all objects and indeed all mass, from the tiniest sub atomic particle to the Universe. So we have an infinite number of spheres within spheres.

If the Galaxy is encapsulated by a sphere, lets say with it's halo at the boundary, and it's rushing through deep space (through which light propagates at 'c'), would the light change speed o maintain 'c' when it enters the sphere?

If so might this perhaps be by Frequency Modulation? (FM), which would give the Doppler shifts we see? If so then your theory is very close to the reality of the Discrete Field Model!!

See my latest post in Eckards dept.

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 12:48 GMT
Steve

Our posts crossed!

SD; "Could you tell me more about your predictions please?"

There are heaps of predictions, mostly in the papers. Another was proved true yesterday, that the galaxy has a dense dark matter (oscilating particle) 'sheath' like the heliosheath. See the American Conference reports.

The DFM predicted and solves; the Lunar Ranging results, Flyby anomaly, Voyager anomaly, Shapiro delay/Lensing anomaly (3 year light delays!!) etc. apparent Superluminal motion (look up Wiki), and that the polarity change 'wave' from the sun would change it's frequency outside the heliosphere's termination shock. (just proved true). It also predicts & complies with the Fizeau/Sagnac/ Wang etc. results, and a few less provable things (to date), like that Black Holes may have Lagrangian Points (of equilibrium) at their centres not infinities!! Oh yes, ..and it removes all the paradoxes we currently have.

Unfortunately it seems almost no-one on our little planet can be bothered to even read it, so it will remain effectively undiscoved and we'll stay up the dead end we've been stuck in for decades. Jude did, but it just got her insulted by someone who hadn't bothered! I hope you didn't upset her too much. Perhaps you should read it yourself, and comment after acquiring the knowledge, rather than the other way around?

Peter

PS. I'm really not at all arrogant, but I am in awe of Einstein for saying; "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 12:51 GMT
Hi peter ,

Yes indeed I am belgian ,walloon,in the french part thus .We are 4 millions in the south of the little country .My region is the Hainaut ,one of the 9 regions of Belgium .Sorry for my literal english .When I will can ,I will study a little the grammary for an optimisation .

Yes indeed if we extrapolate the number of spheres ,we can insert this kind of infinity inside the closed system ,this universal sphere with all these quantum spheres which build the cosmological spheres and their creations .I consider the serie like finite in the whole of the referential .

The number of cosmological spheres is finite and the number for 1 quantic system is the same ,of course with an add of multiplication of these quantum spheres ,we can imagine a kind of infinity .

In this logic ,the quantum system is like a code of becoming for the Universe with its specific architecture.

Dear Peter could you develop a little please about the FM ,the superimposing of the waves are very relevant about the synchronization of frequences .

What I find interesting about the Doppler Fizeau effect is the datas about our sun .We can see continual motions of photospheric gas .The modes with nthe radial velocity thus....It is a pure thermodynamical system where the lines appears whith rationality .Thus the superimposings correlated with the rotations and the motions of particles implies a specific add of lines which give us the final line of interpretation.Maxwell ,Statistic ,Dopller,thermodynamic PV nRT....I insist on this point because I consider an increase of mass due to the evolution and its polarisations between gravity and electroagnetism.The quation of Saha can be inserted for the numbers of atoms ,the volumes more the rotations of spheres can be superimposed with rationality and proportionality ,evolutive .Thus of course the past perception must be adapted in the constants ,irreversiilities and coherences in my opinion .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Peter ,

the Universe is finite for me ,the stupidity like imaginaries are infinites ,thus without real sense about ther rationality .

You know if you convice me about the superluminal ,I will agree but it is not possible I think ,it is just an optical interpretation with some math tools .

Now of course if like (a+b)²=a²+2ab+b²...the superluminal is correct thus I will agree .

Even if it is correct ,let's assume that ,even the checking of the light speed is not possible ,thus why these extrapolations above our walls ? Have we a spaceship which can do that ,no evidently thus why these not sure things if even the things we know ,we can't interpret them or check them .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 10:28 GMT
Steve

The Sagnac effect (and laser Fibre optic gyros's) prove conclusively that if you take a fibre optic ring and spin it, the light moving through the ring does NOT slow down with respect to the ring! i.e. a 3rd party observer in the lab will see it as a pure case of v1+v2=v3.

Wang et al proved this was also the case with a straight fibre optic cable.

If you put a fibre optic cable on the side of concord it will NOT suddenly contract and detach itself when you pass a light pulse through it!

Any light waves reaching the observer are of course still always measured at c, and no 'information' carried by the wave within the cable can be imparted to the observer. He just receives different information (i.e. pulse timings, colour etc) at c.

The laser lunar ranging experiment, and the gas jets of M87 etc prove exactly the same. To claim this is impossible, or that the SR postulates say it is, is completely wrong and only demonstrates lack of understanding.

So; Everything does 'c' WITH RESPECT TO THE FIELD IT'S IN. Forget Lorentz's theoretical mathematical constructs. In reality 1 plus 1 = 2. How's that for beleivable maths!

Peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
Hi Peter ,

Thanks for this explaination ,you know I love astronomy and I know this radio galaxy M87,I suppose it is M87_VIRGO and its double structure,their gas and blue condensations with millions of parsec of velocity for matters. YES INTERESTING .We see in the visible an speed of 220000 km/s.NLRG DATAS .The IR and the stellar formations are relevant for the real topology of Our Universe.

I search the real sense about those gas jets ,please could you elaborate please,it is interesting .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 18:11 GMT
Steve

You'll also be aware there are dozens of others, at up to around 7c from our frame I beleive.

There's a complex confused attempt at a relativistic explanation on wikipedia (Google 'Superluminal motion'), that stands as a monument to man's capacity for denial and inability to accept simple logic and geometry! There's also the sensible, real, explanation derived from the DFM, which is also consistent with the SR postulates.

If you find the video of M87 you can actually make out some of the 'layers' surrounding the superluminal particles, meaning no part of it is actually doing over 'c' locally with respect to what it's moving through. Also remember, the jet has been going for centuries, and most of the particles aren't currently active enough to see.

In theoretical physics terms the model performs the almost magical 'holy grail' function of combining Locality with Reality, which fully unifies QFT and SR.

Our two 'equivalent' astronauts passing each other in space CAN be doing different velocities through a background feild (3rd Frame) AND will always measure light reaching them as travelling at 'c'. The model provides the FM (oscillating particle) doppler shift mechanism which acheives this, although we've all already been given a sample, in our FM radio's!!

Cloud density = velocity difference = oscillation rate = Doppler shift = cloud size/density. It's actually really beatutiful and simple, exactly like Einstein and Feynman predicted.

Unfortunately we don't seem to have anyone in physics with Einstein & Feynmans interest and intellectual capacity to recognise it at present!!

How's you brain doing?

Peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Hi dear Peter ,

You know ,I must admit I ask me why this limit of c .Indeed it is a real problem for the checking of the space between cosmological spheres and thus their interactions between mass system and their creations like lifes and conscious .

It is a little bizare indeed .Perhaps it is possible in fact .Perhaps we are too young still to know this speed .I don't know .A sure thing ,is it important at this moment ? I think step by step is essential to understand the potential of our laws .We are catalyzers in fact and we have tools around us ,how can we check these systems with rationality and pragmatism .

Even for the communication in our Universe ,it is a problem for the synergies ,but I think strongly the evolution is important in this analyze about the rule like catalyzers of the truth .

The superluminal information can be a reality ,perhaps indeed but our limits are there to check that .

If Newton ,gallilei or Bohr were there ,probably they shall help us .The best solution thus is to study their laws and improve them .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 13:17 GMT
Superluminal information is a slightly different matter Steve.

Group velocity and phase velocity of waves are different to the signal velocity that contains the information. In other words we can observe but we can't touch!

But see; http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf (Wang et al) An experiment showing that if a fibre optic gyro 'wave guide' is straightened the Sagnac effect still applies and the wave moves at the same speed with respect to the guide itself, not wrt the lab frame. This is again not entirely consistent with the SR that uses 'normal assumtions', but is with the DFM.

Peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 13:29 GMT
Hi dear Peter ,

I am going to learm more about this subject .The superluminal information is interesting .

it is well said your words ,In other words we can observe but we can't touch!

Thanks and regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 09:22 GMT
Steve

Thanks for your interest.

I don't beleive Eckard has studied and considered this as closely as you now have, and seen the solution. It's a shame as it's the key to open the door he's struggling with. I do hope he reads the posts above.

But it does only unlock the door Steve. You now need to look at the DFM again to see what's on the other side.

If you accept that light may NOT be able to go through a cloud of oscillating particles (or even perhaps billions of 'spinning' spheres if you prefer) at more than 'c', then you're 90% of the way there and just need to consider the implications.

Best wishes

Peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 19:07 GMT
Hi dear Peter ,

You are welcome.

The problem is the physical perception and its constants.If a velocity more important exists,linear thus we can't perceive it in the logic of the relativity.But with some geometries implying superimposings, that can give some perceptions like this one about this light velocity.

Could you please tell me more about DFM ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jude wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 10:55 GMT
Peter

Have checked the result. A travesty. But I see it's proved your postulate perfectly.

And no, Steve didn't really upset me, he was only showing his own lack of understanding. What I am impressed about is that he's now understood and taken on board your points!

That seems quite rare in a world where most are only intested in their own opinion!

I really do belive the DFM is a bit of genius, and I will push it where I can. Best of luck.

Jude

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 12:09 GMT
Hi jude,

My aim wasn't to upset you.Sorry for my arrogance ,I am young but I evolve.

Like I said before to Ray in private too ,my past here in Belgium was very difficult due to some people.I have lost all due to my kindness.You can understand thus my paranoia comportment and my lack of quiet.But be sure I am nice,too nice even .You know I have nothing ,I have just my theory and the center.And I must be strong to evitate to make errors still .It is difficult to find universalists.I have a big problem of adaptation to the system you know.

Dear Jude I take never the boat of others but I improve mine.If a theory or a model seems to me corect ,thus I agree and admit the datas.I have already say my point of vue about the work of Mr Jackson and I respect his researchs.Now of course like you say the system is the system and it exists a sad parameter ,this individualism, and many rest in their line of reasoning .

But when a work is foundamental ,the synchronizations appear and thus the correlations too because the universal constants are a reality.If Peter is right thus we shall discovery it with the foundamental synergies.The optic analyze is a tool ,now if the realism is correlated in this optic tools thus perhaps a proof will appear .I wish you all the best.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 10:38 GMT
Thanks Jude

I actually really wished I was wrong of course!

I did have greater hopes of this site, but it seems peoples own agendas always rule, which blinkers them and we really don't have any Einsteins around at present.

It seems it's not just the peer review journals holding us back.

But the handful of people like you, who've bothered to read it, and are bright enough to perceive it, give me hope for humankind!

Best wishes.

Peter




Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 10:54 GMT
Hi Steve

Glad of your interest;

"Could you please tell me more about DFM ?"

I think you'll find it's the "Holy Grail", solving the paradoxes and anomolies of physics and bringing Unification, with a real physical process uniting Locality and Reality, Classic and Quantum. Actually I nicked that bit back from a very good basic analysis of DFM from one of the few who seem to have understood it, that's just gone on Wikipedia. I have some edits planned when I get time but it'll give you a good basis.

It includes the references to my papers, which contain far more evidence, so look them up, read them over, ask any questions and please let me know what you think, or if you percieve any weaknesses.

The great scientists all took on board the work of others and did not dogmatically stick with their own ideas. Pauli did once made that mistake, putting off the guy who derived Electron spin, so he never got the credit. He learned from the misatke - most don't!

Speak soon

peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 12:30 GMT
Hi dear Peter,

You are welcome.

You know, my line of studying is simple, I study the good works which seem to me importants.A good book or a good arxiv article is always in syncronization.

For exemple in my theory, I have many unknews and hypothesis like all but a thing very important for me is the gauge in the physicality.

When I say I take my boat, it is not a vanity expression but about the gauge .....here the quantum spheres...cosmological spheres and the universal sphere where all turns around.Now of course I alm ready to improve, to optimize, to harmonize my theory with datas inside this finite evolutive sphere.

I make errors like all and I evolve like all, but about my gauge it is an other story.

About your work, I am going to learn more about it.

Thanking you and regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 27, 2010 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Peter,

Could you resume thus the system, please ....

Let's consider our interplanetary system and its center with a rotating system where ions+ - interacts ....voyager 1 voyager2 pineer...our supersonics and the transition subsonics of winds more the wave of the wall choc more the ions interstellars.Let's imagine too the collisions of atoms and the emission of rays of light thus in its pure fractal.

Personally this system is well architectured like a shield and a sorting, the evolution still takes all its sense.

All is rule in fact and the gravity continues to build with the light. For that a specific system is necessary to create the mass. The Universe and its stars produce particles, these cosmic rays are in a dance, the coded gravity sings and synchronizes. If a particle goes above this limit, thus the perceptibility disappears.

On the other side, with a kind of fractal of this velocity, the synchronization takes all its sense. The rest of these ions, are recycled with these BH probably, thus the sense of rotations and the velocities have a main rule about these synchronizations.

I like Einstein when I see the Eistein effects for the mass and the radius...hv...mc²...hv-GmM/r....and the wavelenghts of the rays have an effect correlated with the gravity thus this mass thus these rotating spheres and the universal quantic and cosmological link.

Are you sure about the gravitational effects and the limit of c ...R0/R=photon rec/photon em, thus the photon has a spectral effect ....

Dear Peter what do you think about the Cosmic microwave background please, just curious,hihi

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 18:07 GMT
Steve

The system simply maintains 'c'. When EM waves arrive at the border of our heliosphere, (as it rushes through the galaxy at around 45,000kph) they have to pass through its dense particle 'bow shock' (or just the termination shock if they're coming up from behind - where they're red shifted. The Voyagers are taking years to get through these areas.

Approaching from ahead, though the bow shock, the waves are compressed, by FM, by the 1013 oscillating particles per cubic mm to give the blue shift we see. And this simple process is what explains Equivalence, and provides Grand Unification!! - the Holy Grail of physics!! But it seems there are few on this planet clever enough to see such a clear simple answer! As they say in the world of spying; "the best way to hide things is in plain sight".

The CMB you say. It could well be the signature of all those almost infinate billions of oscillating dark matter particles surrounding all mass, from accelerated protons to galaxies, and 'regions of space', as they move through the background field, the background field the model allows, which explains everything.

Or perhaps we're all doomed as we've left the wrong people (or no-one!) at the helm of science and they can't be bothered to glance at the chart!

As I've just won the Solent series (Google 'SolentIRC' champagne out!) do you think I should go and wrest the helm from the fools and put us back on track?

Peter




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 31, 2010 @ 09:36 GMT
Hello dear Peter,

I am thanking you for this answer.

It is very interesting.

The system is fascinating during these effects.

I see that like a fractal of the electromagnetism and where probably the dark matter has a rule in these fields and spherical architectures.

The division and the activation seems imply an increase of mass near the main spherical centers like planets for exemple.

The modulations take all its sense, dear Peter, I think the planet Earth and its intrinsic code in the center is very important for the modulations and thus for the synchronizations, the spinals rotations are essentials for those synchronizations and evolution of the mass.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 3, 2010 @ 19:03 GMT
Dear Peter,

I see you work in engeniering and energy/renewables, you now I have invented several systems in ecology and energy.

For exemple I improve the equations for my sphere of composting, but I am not an engineer, this system is very revolutionary.I add the technics inside a finite volume like a kind of membran ,there I insert the vegetal multiplication and the bacterias....its is very interesting, I have others models too with turbins, pulleyrs,...the add of systems is the key.I need to test and optimize this sphere of composting.

The system needs matters and thus the biomass is essential and the quantity of plants, that's why this system must have an ecosystem around, optimized, improved in its diversity.The cycle is exponential.

If you can help, you are welcome.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 11:10 GMT
Hi Steve

Yes, to fund my research I was a consultant for the largest windfarm so far in the UK, but I deal with renewable sources and energy conservation not organic matters. I also do fluid dynamics and waves, but not Brussels Sprouts.

If it's any help I believe you need to consider matter more as focussed oscillating energy than rotating spheres. Frequency is critical. The term 'spin' misguides people.

I hope you get a breakthrough in your composting, or accelerated entropy, but remember, genius is 1% inspiration and 99% sitting in a shower of the compost everyone insists on throwing at you!

Peter



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 12:13 GMT
Hi Peter,

You don't understand me.

I said simply what when this sciences center will be created you are welcome, I don't search monney but skills for the future.You know with or without FQXi or with or without systems ,I will create it.I just must create a good and humanistic base where the people are universalists and real humanists, the rest is not important.

My inventions are numerous, and I am not here to sell them but to improve them for the future applications on ground in difficult localities.It is the aim of this center, to invent, to optimize, to put into practice harmonious models correlated with our balances.

Here is some exemples of my humble inventions which are not to sell !!!!!!!

Powders for soil

natural system of purification of water,

sphere of composting, methan and compost

natural energetic system

models of ecosystems against malaria, fight naturally

optimization of soils

add of energetic systems

Solar system and mirror

pulleys, incompressibility, turbins...

...

I will give these systems for the center and for our fellow men who wait in some parts of this sad planet,it is only simple like that, there I want to unify the scientists, the humanists and the universalists to work above the frontiers, the differences, the monney, the problems...the solutions with our ecosystems are so simple.

I have several models for the big towns too , we must increase the vegetal mass and the micro and macro fauna and flora will continue naturally if some technics are put into practice.

I think the responsability of skills is essential in a global point of vue, universal.

Thus I repeat, if you want and if youare an universalist, you are welcome to optimize what we can optimize, you know I am 34 years old and I must create it ,many friends wait me, they are supers these people everywhere (I knew them by some platforms like Xing or Ecademy , xing is like linkdn, When this center will be created, the synergies with may friends can be quickly made.

This center will produce and will invent what it lacks in fact for NGOs or others, a center of coordination and production is essential.

The fact to increase the mass of the ecosystems with the add of some technics is really a very interesting exponential after x times.

The soil is the key do you know the argilo humic complex, very interesting for the interactions in the soil.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 18:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

Do you know the project NIF about the fusion, that seems very interesting.

There too the rotation of spheres is the key, the secret for the synchronization.

ps for the 1 per cent and 99 per cent, you know I said that to Florin too, it is the first words at the first page of my method of piano, Hanon method, the best method for the piano furthermore, in fact it is the same, when you study well the bases after you create in harmony with the good notes.But without the studying of the pages and the work to repeat the motions , your fingers don't resist. That is the fact to untie your fingers with just this correct definition 1 and 99 and after it is 100 per cent rational creation...

To be serious a little,are you ok for the center in the future hiihihi let's go dear Peter, let's invent for our fellow men.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2010 @ 19:30 GMT
Sign me up Steve.

I've seemed to spend much of my life on community and youth work so no reason to stop now just because I'm into my 50's! I suppose if I had more time and a commercial interest in advertising the DFM discovery our new physics would have taken off some time ago.

Perhaps the human race is now too deep in a rut to find the way ahead. I hope not. Perhaps I'll pass the task on to your centre when I go!

Did you ever read the papers?

Peter



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 5, 2010 @ 11:13 GMT
Hello dear Peter,

Thank you very much, you are super, it is nice.

For the pappers, no could you tell me the link

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 8, 2010 @ 19:36 GMT
They were somewhere above Steve, but here again.

A Doctor of something has put up a wiki page intro to it, and I was astonished how good it was. There are also interesting links on it, including one to NPL Head David Whiffen (dec.) whose work was seminal. Just one dim troglodyte suggested it was nonsense and should be deleted! but if you take a look it would be nice if you could hit the 'discussion' tab at the top of the page and add a nice supporting comment for me.

1st Paper. (needs updating!!). http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047 Doppler Assisted Quantum Unification Allowing Relativistic Invariance. Sept 09. Peter A Jackson

2nd Paper. http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041 Lensing and Galactic Mass Anomaly Solution From DFM Shock Model. Peter A Jackson 19 Dec '09.

3rd Paper; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 Relativistic GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model. Peter Jackson. Dec. 09.

The PR Journals won't even read papers on the subject, but if NASA's Gazari's excelent Lunal Ranging papers are rejected what chance do mine stand!!? I hope you find them interesting reading.

Peter



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 10, 2010 @ 10:33 GMT
Hello Peter,

Thanks a lot.

Yes of course, if I can help, I will do with pleasure.

Could you tell me the direct link please for the comment dear Peter.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2010 @ 11:13 GMT
Steve

Pass me any comments on peter.jackson53@ymail.com

The model is being refined by the day and some of the 1st paper content is a bit out of date. It gives a lot of the basis, but there's much more key stuff in the other two.

For the NASA lunar ranging papers go to arXiv and search for Dan Daniel Gezari.

Peter



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 10, 2010 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Peter, ymail or gmail, are you sure for y hihiihi

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 10, 2010 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Peter,

I read and I see better.

You say

"The fine structure of electrons behaves in a similar way to that of protons when accelerated through

the vacuum[4] and no evidence can be found that other massive particles behaves significantly differently,

whether they are accelerated individually or in groups. It appears that the fine structure constant of 1/137th

may only be a constant at rest in the field and increases with velocity. This may be essential for the law of

conservation of energy, the energy used to accelerate the particle increasing the effective mass and oscillation

rate, to reach infinity as 'c' is approached, with particle density at a "saturation" level[7] of some 1013/m-3."

Could you tell me more about this saturation please ?

I understand better Peter the meaning of "...spaces in motion relatively to each other." thus thanks .That seems a good tool to improve the datas.

You say "‘As the speed of light can't vary, time and distance must'.

In the 2 senses dear Peter about the time?

You say

"The model also resolves wave particle duality, explaining how the 'photon' waves from Lena Hau's Harvard

lab accelerate instantly back to 'c' using zero energy.

Could you tell me more please?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 11, 2010 @ 17:05 GMT
Steve.

SD; "Could you tell me more about this saturation please?"

Look at the CERN links and other accelerator papers steve. The particle density and oscillation rate ('blue shift') increases with velocity to be crazy at 0.999%c, bouncing off the tube walls and effectively 'saturating' the whole void.

SD "You say ‘As the speed of light can't vary, time and distance must'."

That wasn't me, that was Einsteins basis. of course it's wrong, as the speed of light does change between the frames, or REAL areas of field "in relative motion" to maintain 'c' in each field. (Frequency modulated in the normal way by FM oscillators, just like we use in FM radio's.)

"The model also resolves wave particle duality, explaining how the 'photon' waves from Lena Hau's Harvard lab accelerate instantly back to 'c' using zero energy." Could you tell me more please?

Sure. Lena Hau impressed Feynman in the 50's by slowing light to 32mph in Bose Einstein condensate. (v cold). Now her Harvard lab can stop it dead, then start it again (straight back to 'c'!) Light is Schrodingers superposed wave pattern, propagated using, and limited to 'c' by, the energy of the field. It contains and is part of waves at all scales, from the macro low frequency wave upstream of the earths bow shock (see ref.) to the oscillation within each particle. (there's spinning as well, but, sorry, not much!).

If Schrodinger and Heisenberg hadn't been so adversarial and worked together like Bohr told them to they would have seen the answer in the mid 1920's!

Hope this helps. Just follow the citations, google the subjects, or ask.

At some stage you should see how it actually solves all the problems in physics today! Do keep going. You may need some basic astrophysics for paper two.

I havent heard back from Georgina. She's probably contacted the assylum!

Peter



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks for these explainations.Interesting about the Bose Eisntein condensate, like what the thermodynamic is universal.

The temperature like all is in a specific equation where all is relatively proportional.

The rotating spheres and their specific number and specificities(volume, mass, velocity of rot(spin or orbital),frequences , oscillations,synchronizations.

In my line of reasoning, the light is an entangled system with the same number but with an other sense thus implying the linearity.These entangled spheres turn and implies a state for the light and a not mass.Thus when you insert a changement of thermodynamical parameters, you change the velocities of rotation of these entangled spheres.Thus of course it is possible to change their linearity because all like I said before is proportional.

The evolution permits to build and to increase the mass thus the gravity.Thus the gravitational systems imply a kind of code for the polarization and the synchronization with the light.Thus the gravity is a parameter of the changement of the rotations of the light spheres.

It is the gravity the intrinsic secret, the gravity synchronizes the light like a modulator of the frequances, thus their rotations.The pression, the volume, the temperature ....are of course interestings for the modulations.

Let's take a tree for exemple, the biological lifes are pure modulators of evolution, all gravitational systems evolve and continue to polarise the light with a fractal of these rotating spheres in their linearity towards the gravitational system and its intrinsic codes of evolution.

Thus if the human parameters change the frequences of this linearity, the real question is this one, what is the rule of this modulation because there the evolution is not the real understanding.We return to a kind of consciousness at this scale of modulation if I can say.

Thanking youn dear Peter

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 12, 2010 @ 02:03 GMT
Peter,

I have now read your essay.It was very readable and enjoyable.

My initial thoughts. I am not in agreement with the premise of the essay that- there is nothing to prevent our survival, progress and ultimately finding the whole truth of the universe, other than ourselves and the limits we impose. That does seem to suggest that the reason we survive is because of our technology...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 13, 2010 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Georgina,

It's interesting but your vision of the evolution is false for me.Here is for why.

First the hazard doesn't exist in a global point of vue and furthermore the Universe is not chaotic.If you consider the lifes, these results like just a hazard due to some causal parameters, that will imply confusions about your universal referential and its pure intrinsic and foundamental laws.

These kinds of point of vue are pessimists about the harmonization of the matters and its complexifications and results like lifes, intelligence and consciousness.

If we take this conscious, thus in your line of reasoning, it is just a hazard too.

It is not possible when you analyze all our datas about the taxonomy and the classment of these mass since the hydrospheroid about 3.5 billions years ago and even before when the particles begin their danse of plarisations after this hypothetic Big Bang.

In my humble opinion,All has a rule of complementarity and had a rule of complementarity.If the Megaso-strodon(these first mammalians)have resisted in these difficult periods millions years ago, do you consider these polarisations likes hazards, they have a mass and a code , they were complexs and were predicted thus No?

All the actuals mammalians are from this animal, and if we go more far, the first fishs and before the first cells and before the first proteins and before the NH3 CH4 H2O HCN ..H...Quantum spheres. The time builds since the begining like an universl equation in optimization, complexification, improvement and thus the intelligence is a catalyzer of this reality.

When you study the evolution, you see this universal link between all.

The mass increases and it is easy to see it.

The only complexs are int the biological lifes in 3D.The most incredible secrets are in the lifes and the consciousness.

To beleive what the chaos is an universal reality implies a chaotic perception of the evolution and thus about the results too.

The time is a constant which permits to build....the gravity is coded and polarises the light, like a modulator of evolution and its codes.

The harmony is foundamental for that.The chaos is just a short moment thus a false perception in the whole.The chaos is like a foto dear Georgina, always the harmony will be in the whole in my opinion.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 12, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
Georgina

Thanks for your kind comments, just 6,802,199,990 to go. (the right 6 would do!).

You're spot on of course, but the quicker we progress our learning the more chance we'll have of survival/deflecting the asteroid etc.

You're very perceptive. I had indeed got very frustrated that absolutely no-one wanted to even glance at the discovery, all our eminent(ish) physicists, peer review journals no-one! Actualy not true, you'll see above a handful have, the majority are supportive but not influential. A minority are scared of their reputation as it's a bit too off the ruling paradigm.

I've actually given up, twice. Sitting here sipping the Holy grail, while the human race rushes past on the way to it's own demise. It's only guilt and a sense of responsibility that keeps me going! Plus virtually every time I look at another scientific anomaly I find the simple answer staring at me from the chalice!

I need advice Georgina. From someone fresh to the Discrete Field Model. How can I present it in a way that the right people will notice and understand it?

I've been blogging for ages, and most have their noses firmly in their own agenda and, as you say, have no time to learn how to think differently. It seems the word 'inductive' means nothing these days, proof, and the 'scientific method' have little value. We're all crowded down unprovable dead ends entangled in superstrings.

Feynman was right. I think it was in 'The joy of discovering..' He modified Einsteins comment, saying effectively that not only would the right answer be unbelievably simple, but that it would initially appear so different as to be simply unbelievable. (I like that one, - I'll use it again!).

Please throw everything at me you can about the model. I discovered another 'prediction' today that'll need checking; That much of the spectroscopic profile of the 'cosmological background radiation' will match the frequency pattern from the 'photoelectrons' generated in the LHC, with a particular correlation at similar relative velocities.

And Equivalence; Do two photons floating in the vacuum have an equal right to claim they are at rest and it is the other in motion, when one is doing 0.9c in the LHC and the other is in a vacuum flask on top of the duct?

Only if we delude ourselves enough to ignore the crazy frenetic particle cloud around the first!

What is your own field?

What would be the way to most simply convince you?

What bits were you most skeptical about on first reading?

Do you need any more links (paper 3 below)

http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 Relativistic GPS Evidence and Quantum Gravity Architecture of the Discrete Field Model.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 15, 2010 @ 03:06 GMT
Steve,

When I say the universe is chaotic I do not mean that it is in a state of complete disorder but highly complex dynamic change giving very complex patterns of order, over which we have no control and can only begin to understand.

I too am amazed at the complexity of forms and interaction that can be observed. I understand the evidence that all life is interrelated and forms have evolved from ancestor forms. However there is also evidence that former states of highly evolved complexity have been eliminated taking the earth back to a more primitive stage. From which new complexity has arisen once more.

There seem to be cyclic mass extinction events which may have terrestrial or cosmic origin. Super volcanoes and comet impacts being two possibilities. There is no way we could prevent the Yellow Stone national park super volcano exploding if it "chooses" to do so. There is very little likely hood that we could deflect an incoming comet from impact. It is just a slightly reassuring idea that it might be possible. There is no reason to assume the universe requires mankind any more than it required any of the extinct lifeforms. It is just anthropocentric vanity. The so called harmony of the natural world of which you speak is the balance of numerous life forms seeking for survival of themselves and their progeny or relatives by competition with other life forms of their own and other species. It is not entirely benign and happy situation as there are winners and losers, survivors and those that do not survive.Cooperation can be overlaid on this basic struggle as it can give a survival benefit for the cooperating organisms.

However even within cooperating groups there are hierarchies with some organisms obtaining more benefit for themselves and their progeny or relatives (or friends who are more likely to reciprocate than strangers), at the expense of other organisms in the group. There are also cheats who exploit the cooperative structure for their own entirely selfish purposes. So the natural harmony is a beautiful illusion. An illusion but beautiful non the less.

Besides the cosmic and terrestrial natural forces there are other reasons why we can not ultimately posses all knowledge of the universe. The size and structure of our brains is probably a limiting factor. We will only discover that of which we can have awareness of and what we know about it will depend upon how we analyse and interpret the data we have gathered. I am sure plenty of arguments against ultimate omniscience were put forward in the essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 10:47 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Thanks for your answer, I see better your point of vue and your analyzes.

You say"So the natural harmony is a beautiful illusion. An illusion but beautiful non the less."

There still you don't insert the evolution and its optimization, its improvement, its complexification in 3D.

It is not an illusion but our future simply, the chaos is an illusion , a short moment, a perceptible errors and non the less, the harmony is foundamental ,the choas no.

This perception of things implies a chaotic perception of the evolution because the time is bad understood with its evolution, constant furthermore.

You are right when you say about our limited brain, there too I insist about the evolution , that can explained thus a chaotic perception simply due to these limits of evolution.

We can't confound the universal harmony with the humans chaos, the chaos will disappear thus.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 15, 2010 @ 03:46 GMT
Peter,

I regret to inform you that I am not one of the six influential people that you wish to reach. I am sure I am not taken seriously by the "scientific establishment" if noticed at all. Which is understandable. I can't offer advice to you on how to get noticed in a positive way.

I began visiting this forum because I thought that I had something valuable to share about comprehension of time and gravity and that someone else might be enthusiastic about what I had to say.I have tried my best to explain it every which way I can but ultimately feel it is time wasted. Prior to finding this site I have self published some of my ideas, just because it is my intellectual property and I would like to be able to use my own ideas later on without having to credit someone else with them. I also mistakenly thought that some other people might be interested. As my thoughts and understanding on the subjects have progressed some of my my former ideas and explanations are actually an embarrassment to me. That is the trouble with sharing work in progress. I have always said it is just the beginning.

I am sceptical about everything until I understand it myself. It is not reserved for your ideas. I do not want you to convince me but to be convinced myself by the evidence you have provided. I will try to find the time to read the supporting material. It is interesting to me. I am sorry but that does not help you at all.

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2010 @ 11:50 GMT
Georgina

You can be more help than you realise.

I have great sympathy with your own viewpoint and thoughts. Discussing such things is essential, but it the final analysis it is like string theory, unfalsifiable. Testable models, with real evidence, should be of far more value.

I've been very close to it for some time, so the view of someone fresh to the concepts can be of great value, if only to identufy areas where more substantiation would be worthwhile.

Please keep and throw all your skepticism at me. I'll be able to answer all the questions, but it's knowing what you need to ask that may be valuable to me.

Thanks

Peter




QuanticMessenger wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 03:28 GMT
Hello Mr Jackson,

I, for now, just have a simple question ; can you tell me more about, or give a link to some document pertaining to the Triple Helix Morphology you are referring to in some of your papers. Maybe I'm naive not knowing about it, but I don't seem to find anything describing it.

thank you and bes t regards,

QM

P.S about your quote "We'll never understand what we see while it's screened by what we seek", I'd add "...but when the beauty of both mesh together, we have a glimpse of Truth."

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2010 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi QM.

Thanks for the interest. I've just actually deleted the reference to THM in v3 of paper as wass deflecting unorganised minds from the key issue.

Don't worry you're not naive, it's my own methodology and I've never published the minimal stuff I've written on it. It's results have been of more importance so far. I'll do a vquick sketch outline here.

Start with self awareness how your brain (quantum particles and EM signals etc.) works. Then organise how you use it a bit better, which will yeild massively better and less random and subjective results.

Imagine a large helix, DNA shaped if you like, but tapered in towards the top, and with say three strands, with thousands of points on each. It also has many cross links.

Take the most complex problem you can think of; say Designing a massive building from a blank sheet of paper, with a 'book' of customer requirements, another one of regulations, user, aesthetic, environmental, cost, engineering and dozens of other 'main heading' criteria. Each one with multi level subsets. First you must prioritise them. If very simple this could be set out in matrix mechanics, but you'll need 3D+time. Each area needs to be spread out from macro to quantum up the strings. Many things conflict and many are closely interdependant etc. These data cross links must be established if not already known. Make sure you have all the info you need available and off you go, starting from the bottom.

You have to test intuitive responses and ideas just like a computer tests 'what if's'. Moving up the spiral covering all bases to check for problems. The process involves up and down, round and round and across at all angles, covering just about every kind of spin in the standard model! the forays to the top are few, then more and more. Once a model has solid foundations the detail can be better tested, but it often still fails near the top, and sometimes you need to rebuild from the ground up, as every time one part of the structure fails you have to go back, overview and rebuild. continuous lateral thinking is the only way to use it properly.

If you do it right you can have confident the solution is not only the best 'compromise' but the best solution for the priorities used. There's no 'beleifs' involved like there is in science, there's plenty of art, but the solution is based on inductive evidence and better meets that evidence than any other model.

Once you get into the methodology you don't need to visualise any helixes or patterns at all, once the more complex neural pathway connectivity pattern is established you'll start to think like that without thinking!

Most people think they know because they don't know what they don't know. Always assume there is more and you'll always be right!

Does any of that make any sense to you?

Peter




QuanticMessenger wrote on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
Dear Peter,

I’m positive that with an open and receptive mind, coupled to a confident trust in such a process, this will make sense.

This sounds like a meditative method I use in order to receive intuitive information on the most important questions and interests I have about our magnificent Universe, my place in it and some understanding of it all. I put ‘gosub routines’ in place, each and every one related to a specific area of my quest, containing the continually up to date set of self referencing instructions, all ‘returning’ to the ‘main program’, which is my conscious awareness where every packet of new meaningful data is brought in the open area of contemplation were it is validated and fully experienced. It also happens that the entire process is shunted and fused by ‘a revelation’, something that reveals itself as completely true and in tune , but sometimes unfortunately too powerful to allow integration.

And, indeed, this must remain an ongoing process as what is already before us not only contains/retains its original information but is co-evolving with each and every ‘mind’ capable of relating with it, human and/or other.

QM

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 18:35 GMT
Hello dear Quanticmessenger,

Nice to know you.A real pleasure to see your words.

Happy to see this point of vue about the contemplations.

Our eyes are our eyes and our heart is our heart.

Never a theory is finished, never it is perfect ..........and the real scientists see this truth.

To Learn and still to learn the good works, a sorting is thus neccesary .....it exists a synchronization between the foundamentals equations.

The responsability of scientists, universals is so important at this moment....if we want decrease the sufferings and the problems simply.

It exists concrete inventions and optimizations on ground for some localities where the sufferings are a reality.

The humanity is like a rainbow, a diversity of colors united, unified in the light....and it is difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean.........to be or not to be in fact ...

Dear Peter, all is linked and of course the philosophy like all is linked too , maths, physics,chemistry, biology,evolution, astronomy, the universality...it is that the sciences in fact.

To understand the locality, it is evident to study the globality.....

We can thus understand our rule like catalyzers of our environment, of course a harmonious catalyzer.

Friendly the messenger and Peter

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 11:46 GMT
Sounds like you're getting organised QM.

But I believe we should never forget the power of 'Lateral Thinking' or the ability to always take 3 steps back and see in overview before proceeding.

I've put in a few of my favourite Einstein quotes below;

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."

"Science is the century-old endeavour to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

" The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. "

"as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... "

"Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of a mathematical construction,"

For me it worked, deriving a perfect model to solve the issue with SR and QM. Unfortunately the weakneses of human nature itself are a greater issue and changing ruling paradigm may now be too difficult. I hope Karl Popper may have been wrong when he said mankind had to be able to challenge ruling paradigms to survive!

Are you more interested in physics or philosophy?

Peter




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.