Search FQXi

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Edwin Klingman: on 6/5/11 at 21:11pm UTC, wrote New evidence of "particle AND wave' versus 'particle OR wave': Peter, All...

Peter Jackson: on 5/23/11 at 8:02am UTC, wrote Hi Alec Reasonable questions, but still seems a little in line with your...

Alec MacAndrew: on 5/22/11 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, You said "THE DFM PREDICTION THAT THE LENSE-THIRRING EFFECT...

Peter Jackson: on 5/12/11 at 10:36am UTC, wrote Hi John I make a point of heading for the 'unknown', which is how we...

Peter Jackson: on 5/8/11 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote EXCELLENT NEWS THE DFM PREDICTION THAT THE LENSE-THIRRING EFFECT (FRAME...

Edwin Klingman: on 5/7/11 at 21:34pm UTC, wrote Peter, I'm not at all sure I understand most of your questions, but I'll...

John Gadway: on 5/7/11 at 16:38pm UTC, wrote Peter, You were the last person to comment on my essay, #903. That was...

Peter Jackson: on 4/27/11 at 20:10pm UTC, wrote Edwin. Thanks, I'll take a look. In the meantime a repeat of an important...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Alvina Amanda: "That's a very good concept of technology i think it's help for Write My..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

Ajay Pokhrel: "Hello Everyone, I had posted a draft on "Exceeding the..." in Alternative Models of...

Eduardo Morris: "Raise public awareness and interest in theoretical physics and cosmology! ..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Eduardo Morris: "Fantastic! An impressive list of topics! Visit this website for instant..." in 80 Years of EPR —...

Eduardo Morris: "Our junk DNA already has been turned to this purpose. json formatter..." in Are We Merging With Our...

lynn libbrecht: "You have posted a very detail document. I read all of your article and I..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Mike Witot: "Great. Thanks a lot for posting that info! click here" in A Self-Gravitational...

RECENT ARTICLES

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

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.

FQXi FORUM
October 19, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: 2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson [refresh]

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 3, 2011 @ 15:13 GMT
Essay Abstract

We explore the theory that space itself is divided into discrete domains by refractive boundary zones, forming 'discrete fields,' each centred on matter in relative motion. A related inconsistency in the application of refracted vectors is identified. A wholly new conceptual approach is allowed using physical and mutually exclusive inertial frames, reconnecting 'Locality' with realism. A picture of a new logical and undivided science, field, and reality emerges from the mists, giving 2020 vision and throwing new light on Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Entanglement & Quantum Relativity, and even offering a glimpse of an intuitive QM-GR gravity. The roles of maths, length contraction, dilation and Lorentz are transformed, simply defined and re-superposed without paradox from Planck scale upwards. Einstein's thought experiments are reviewed, and some major anomalies are tested as falsification, and found to rapidly evaporate. We define inertial frames and discover how extra special Relativity might really be with a simple and intuitive quantum mechanism to clarify and drive it.

Author Bio

Born 1951, UK. Pure Maths dropped due to conscientious objection, for; Environmental Sciences, Physics and Architecture including, Energy, Engineering & Philosophy (Cant, PCL/UoW). Head of private consultancy, in research, conceptual analysis and design, specialisations; renewable energy and conservation. Interests; Einstein, Cosmology, Fluid Dynamics, Optics, Sport; (representative).

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 23:18 GMT
Peter,

A fascinating essay. I think I follow it all the way through, but, at the end, it doesn't yet fit seamlessly in my head. (Obviously you've had more time to work on the 'seams'.)

Whereas I can usually find, without much effort, statements in other essays that I disagree with, none of your statements jump out in this fashion.

Of course, since you seem to defend local realism, I expect others to come down on you with both feet, but, having just finished Anon Zeilinger's 'Dance of the Photons', I believe that there is a hole a mile wide in the Bell arguments. I touch on this in my essay.

I find your notion of 'incentric' as an explanation for 7c jets also fascinating. I am interested in these jets because the C-field dipole of massive rotating black holes explains these light-years-long jets in a simple way whereas magnetic field explanations do not really appear feasible.

You are also one of the few to reference the very important 'flyby' anomalies. I do so in my essay, and, had I waited a week longer to submit my essay I would have included info from the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231101 by David M. Lucchesi and Roberto Peron: "Accurate Measurement in the Field of the Earth of the General-Relativistic Precession of the LAGEOS II Pericenter and New Constraints on Non-Newtonian Gravity". You might wish to review this article.

I plan to spend more time studying your essay, and hope you find time to study mine. In particular, I have derived what might be categorized as a 'quantum gravity description of time dilation' (eqn 7 in my essay) that I have applied to some of Einstein's rotating framework examples, and it seems to make sense there. I have begun to look at the effect of this equation on light, but have not finished my analysis. I will probably add a later comment here with more info and requesting your opinion.

In short, yours is a well focused, well explained essay that is very challenging. It does not rest on speculative phenomena at Planck energies that we will probably never reach, but is focused on the simplest picture that addresses real physics from recent experiments. I congratulate you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Willard Mittelman replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
Hi Edwin and Peter,

I agree that this is a fascinating essay, and I congratulate Peter on it. With respect to Edwin's reference to local realism, I just want to note that the local realism in Peter's paper concerns simply the local determination of c's value; as such, this local realism is logically distinct from the local realism with which Bell's arguments deal. Hence, quantum nonlocality is not, in general, ruled out (or rendered unnecessary) by Peter's ideas. By the same token, the existence of a cosmological preferred frame that facilitates such nonlocality is not ruled out either (though as Peter says in his paper, such a frame is not positively required by his theory). Indeed, as Peter notes in his comment on my own essay, his ideas enable us to see that the existence of a preferred frame is compatible with CSL; and I'm grateful to him for pointing that out.

Willard Mittelman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 00:46 GMT
Dear Willard,

I agree with you, although that is a distinction I had not made when I wrote the above comment to which you refer. Thanks for pointing that out.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT
The mention of 'local realism' has taken a startling turn with Joy Christian's work here. I go into details elsewhere, but if Christian's work is correct, then all of the arguments based on so-called 'violations' of Bell's inequality are incorrect [or 'not even wrong', as Pauli would say.]

This does not contradict Willard's comment above, but is relevant to my essay and I think to Peter's.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 21:41 GMT
Edwin

Many thanks. Yes, to me there are no seams, but the whole thing would take 9 books not pages!

The conceptual 'gluon' here is quantum CSL. A refractive plasma boundary to all mass, so all measurement of em waves gives c. Once you've really understood "all mass", and "proportional to speed," and the standard atomic scattering process, and think through it's implications, nature and the universe become simply beautiful and comprehensible.

The growing problem I'm have now is remembering all the complex stuff that used to go round in my mind. If you've seen the UK's Channel 4 adverts you'll know how it looks, a complex jumble of unconnected parts as the camera moves, until it gets to one spot, and it all comes together in a single large figure '4'. But just look in slightly the wrong direction and it can't be seen.

I didn't even want to think about gravity, but, from where I now am, a quick glance, and there it was; Consider curved Space-Time; It is real. In a plasma cloud light doesn't refract and change direction suddenly, like into glass, it takes a great curve, the more dense the medium the greater the curve. It's done by scattering, (PMD explaining 'n'), Huygens, and Ewald-Oseen like extinction defining refracted light path a la the path integral. You were almost spot on with Haish & Rueda's GEM. Increased inertial mass is actually physically held in the photoelectron cloud, which increases density with speed - (through and wrt 'nothing' we thought!). The other term for it is 'Dark Matter'. As you said, "mass density is ill defined in GM", but it's crucial!

It's so naive and unbelievable simple it'll be simply unbelievable to most over 8 years old. Much indoctrination has to be overcome. Take a look at this quick video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.h
tm (let me know if the link doesn't work).

I've also done papers on CD - Huygens Construction (he who 1st did F = mv^2), 'under consideration', and on exactly where it all went wrong, http://wbabin.net/weuro/jackson.pdf which will help, also some earlier ones.

I really hope it comes together for you. Please point out any weak points as it's getting more difficult for me to see them.

best wishes

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 5, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
Peter,

I've not spent that much time and effort finding problems with special relativity, but I seem to have more friends who find problems with SR than with anything else, and often, 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

It looks like it will take a while to study your Jackson/Nixey pdf and I will get back after I've read it.

Because gravito-magnetism was initially believed to be too weak to be of any consequence, it has been essentially ignored for 150 years. In fact, the Phys Rev Lett paper cited above is possibly the first time that gravito-magnetism has 'officially' and unequivocally attributed the discrepancy with general relativity's predictions to the gravito-magnetic field (aka the 'C-field').

So my basic premise is that gravity G, gravito-magnetic C, electric E and electromagnetic B-fields exist, and I believe G and C are 'classical' ie, each field is a continuum. I am less sure whether E and B are continua or whether they are statistical effects of bosons. I'm thinking about it. Maxwell first wrote the GEM equations simply based on symmetry (Newton's ~ Coulomb's equation) and these were later derived as the 'weak field limit' of general relativity.

The key fact is that my calculations provide reason to believe that gravito-magnetism is 10**31 times stronger than was originally believed, and Martin Tajmar has experimentally found the same factor. If correct, this has very significant consequences for particle physics and cosmology.

On the surface Maxwell's EM equations and the analogous GEM look very similar. But there is a drastic essential difference. The EM fields interact strongly with charge, but are themselves uncharged, hence their self-interaction is linear and supports 'superposition' in the mathematico-physical sense of interference. But the GEM fields interact with mass and, through self-energy E=mc**2, thereby interact with themselves in a non-linear, ie, Yang-Mills manner, providing for physical phenomena that have been attributed to other fields (which physicists freely invent due to the nature of the Lagrangian technique).

If it turns out to be the case, as looks more likely every day, that the C-field is not only real, but has the strength I claim it has, and, as also looks more likely, neither the Higgs nor SUSY particles show up, then "somebody got a lot of 'splainin' to do."

I claim the C-field explains dozens of anomalies that GR, QED, and QCD cannot explain.

The results of this, if true, will be, as you say, that physics is much simpler than is currently believed to be the case. This, incredibly, will make a lot of people unhappy. Go figure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 04:05 GMT
Peter,

In the interest of trying to harmonize our theories, I offer the following observations. In your 2020 essay, under Lorentz Transformation, page 6, you say the following:

"To keep the new local v below c, for momentum p=mv, the only place for the energy is in m (mass). This predicts a very strange phenomenon..."

Peter, if you look at the diagrams on page 6 in my essay, you will find that any momentum, p=mv, gives rise to a circulating C-field, just as any charge current, qv, induces a circulating B-field. On page 3, my equation 9 shows that dp/dt = d(circulation)/dt, therefore 'stored energy' in the C-field generates a Lenz-law-like effect that explains conservation of linear momentum of free particles. Now consider the diagram for a massive particle. If we apply a force, F, the momentum p will change, F=dp/dt. In the diagram a larger momentum means a longer 'arrow' or vector, p, which, according to the above, would be accompanied by a greater C-field circulation (drawn as a bigger red circle around the mass.)

If one tries to 'stop' the higher momentum particle, the larger stored energy in the C-field will, Lenz-law again, 'kick harder', giving the appearance of a larger mass. A special relativistic analysis of this would be interesting.

It seems to provide an alternative to 'virtual' particles, that I do not favor.

A similar momentum argument would apply to the photon, in addition to any attendant frequency changes involved.

Any thoughts?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 11:07 GMT
Edwin

I agree we're describing precisely the same event & effect, but from different viewing positions. In a way this proves local (subjective) reality, which I briefly cover in the essay; Every signal in passage to every observer has to negotiate various 'barbers shops' to get there. They therefore MUST look different on arrival.

Rare twins unaffected by varying gravity, frame transitions, encounters etc. may keep original concrete reality, and keep open 'mobile phone' lines, until one is changed.

But I invite you to take a step closer to empirical reality with me. Forget 'virtual' particles (your brain gives different connotations to mine). My 'photoelectrons' first came from reality not theory. It's obvious to me you haven't done the homework on collider physics or followed the Ref's. These things are real. They bounce off the walls causing damage. They were seen when the first electron was accelerated in a vacuum and have been a massive (lol) problem at the Tevatron and LHC ever since. They propagate in a cloud around the proton bunches (etc) exponentially with speed. They also propagate standing similar clouds around the magnets. Great effort is put in to trying to minimise them as they increase energy bills unacceptably, absorbing vast amounts of accelerator energy. (densities up to 10^13/mm^-3)

They also oscillate and give off radiation, f subject to speed. (similar to the radiation we find in the uneven CMB picture). Now consider Bragg - because these are bit like FM radio oscillators that modulates em waves so we can hear things like pennies drop with 20-20 hearing and 'vision', and at the right wave arrival (after modulation) rate, (think local 'c'), however many 'barbers' the signal has visited on the way, and whatever their relative approach speed.

If you also look at actual space exploration results from shocks you'll find the same 'plasma' particles at densities & frequencies subject to mass and speed through the vacuum, refracting light in what becomes gentle curves subject to plasma density.

Does that ding on a Bell somewhere?

Peter

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Interesting DMF CENTRISM.

And interesting discussions with c field centrism of consciousnes hihihi .

Congratulations dear scientists.

well for physics INSERT mv1v2V...constant FOR ALL PHYSICAL SPHERES.

You have fear to use this word or waht ahahah .In all case with my equation, you shall improve your conclusions.

The rotations of entangled spheres explain all.

But interesting essays.

Regards

Steve sphericentrist .

ps peter is right, forget the virtuality.

report post as inappropriate

Willard Mittelman wrote on Jan. 9, 2011 @ 04:33 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your latest thoughts. I'm confident the judges will take your work seriously and show it the respect it deserves.

Best wishes,

Willard Mittelman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 00:43 GMT
Peter,

Einstein's 1952 view that 'space' is actually "infinitely many spaces in relative motion" is very hard to interpret, but certainly seems to imply that 'locality' is paramount.

That "the nature of light is still subject to contention 100 years after Special Relativity" seems corroborated by the papers in this FQXi contest.

I don't believe that 'empty space' exists, as I believe gravity to be a continuous field filling space everywhere. Frank Wilczek seems to say the same about 'quantum fields' everywhere in space, but I reject 'quantum fields'.

If gravity is the primordial or underlying field, then it may provide the 'medium' in which E and M trade energy as the photon travels, and the C-field circulation, as explained in my essay, helps conserve the photon's inertial momentum.

FWIW, your paper inspired me to re-buy Jenkins and White's "Fundamentals of Physical Optics", the only physics text I've ever sold in my life. Also, FYI, I took 'Introduction to Fourier Optics' under Joseph Goodman, the first time he taught the course out of his book.

You state that "Max Planck's proposal of a compressible aether, more dense at the surface countered Lorentz's first objection...[but not] that the speed of light would be affected by density." It is along these lines that I think my equation 7 may have relevance, when the right hand side is viewed as variation of density.

I have not yet worked out the case of photons traversing a region of space, (dV =dx**3), subject to

d(t)/dV = d(m)/dx --- (in units of Planck action, h) .

The 'time dilation' dt, here would seem to imply that a distributed light wave/photon would 'bend' as a function of the variation in mass density, dm/dx, (where, in the most general case, dm is the change in gravitational energy with x.)

The above is for an extended wave front traversing a variable density region at right angles to the variation in density.

If the direction of the photons is parallel to the direction of maximum variation, then we have a Pound-Rebka type of dilation. This may be consistent with your statement on page 8 (Nixey) that "we now know that light speed is indeed reduced by increasing density in the atmosphere."

That's as far as I've gotten on your Nixey paper, but I find it very well written, extremely interesting, and not too difficult to follow, although I have not checked any of the results.

Thanks for putting me on to that paper. I am very interested in applying equation 7, which is derived in a straightforward manner from my generalized Heisenberg principle, which in turn fell right out of my Master equation, which is essentially a fundamental statement of logic.

Ain't FQXI fun!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your 'Big Issue' remarks to me: "The reason the 'ether' field was banished was to allow the SR solution to constancy of EM wave propagation speed (CSL) with respect to all receivers. Only when we find a quantum friendly version of this allowing CSL can we have a unified field back and let physics progress."

Willard's comment on the existence of a preferred frame being compatible with CSL [and thanking you for pointing that out] has focused me on this issue. I would like to ask you and/or Willard to try to clearly and simply state where we are, and where we want to go. As brief and clear as possible.

You seem to be 'bootstrapping' [pardon my French] your way through the universe, one frame at a time, in the spirit of Einstein's "infinity of spaces in relative motion", restarting with velocity 'c' at each step. [Feel free to correct this statement.] Willard seems to fell that at every 'hop', you are in a new preferred frame, and the problem, as I understand it is to relate this to quantum theory. Is this even close?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Willard Mittelman replied on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Edwin,

I think Peter's fundamental idea is that for any two observers O1 and O2 in relative motion with respaect to each other, (i) observer O1 is associated with a physical inertial field I1, and observer O2 with an inertial field I2, and (ii) I1 modulates the velocity of light for O1, and I2 modulates the velocity of light for O2, in such a way that both observers, upon measuring this velocity, agree upon its value - or in other words, the value of c is the same in all inertial frames or fields. Such modulation takes place regardless of whether or not a cosmological preferred frame exists; hence, CSL is independent of, but not incompatible with, the existence of such a frame. If there is a preferred frame, then any observer who is at rest wrt this frame will also be associated with an inertial field that modulates the velocity of light in the appropriate manner; but the inertial field in question is physically and conceptually distinct from the preferred frame.

As for the question of "where we want to go," I think an important task is to explicate the nature of the quantum mechanism that modulates light's velocity, perhaps by relating this mechanism could be related to some already well-known and well-studied quantum mechanism. I think Peter has made some progress here by talking about inertial fields absorbing and emitting light waves; one question that remains, though, is what guarantees that the emitted light waves always and everywhere have the same velocity c when measured by the relevant observer.

Hope this helps.

Willard

report post as inappropriate

Stee Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
No Dear Willard , he has understood that it exists some frequences relevant of universal communications.

Now if the stars produce , perhaps the BH also but thus it is with an other logic than light and its special realtivity.I just think he searches in the false road but if he finds the good road, it is very relevant.

Now of course it is the gravity which polarises the light and perhaps the BH implies some interesting fields correlated with the entangled spheers and THEIR VOLUMES.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
Steve

Many thanks for your support. Sorry, I'd missed many of your interspersed comments, it was all a bit frantic with new ones!

Best wishes

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Edwin.

Thanks for your kind comments on the Aberration paper. How on earth can we get them Peer reviewed, or proposed to arXiv!?

'Bootstrapping' The whole basis is that bootstrapping ISN'T required, indeed au contraire (pardon mine too,) it's all about conservation of energy; E =f*lambda.

Imagine a block of ice flying (past you right to left) through space. Enter stage left...

view entire post

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
Peter and Willard,

I'm thinking about what you wrote. I have some ideas and a new, interesting result, but I haven't made it all come together in my head. I hope it comes together soon, and will tell you if (when) it does.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 11, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
Peter,

A few more remarks, but first a question: Do you know whether polarization of the photon E-field is preserved by passing through a plasma? That is, if the photon is vertically polarized 'going in', is it vertically polarized 'coming out', and so for any other polarization. I don't want an opinion, just the facts if they exist.

I'm sure that this is *not* what you were referring to on page 2 where you state "waves propagate through a dielectric medium by...polarizing the particles." You are surely referring to inducing electric dipole moments. Unless I'm wrong on this, I don't need any more explanation.

A separate thought-- also in the same paragraph you state "whatever relative speed waves arrive at, they'll be re-emitted at the new local c...". Does this mean you are leaving the door open for a situation in which the local velocities add up to greater than c?

A further note -- I don't buy the galactic halos as refractive zones of active dark matter. You might want to drop or de-emphasize this argument as it seems unnecessary to your main theme, which would not suffer if my idea of dark matter is correct.

I'm still working on the topic you and Willard commented on. Finally, every time I read your fine paper it makes more sense. (I'm sure this is true for most well written papers dealing with complex ideas.) So I invite you to reread my paper in light of our discussions.

Still havin' fun (in honor of Ray Munroe)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 17:19 GMT
Edwin

Thank you. ..In order;

I'm pretty sure one of my references, or a similar one, covers it but I can't recall all the details. Normally the waves polarise the particles, (though I only switched to the simple word 'polarise' due to all the references, and I'm not entirely happy with it,) But, as in FM, it can be reversed. I'm no expert in the area as all I was interested in was the delay element, which I conceived as having as much of an 'inertial' basis as anything! - a la Constantinos.

v plus or minus c. Yes, precisely. You just caught a glimpse of the enormous invisible elephant in the room. Whatever other speed would an electron ever emit a 'photon' at?? This is precisely where one too many variables has proved too much for human conceptual thinking power. It has to emit it at it's own 'new' 'c' to complying with SR yes?! And what anyone sees is the light scattered from it, at 'c' yes? Now consider different observers frames. You'll find NOTHING breaches SR or 'c' anywhere. And everything matches ALL observation.

So v plus or - c can be apparent 'rate of change of position' from another frame, which lets us escape from 100yrs of mysterious elephant dung, limiting the domain of Bells inequality in preventing Locality and Reality. (and all entirely within the SR postulates).

HALO's. If you'd done the research I have on halo's you'd buy it with your life savings. This IS the same stuff as the FlybyPioVoyager anomaly, NASA well know it's a dense 'plasma', as do Sloane and Planck etc. This is just one of 100's of papers;http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/702/2/1472

Light CANNOT, EVER get through a plasma cloud without being slowed and refracted subject to density, and the relative speed (co-motion of C fields) gives the Stokes 'up-shifting of frequency. ESA confirmed that yet again from other galaxies only yesterday.

Light goes through deep space at 'c'. Light also goes through moving galaxies and buses at 'c'.; 'Lensing' Delays of over 3 years!!? (as predicted, and I've predicted we'll find over 10). 'Gravity wells' are just a ridiculous 'patch' up.

My paper on CD is still under PR consideration at present, but it clarifies a lot of the essay content. I expect they're terrified by possible paradigm change.

I promise you that bit contains the most sense in the paper. Are we really beyond facing and correcting our biggest errors?

Have courage

Peter

PS. I've re read your paper twice now. The existence of 'my' mechanism is the only falsifiable way to allows your field without contradicting SR. I still agree with almost all, but the other details are only due to the above, and it's easily fine tunable - if you dare risk the crackpot squad!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 16:34 GMT
Hi All ,

Good luck in this contest Peter, interesting essay.

But where are Constantinos and Georgina ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Peter, I probably was not specific enough, but I didn't want to bias your answer. I specifically want to know if there is any data that would indicate that vertical (or other) polarized light can enter a plasma and exit as circularly polarized light. Do you know of any such data?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 11:55 GMT
Edwin. Sorry, no. The only refs I have with the slightest relevance are on metamaterials. Interestingly you may like to check out Martin Wegeners work at Karlsruhe, whose gold helixes can convert light to strong currents subject to whether left or right circularly polarized, mentioned in the latest (v209 No2794) NS.

Peter

Walter replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Peter,

Maybe this is just a bad luck. I chose some essays at random. You know, there is probably more than 100. The first one was quite easy to get. The next three impossible. Yours is the fifth and I think this time the essay is not technically correct and rigorously argued, to the degree of a published work or grant proposal as FXQi demands.

Maybe I shall give up and stop reading the essays. Or maybe someone could recommend me something technically correct and easy?

Walter John

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Walter

Thank you. The rigorous argument is only as far as space allowed.

In any advances in physics there must be differences with the older established understandings, otherwise no advance would ever be made!

I've pointed out herein one mistake in there ref the term 'exponential', and explained to Ray re his query on Rayleigh scattering, where the PMD is actually in the ionosphere not the 'air' as Rayleigh assumed, and also more complex - so my mention in not technically incorrect. Unfortunately no space here to explain that fully, but the paper including it is due for publication. See reply to Ray below.

Technical is unfortunately not 'easy' if you don't have the required knowledge. Note I left all the Quantum Computing angle out, though referred below (14th). If there are any other points do ask.

Peter

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 03:28 GMT
Hi Peter,

I'm just thinking about your paper, particularly the local speed of light (c/n) idea. If photons travel through a vacuum, then there really isn't anything to run into/be absorbed by and then re-emitted. Of course, if you pass light through a gas, then the gas molucules re-emit the photons. I like your explanation of the 6c gas jets from M87. Locally to those gas jets, everything traveling c or less. However, non locally, the jet is moving greater than c wrt the black hole. I'm guessing that the photon that travels from the 6c gas jet to the slow moving observer, that photon is going to undergo enormous frequency shifting as it transitions from 6c jet to 0.000001c observer.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 06:10 GMT
The way I understand the invisible elephant in the room is that every particle in a gas (with index of refraction n) contributes to some average local position. One particle is its own inertial reference frame. Any photons transitioning from one particle to another will have to undergo a frequency change/time dilation in order to account for the relative velocity between particle A and particle B; A=emitter, B=detector (or absorbing particle). The particles will have have a distribution of velocities (momentums). The absorption and re-emission of particles is really what makes n greater than one, and slows c down to c/n.

Is this close to what you meant by the invisible elephant?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
Jason

Absolute brilliance! You've pretty well understood it, which takes intellect, ..and to think I'd written you off. I think our earlier discussions helped, because it seems it's true that we have to 'get used to' different concepts before we can see them as truths.

But the real work now is in the implications. That will take real intellect and clear thinking, but it clarifies all science, so anyone indoctrinated with current college stuff may struggle to let go of it. It provides the quantum basis for Relativity, explaining CSL without having to deny the rest frame of the CMB as a dark energy field, and I'm just exploring down the path it lights up to QG, which gives a different and more coherent view of much of physics.

Yes Jason. The 'elephant in the room' should now be gradually becoming visible to you, and you can start to avoid the old elephant droppings! I look forward to your paper, (and hope you'll reference this one) but do reign in your tendancy to get carried away with stuff that brands you as a crackpot.

My paper on the galactic evolutionary cycle it's exposed should be off for consideration today. It's got some interesting results, and shows we may indeed be eaten by our black hole (toroid) shortly after the sun expires, (so may need your 6-7c hyperdrive to find a new home). If you make more progress on the 7c Incentric motion route I'll tell you something very interesting from the paper.

best wishes

Peter

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
Hi Peter,

I've been thinking about how strange it is that we can observe a 7c phenomena. Why isn't FTL phenomena invisible? Things like gravity and relativistic velocity induce a Time Dilation and frequency shift in photons. When we observe the light emanations from something moving relativistically (M87 jet, relativistic rocket or spaceship), those photons are Time Dilated and redshifted (transverse Doppler and moving away). But if we can SEE the M87 jet, then some blue-shift has to occur to prevent photons from red-shifting into f=0.00000000...Hz. If f=0, then the photon is undetectable and has no energy. I think you get the idea. But blue shift is what we would see at the bottom of a very steep gravity well; blue shift isn't noticeable on earth, but it would be noticeable if we lived near the event horizon of a black hole. If we wanted to catch up to the 7c jet, we would have to climb an enormous gravity potential (10g acceleration for months, oh my). In fact, the M87 jet might be a phenomena that can punch through the 0.9999999999999999999999999c barrier.

I think you're saying that such a 0.999...c barrier can span multiple ranges of c if the particles of a gas have a high enough energy distribution. Such a high energy distribution is only possible through something as violent as an M87 energy jet.

I can't see it, but I can feel the implications in my bones. Time dilation of photons is one thing. But time dilation of long duration events (minutes, days, years, millenia) is going to bite us in the butt. I just don't know where our collective physics butt is, not yet.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT
One more thing. Photons carry causality. If an M87 jet goes by at 6 or 7c, then there is a problem with maintaining the causality chain across that velocity range and photon frequency range. Time dilation and frequency shifting can only range from f=1Hz (radio wave) to f=10^22Hz (gamma rays). A time dilation shift outside that range is ... well, weird. It implies the existence of incredibly huge gravity potential or wormhole like behavior. A wormhole is just a gravity field that causes you to fall from one point in space to another. But what if the gravity potential required you to climb from one point in space to another? What is the opposite of a wormhole? Whatever we call it, it would permit multiple ranges of the speed of light. To say it another way, a photon would frequency shift multiple ranges of 10^22Hz from one end to the other.

If I'm getting too abstract, feel free to just move on.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
I'm sorry for jabbering on your essay thread, I thought of something else. Photon frequency also carries information content. When photons redshift, information is lost; well, I think the information is still there, it's just blurred or indistinct. Loss of detail occurs when the photons are redshifted. but when the photons are blue shifted again, the information is recovered.

Do you understand what I mean by that?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 19:49 GMT
Jason, I'll do each point;

1. Last post -almost perfect, but signal is not 'damaged' by compression (see Hau lab experiments in BEC)

2. "Why isn't FTL phenomena invisible?" You struggle with this and need to focus; We are NOT seeing 'photons' that have been ftl. In both atomic scattering and QED energy is re-emitted at the new speed, as NEW 'photons' if you wish, doing the new 'c'. Each only tell us of a relative POSITION at a certain time. You missed the point about the edge of the shadow. You must think more carefully, how fast does the signal about it's position reach you? at 'c' wrt the CMB rest frame (the one that can't exist in SR).

3. Causality. The fact that we are NOT seeing the actual 7c photons protects causality. Which it has to as we already see some photons, emitted together in one order, arriving 3 years apart in the wrong order (Einstein lensing). The real cause of this is refraction in the (c/n) plasma curving the light, and the co-motion of the medium (i.e. galaxy) causing the light moving through it to either be delayed or arrive early (subject to galaxies motion). This is real nature, (discrete fields) not the 'elephant dropping' belief based 'science' they still teach at college. You'll note it explains why mass in motion wrt a vacuum has higher gravitational potential (due to the condensed plasma) than that at rest, which nothing else does.

4. Wormholes. They don't exist. Black holes are toroid. (Look at my fig 3, the centre of the crab nebula and many others on the web) probably with Lagrangian points at the centre not singularities.

5. Plasma jets heading away from us can't be seen due to the red shift. I've predicted we'll find some on radio wavelengths, and sure enough wadayano, they're often called 'radio galaxies'. (I have to smile or I'd cry!)

Have you read the famous short 'Who moved my cheese'? It should be compulsory reading for scientists.

Let me know if that helps. But be prepared to conceive of the CMB 'rest frame' field condensing particles, and NOT in conserved photons. Then the elephant starts to become clear (along with dilation and contraction) and you'll wonder why the others can't see it.

Peter

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
Peter,

1. I wasn't referring to compression. In Entropy/information theory, the information content is twice the frequency. I'll have to find the equation. Basically, that means that redshift reduces the frequency and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried. But if the photons are again blue-shifted, that should recover the information content.

2. I'm OK with a broken path (absorption,emission,absorption,emission...). You said, "You missed the point about the edge of the shadow. " Shadow is only the absence of photons. But photons still move at c; so shadow edges have to move at c as well.

3. Causality is transmitted by photons. If the Sagnac effect of galaxies or some other phenomena gets these out of order, it's interesting but it's not a time machine.

P:"But be prepared to conceive of the CMB 'rest frame' field condensing particles, and NOT in conserved photons. "

I'll be happy to take a look at the CMB "rest frame". I'm not sure what you mean by conserved photons. Energy is conserved. Time dilation changes the frequency of photons. If photons are absorbed and re-emitted, then the energy has to go somewhere. Perhaps energy is being exchanged between the photons and the CMB rest frame.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 13:00 GMT
Jason

SHADOWS No, you've still missed it. Consider a shadow edge crossing an exponentially increasing curve (perhaps of a slightly irregular planet surface). The rate of movement of the edge is NOT controlled by the speed of photons!! It may become almost infinite as the curve shallows. What we are seeing is a 'rate of arrival of different photons' on different parts of the surface. It may appear to be an entity 'moving', just like a film at the cinema, but it is not. The light informing us of it's change of position travels to us at at 'c'. It's the same with plasma jets. We're seeing 'apparent rate of change of position' this time of actual photons but in another frame. Nothing moves at over 'c' 'where it's moving'. It takes a little intellect to understand the difference (and see the elephant!).

CMB FRAME. You're correct in "energy is conserved" between frames, and so is the signal. It was me calling it 'compressed' - which is blue shifted, and, yes, renormalised on returning to the first frame (field).

The important thing about CMB rest frames is that they prove space is not 'nothing', it is something that does does 'c' with respect TO. We have overcome the only obstacle to this by proving they are LOCAL background fields, co-moving not just one absolute field.

I'm sure I'm not a genius, and James has now got it, (we'll be in double figures soon!) so it's only preconditioning with nonsense and lack of dynamic conceptualisation skills that prevents you from seeing it.

LASERS. I realised last night how your multi laser lit could work. Don't buy the expensive colours you don't need them. You just need to get one plasma beam going with an accurate signal arrival time (you may need to get into phase interference). Then find a way of 'injecting' a 2nd beam into the first. The 2nd signal should arrive faster (It'll need time distinguishing pulses - or send some music!). You could always try 3 beams. The signal should arrive red shifted but 'superluminally' (if you did it all in a vacuum!).

I believe this may be similar to what Nimtz did, which was dismissed by the troglodytes, before re emerging as 'tunnelling.' Of course if you do it on a train and observe from the embankment you'll get another + or - v to help. The best results would be by going to Mars to observe. The Lorentz formulae is not required as the information on relative speed only reaches you at 'c' anyway. (as the jets and shadow umbra).

Now do read it again, because you'll have rushed and not fully understood or absorbed it I'll pay your Mensa fee once you fully understand it!

Best wishes

Peter

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

I'm going to need a minimum of five lasers of different wavelengths. This is why. What happens to the photons of a laser when the beam is shined straight into a a blackhole? The photons blue shift. What does that mean? That means that every photon is undergoing:

1. an increase in frequency,

2. an increase in energy and,

3. an increase in momentum.

Why? Because the beam is experiencing a gravitational force. Call it conjecture, but I suspect that if I can duplicate the frequency profile of a laser falling into a black hole (without the black hole), that I can reproduce the associated gravity field. It's a guess and a hunch. It deserves an experiment to test it.

I agree with you Peter; space is not nothing.

As for shadows traveling FTL, I'm concerned that shadows make it possible to signal FTL? Photons are the fastest particles that we've encountered.

P:"I'm sure I'm not a genius, and James has now got it, (we'll be in double figures soon!) so it's only preconditioning with nonsense and lack of dynamic conceptualisation skills that prevents you from seeing it."

If we disagree about things like c+v, I certainly don't want to be a troglodyte about it. You are free to disagree with me and still be brilliant and open minded. We can disagree without one of us being wrong. Your c+v approach looks more like a frame dragging variation. Isn't that what the Sagnac effect comes down to? However, I'm assuming a constant unmoving frame in which relativity, as it's currently understood, is valid.

Maybe the elephant in the room is like space; it's real, but it's invisible and not directly detectable.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
what do you say Peter,why you say that? you are a real "genius thinker physicist"and your essay is very interesting,I bother you smetimes but you are very creative also,many people I think likes reading your posts.

Don't stop dear friends, never,you are both of you, very very imaginatives and creatives.The 3 points of Jason are relevant....when the sorting of light is taken in a BH.The gravity fractalizes the light by its superimposings and fields.

Don't stop your creativity and research of truth.

Ps Jason you are right , the space and the mass and the light are purelly the same in the BEC at mu humble opinion.

Best

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 11:12 GMT
Hi Jason

As spies say, the best place to hide something is in plain view. The elephant is a fact which is as real as real gets.

A string of photons, therefore also waves, approaching a black hole, would be progressively stretched, i.e. red shifted, not blue shifted.

You cant say when something is red or blue shifted it gains or loses energy without defining which frame you're observing from. The energy of each photon is conserved as it changes frame. It is just compressed (contracted) or stretched (dilated).

Your 2nd laser will be 'getting a ride' on the first laser (plasma) beam, and so on.

I give you some clarification examples in the current blog string with John which you should enjoy.

Best wishes

Peter

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 11:32 GMT
Hi Peter,

When a laser is beamed straight into the center of a black hole, the photons can't fall faster, they have to frequency shift. If the beam consisted of neutrons or skydivers, then those neutrons and skydivers could fall faster as they fall through the event horizon. But photons don't fall faster. Yet, they must blue shift because they are gaining energy as they fall into the black hole.

But consider two observers. There are the event horizon bugs who live on the event horizon (sorry, I know that is spectacularly silly); they endure the huge gravity g-forces. There are also the skydivers who free-fall (pushed out of the space-ship for experimental physics sake).

The event horizon bugs knew that the He-Neon laser was red, but are surprised to see a blue laser.

The involuntary sky-diver sees (just before hitting an event horizon bug), he sees, blue shift from the gravity well AND redshift from his relativistic velocity. He will see a yellow laser, but won't care because he's about to fall through the event horizon.

Note that the skydiver is falling away from the He-Ne laser, so it will be redshifted. So infrared (velocity)+ blueshift (gravity) averages to yellow; approximately.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 11:43 GMT
Oops! The involuntary skydiver is in free-fall and sees red laser all the way down to the event horizon (and the event horizon bugs). After that, he doesn't see anything.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 20:59 GMT
Hi Jason,

You've made some very astute statements. First you point out that "one particle is its own reference frame." Peter has quoted Einstein above saying much the same thing, and you can look at the figure on page 6 in my essay to see how this fits my theory.

"...redshift reduces the frequency, and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried..."

I hadn't thought of that. I asked on another thread, months ago, just exactly when it became gospel that information is never lost? I have quantum mechanics texts from the 1930's (Dirac) to the 1980's (Sakurai) and QED and QCD texts from the 90's and 2000's, and I don't recall seeing in any of them that 'information is never lost'. No one answered my question.

But assuming this to be the case, you then cover this case by saying:

"But if the photons are again blue shifted, that should recover the information content."

Jason, that's a great statement, but it begs the question: Where was the information stored in the intervening period? Do you have a mechanism in mind, or an opinion as to a possible storage mechanism that does not operate faster than the speed of light?

By the way, did you read that somewhere? You seem to have thought of it right off the bat. I don't think I've ever read it, but it's obvious once you think of it.

Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. As it is blue-shifted, then information must be being created.

I've more comments, but I'm interested in your remarks. I'll probably post a summary of this on my page, as it fits well with where I'm going.

Thanks again, and good to see you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT
Hi Edwoin,

I can't quite remember the details, but the experiment had to do with polarizers and how they could be described with quantum mechanics. If you shine a laser onto a vertical polarizer, then a horizontal polarizer, all the light appears to vanish. But if you place a third polarizer that is horizontal, it recovers the light, or something like that. It's been so long and I don't know what to google for.

But it left me with the idea that the light was not blocked by the first two polarizers. A third polarizer could recover the previously vanished light. The fact that you could bring the light back left me with the impression that it still exists. That's why I believe that physics is implemented with photons AND WAVE-FUNCTIONS.

I sure hope you can think of the name of the experiment.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I think this is what I was remembering.

Let's say that a laser/light/photons pass through an optical system. They start out as \Psi and end up as \Psi'. Let the optical system be described as

D such that, \Psi_{end}=D\Psi

$\Psi_{end}=D\Psi$

Let the optical system consist of

$D = CBB^{-1}A$

As you'll notice, B and B^{-1} cancel out. Somehow, light that is blocked at B^{-1} reappears after B cancels out B^{-1}.

So where is the information/light hidden between B^{-1} and B?

One of the properties of wave-functions is that they can cancel out. This is one of the reasons I think that (1) the quantum vacuum is made out of wave-functions, and (2) that space-time is emergent from the quantum vaccum. Space-time is made out of wave-functions.

In the case of redshift losing information, but gaining it back after blueshift, the information was never lost. I think the information remains within the wave-functions of the quantum vacuum, hidden until there is enough blue shift to express the information. Can loss of information due to redshift bare any similiarity to loss of focus (bluriness)?

You asked: "Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. As it is blue-shifted, then information must be being created."

A new photon is one that is emitted from an atom. That same atom probably absorbed an incoming photon. But what happens to the information carried by the incoming photon?

In my opinion, there is nebulous quantum activity that is unmeasureable and undetectable. Much of it is noise, junk, artifacts of information chunkage, and maybe an occasional hidden signal.

It would be a great experiment to try.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 21:17 GMT
Jason/Edwin

The information, as the energy, is only compressed or stretched, never lost or gained. It has to be conserved.

Jason and I have been having this conversation for some time. for Doppler shift f and lambda are interchangeable subject to object and observer frame, E and c (locally) are constant.

See what happens to photons in BEC, they can be stopped dead, compressed to virtually nothing and held motionless (Lena Hau - Harvard etc) but when released they still have the information and energy.

Jason, good point about blue/red shift - If the spaghetti thing is true they are red shifted (feet stretched first) but I'm not convinced, and black holes are toroid anyway - Edwin, your thoughts would be appreciated (see the crab Nebula centre area infra red photo (just Google it for the nasa chandra shot - it's clear as a bell).

That all needs a lot more thought anyway. It id definitely possible to redshift photons, (Stokes scattering) so we're talking frame transformation again.

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 23:35 GMT
Peter, you say that, "The information, as the energy, is only compressed or stretched, never lost or gained. It has to be conserved."

I'm not sure it's that simple, but I'll think more about it.

By the way, I'm a lot closer to posting what you and I and Willard discussed. The focus on photons instead of massive particles has been very rewarding.

As for toroidal black holes, that is interesting. I'm convinced that particles are toroidal, based on the C-field and Calabi-Yau manifolds, largely due to the need for a null Chern class. Why do you insist black holes are so?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 05:14 GMT
Peter,

You must learn to trust the invariance of the speed of light. Trust the photon.

I've been thinking about the time dilation derivation. The observer watches the train go by. The observer sees a redshifted laser bounce from floor to ceiling (on the train), because... the observer observes a wider angle view. The technician on board the train can look straight ahead at the beam, and not move his head or eyes. But the observer on the ground has to track the beam, with his eyes, across a 30 degree angular range.

But what is the secret to time dilation? That other reference frame is really dilated.

If the technician on the train watches the observer on the ground go by, how does the techniican know that he is the slow aging twin, and not the observer on the ground?

If I take a 9v battery, and hook the positive terminal to ground and let the negative end float, why does ground stay ground, and the negative end becomes -9v? I think it's the same idea.

could it be a majority rule that determines what is at rest? In other words, is time dilation polarity (sorry to introduce such a wierd terminology). By polarity, I mean, which twin ages slowly and which twin ages fast. Time dilation should have a polarity based upon which end has more mass-energy.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT
Jason,

I'm not sure whether you speak partial differential equations or not, so I'll try to express the final equation in my essay in English.

The equation reads phonetically: partial-sub-rho(time) = partial-sub-x(mass)

What is shown in the derivation, but not explicitly shown in the final equation is that the units are inverse Planck's constant, that is, the right hand side is "per unit of action".

Now partial-sub-rho(time), where rho stands for volume, means "the change of time in a region of space".

and partial-sub-x(mass), where x stands for distance, means "the change of mass with distance" (across the region of space).

The result is a simple equation that represents space, time, distance, and mass in quantum units of action.

Now this probably won't make much sense if you think of solid mass, like a chunk of lead, but if you think that a gravitational field (in a volume of space) has energy (proportional to the field squared, like all fields, according to Maxwell) and use Einstein's E=mc**2, then we can think of the change in the gravity (across the region) where the distance x is the 'width' of the region in the direction of maximum gravitational change. It usually helps to draw a picture at this point where each side is represented.

So we have a change in time (time dilation) in a region where we have a change in the gravitational field energy/mass and the two are related. This simple (and beautiful) equation fell right out of my generalized Heisenberg quantum relation, which fell right out of my Master equation that claims that if we start with one field, and nothing else in the universe, the field can only evolve by interacting with itself.

Because you are very interested in time dilation, I thought that I would try to turn you on to this (quantum) way of looking at it.

Forgive me if you are an expert in partial differential equations, and simply let my explanation remain for non-experts who are interested in time dilation in a simpler way that it is typically explained.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 19:55 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I'm trying to finish my essay this weekend. A lot of what you said is very very interesting. Yes, I speak partial differential equations. I have a BS in physics with lots of math courses.

I derived (wrote down the answer from heuristic thinking) a gravitational time dilation equation using the Schwartzchild radius for a photon that falls from point A to point B. I'm trying to argue that particles with mass accelerate, but massless particles (photons) frequency shift. Feel free to shoot me an email at wulphstein@gmail.com.

I'll bet you have some really cool stuff.

report post as inappropriate

matt w wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 17:52 GMT
Peter

An excellent essay, refreshing to read and massively enlightening. A real revalation. It seems to me the content is worth a book, or series! which would drag physics 100 years on. I'm off to do some more re-thinking.

I'm happy to give you the highest score. I hope to be back to ask questions.

Matt

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 19:56 GMT
Matt

Thank you most kindly. I'm very happy to consider and discuss any questions. I shudder at the thought of a book, but you're right, I could only include a sprinkling of crystals from the massive glacier field.

Edwin

I look forward to the results of your deliberations. I've recently completed some work following a galaxy classification project, applying the DFM to galactic evolution. The results are astonishingly informative and beautiful. I'm trying to finish the paper now. My views on black holes have been modified. I was considering their gravitational cross section as flattened toroids, which was a very good fit, but not perfect. The answer came from the model, I was missing the dynamic power of them, They are massive energetic toroids spinning on the rotational axis but also (as in EM enegy) with a fantastic circular field round the torus 'tube' section, which what powers quasars/blazar gas jets.

The mechanism is certainly scaleable between stars and galaxies (did you look at the Chandra IR shot of the heart of the crab nebula? It can actually be seen! This must mean it is downscaleable, perhaps to particles, but it's a 'regeneration' process so I would be far from sure. It does not seem to me to a good analogy for the complex superposition of wave signals it must contain. Do you see an answer here?

I talked in my first paper about the effective mass and inertia of a gyroscope, and have come full circle to see that driving the universe, via the simplest basic physics possible, which can be successfully explained 'to a barmaid'. As AE insisted it should be. Effectively 'hidden in plain sight' as I commented recently.

Jason

I don't need to learn to trust the speed of light. Constancy of 'c' wherever you are and whatever inertial frame you're in (i.e. whatever speed your'e doing) is the heart of the DFM. It proves it's possible WITHOUT having to deny a quantum field, so is the only theory that consistently explains the CMBR rest frame.

In your train scenario you must correct two things; 1) The light signal reaching the observer is scattered off local particles in the air/gas in the train. It does 'c' wrt the particle, 'c' wrt the glass window 'n', and 'c' wrt the gas/air around the observer. And 2.) You must treat the observers frame as if it was a fixed video camera. You can then measure and properly consider the transit time across the frame. I hope that helps?

Best wishes

Peter

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 21:12 GMT
Hi Peter,

"I don't need to learn to trust the speed of light. Constancy of 'c' wherever you are and whatever inertial frame you're in (i.e. whatever speed your'e doing) is the heart of the DFM. It proves it's possible WITHOUT having to deny a quantum field, so is the only theory that consistently explains the CMBR rest frame."

It sounds like you're referring to the Invariance of the speed of light. I'm just not sure that you embrace the invariance of the speed of light.

When light travels through glass or a gas with particles,

a. in glass, it takes time for the photons to induce an electromagnetic field in a glass.

b. with particles, photons make unscheduled pit stops along the way. Both of these cause c'=c/n.

The fact that particles emit photons only means that the photon has an energy equal to the energy gap that emitted the photon. If another particle absorbs that photon, it will observe it at the speed of light in that medium.

Basically, photons jump between inertial frames A and B can result in a change in frequency. For index of refraction, it changes the wave-length, not the frequency. so you get c/n=c'=f*lambda'.

One might casually speculate that light in free space is slightly different from light traveling through glass or gas; different with slightly different properties. It's certainly slower. But is it different enough to invalidate the invariance of the speed of light (when it's in glass)?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
Jason

You really need to get it clear in your mind that 'n' does NOT invalidate invariance, which was only ever of.. "light in a vacuum".

i.e. In the 1950's Feynman was in awe of Lena Hau slowing light to 35mph in BEC. It never invalidated constancy of 'c'. The bit you keep forgetting is that the 35mph in BEC is constant whether the BEC was in her lab, on a train, a plane, or the space station. Light arriving from any observers rest frame will simply change speed both; A to comply with the media's 'n', and B to comply with any relative motion of that medium wrt the rest frame. The evidence of the Doppler shift proves it has done both.

You're not alone in repeatedly forgetting that, which makes nonsense, anomaly and paradox of perfectly consistent physical results. It seems our brains are simply not well developed enough to easily hold and apply two variables at once. That's why the 'elephant in the room' is not visible to most humans for more than perhaps a few minutes at a time. Once we've thought it through repeatedly and our brains have got used to applying it, it all becomes very familiar and simple. But it won't happen without effort, and being told how it works first. I's no wonder Einstein couldn't see it.

The speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely constant LOCALLY, in ALL regions of space, which is why it is constant to ALL observers, in all inertial frames.

I really hope you can do this as it's a revelation.

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
Peter,

I've finally posted a brief pdf that I believe relates to your essay (while being based on the ideas in my essay.) Please read it through a few times and then I'd be interested in your comments.

GEM and the Constant Speed of Light

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 14:38 GMT
Edwin

First glance over looked potentially quite exciting, but a bit like hearing the excitement of a roller coaster from somewhere behind me. I turned from maths to look another way 40 years ago, I discovered much, but now can't look or think that way. (AE; "We won't solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them") So I'll have to rely on you to explain.

Did you know that naturally rotating toroids are scalable from tokamaks (sub atomic level) up to 10^9 (galactic smbholes)? I can't help thinking there's a connection, in fact I have a much better alternative for the issue of re-ionisation of hydrogen, which is also connected. (paper on the way). I'm also starting to warm more to the concept of diffraction rather than refraction, same thing but more gentle in an Ewald-Oseen extinction way, leading via the (combined?) field to QG. - and much more!

Did the point about how the gravitational potential of a body increases when in motion through the vacuum come across in my essay? (the real equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Mass)?

I hope you can give me an analog commentary on your pdf, which I need vefore I can give intelligent comment. I'd like to understand some of the basic maths in a logical sense as I wish to adorn a paper with the odd equation (cited) to see if I can stop one being binned before it's read!

Many thanks

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 19:30 GMT
Peter,

Having worked extensively for 5 years on the C-field, I tend to forget that non-mathematical physicists sometime have a very hard time visualizing the term

[(del) cross (vector1)=(vector2)].

The cross product works at right angles to the vectors on either side of it, so that vector2 is orthogonal (perpendicular) to both del and vector1. And "del" is an operator that tells how things spread in space, a difficult concept on its own.

Do you know how a line with electric current flowing through it induces a magnetic field around it? The gravito-magnetic field (the C-field) will be induced around a mass-current in like manner. But mass current, mv, is mass time velocity v, which is momentum, and although photons don't have rest mass, they aren't at rest, so they have momentum. That's what induces the C-field circulation.

To try to get pictures in your head, go to "Magnetic Field" on Wikipedia, and click to section 5.1 in the Contents: "Magnetic field due to moving charges and electric currents". The first picture, illustrating the right-hand-rule shows the magnetic field around a current. If the arrow is the photon, the gravito-magnetic field induced will look the same.

I am both surprised and impressed that you were able to work out the principles in your essay without much math and disappointed that you don't understand my paper. I though you'd be jumping up and down by now, because it is exactly the answer you are looking for.

There are other aspects of the C-field interaction with photons that I'm working on now, but this paper contains the theory and ideas that you need. After you look at Wikipedia, if you have any question, let's discuss them.

Willard may also be able to help here, but I think he's in academia, and may not want to go out on a limb about the C-field being strong enough to behave as I have described.

In any event, I'm grateful to you for leading me in this direction, with your essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 01:19 GMT
Edwin

Thanks, just a quick 1st response, I'm very familiar with the mechanics. In fact it's hitting some connections spot on. Have you looked at tokamacs in nuclear physics? Induced toroids with dual dynamic rotation, including helically. I'm proposing this is scalable, (in fact not only up to 10^9 for smbholes but possibly even as a candidate for the big bang more as the big crunch').

This, via quasars, provides the missing re-polarisation process. I'm not a massive wiki fan but I'll look on it tomorrow as a refresher and read your notes again. I've been finishing my paper of galaxy secular evolution (I have the sequence) and well past my bed time now!

Best wishes

Peter

Robert Spoljaric wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT
Hello Peter,

One of the problems in General Relativity is reconciling the Equivalence Principle and Tidal Gravity. So I am curious to know how you would answer the following question. Keep the answer simple, as I am not that bright.

(This is paraphrased from a post to Jason.)

The Equivalence Principle basically asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. So as you fall freely, towards say a black hole, you are weightless (zero-g), and it seems as if there is no gravity in your vicinity (inertial frames). But the Equivalence Principle ignores tidal gravity, which also stretches you from head to foot and squeezes you from the sides. However, if you were the size of an ant you would experience less tidal gravity, than if you were the size of a whale. The question is, then, just how small would you have to be to ignore tidal gravity completely, that is, to consider yourself to be in an inertial frame of reference falling freely towards the black hole?

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 11:15 GMT
Robert.

Good question. Gravitation is a gradient. On an ideal slope a moon sized boulder would be effected the same as a tiny ball bearing.

But an ideal slope is like maths, it's an abstraction. When we get to particle size only an ideal plane light wave can't 'scatter from itself' (interact with the quantum vacuum) so the bumps not only get in the way, they're essential to provide the diffraction for curved space time, - doppler shifting as appropriate due to the slight delay of polarisation (which is 'Stokes scattering').

Sorry if that got complicated. But think of the Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational mass. If a comet goes past us it will attract us more if it goes faster! Bizzare? not when you consider the amount of additional mass it has in the photoelectron cloud around it, subject to it's speed through the vacuum!

Simple really. By the way, that's all from well established physics, but the connections haven't been spotted by 'general' mainsteam yet. Probably as they're not looking in the right directions or with overview. I have 'easy read' links on my screen i've just posted to Jason and Eckard so I'll also put them here; http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606 http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28606

Do let me know if that helps.

Peter

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 12:54 GMT
Hello Peter,

Thank you for the reply and please do not think me rude, but you haven't answered the question. Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I was asking, but I am at a loss to ask it any clearer.

Anyway I see you and Dr Klingman have found common ground. Hopefully it will be a fruitful partnership for you both.

All the best and good luck to you,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 22:39 GMT
Peter,

Although, as Willard pointed out above, your 'local realism' has a very specific meaning, nevertheless, I believe that Joy Christian's work [of which you're already aware] has significance for your essay, if only because his work demolishes the non-sense of non-local, non-real entanglement that has taken over physics for almost half a century.

Since my theory is based on local realism, this would, if not providing strong support for me, at least knock down a major line of attack against me. And since my theory, as noted in GEM and the Constant Speed of Light supports one aspect of your theory, then it affects you too.

This is a very exciting development.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I guess GEM stands for gravito electro magnetic. I didn't find it in my dictionary.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Eckard,

You are correct. Google "Gravitomagnetism". The first sentence in Wikipedia:

"Gravitomagnetism (sometimes Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM)"

Unfortunately Doug Sweetser also calls his theory GEM, and Fred Hoyle based his theory on a C-field that is different from mine, and there are other uses of C-field.

So there seems to be no unambiguous way to speak of the C-field without qualification.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 11:42 GMT
Edwin

I agree, but remember, in a 9 page essay I could only give a snapshot of one aspect of the DFM. - as with your own work. Joy's treatise is far reaching but central and fundamental in proving it's basis, though not going as far up the concrete 'consequences' track as the DFM We're coming at and looking at the same mountain but from a different town, as are you. It seems to me most of the reason we're all in different places is lack of research.

I'd like to keep exploring the connections between our approaches, as the sum of the parts.... ..and there really is a mountain to climb.

As light reading you might also enjoy the links I just posted for Robert above. They also help falsify both of our theorems, and may help in terms of approaches.

I am continuously excited, and am really thankful for your support, as well as often close to despair in the search for other intelligent life!

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 5, 2011 @ 13:57 GMT
Robert

Sorry. The Boulder/ball bearing analogy was supposed to explain that size shouldn't matter, as the 'slope' is the same at all scales.

i.e. an ant and an elephant will be stretched at precisely the same rate/mm, or percentage.

When we get down to electron size we'd have to know how gravity works. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Peter

PS I se I posted the same limk twice! The really good one that explains it well is here; cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/37860

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 05:07 GMT
Hello Peter,

It is unnecessary for you to answer the question, but it is something for you to think about. The reason I asked it was to see how your theory copes when we pit SR and GR against one another, so to speak.

In case you are interested, the answer I give in my essay is that inertial (gravity free) frames are fictitous, and the reason we can measure (with a certian margin of error) the speed of light as c 'locally' is that the 'g-force' we experience is negligible. This is consistent with GR.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 09:49 GMT
Hello Peter,

I presume you are not the size of an electron, and even if you were you cannot presume all 'observers' are. I hope electrons have a sense of humour!

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
Hi Robert

I wish I was a bit closer to electron size!

I agree in principle, but don't consider inertial frames gravity free.

Many deny the SR GR issue, Einstein was succinct with; “..the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter."

That is equivalent to the local variable version of my essay, which I can't believe so many struggle to find the logic and major implications of. What the DFM does is put both SR and GR on the same basis, both with a quantum mechanism.

I use 'field' not 'frame' as Einstein specified ('rigid body' not abstract points, lines and mathematics) Perhaps dynamic frames within frames, giving infinite background frames at all scales, are just too much for most brains to conceive?

Almost every barmaid I know has understood the speed of light through a pint of beer or plasma doesn't change if we slide it down the bar. Yet physicists mostly seem to struggle in applying it! Did you grasp the concept?

Best wishes

Peter

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 7, 2011 @ 21:14 GMT
Hello Peter,

You are a good person, and I just thought I would throw you a 'curly one' to keep in mind. If it helped clarify your own essay to you, then some good has come of it. Our essays differ on many points. GR left loose ends, which are tied in my essay, in so far as foundations are concerned.

All the best to you,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 16:45 GMT
you are a good person also as many here! ahahaha He is jesus , hello jesus Spoljaric and Peter is Budda.

Wel now let's take a quarck gluon plasma and let's see the light speed in a pure special relativity but if the velocities of rot are inserted......

Steve the crazzy humble arrogant

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Peter,

You have written a provocative essay, much of which I agree with and some of which has confused me. (No offense, because I'm easily confused) You refer to the boundary of the DFM as a plasma, which has undoubtedly has optical effects, but it seems to me that a plasma would only be warranted with the motion of mass with electric charge and not neutral mass. Yet the boundary effect should not, nor do I believe that you insinuate, that the effect is not present with all matter in motion. Also, you did not specify whether the DF boundary has motion wrt to the inertial frame. It seems to me that it should. I say this because in my mind the boundary would be most prominent in a frame that approaches c wrt the CMB. I see the boundary as a result of the subsequent acceleration of the frame in order to obtain this velocity (which is an unusual velocity of massive objects in our universe with the exception of cosmic rays and the other energetic particles which you mentioned with regard to active galactic nuclei). Therefore it is my belief that the DF boundary would propagate at a velocity even wrt the inertial frame, itself. I don't believe it will effect any of your conclusions, but am I incorrect in this assumption?

Sincerely,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 10:17 GMT
Hi Dan

Thanks. Though that confused me a bit! Let's take 1 more step backwards for overview.

As everything is relative; We must consider ALL motion in space wrt the local CMB rest frame. ..So.. when you say; "with the exception of cosmic rays..." ..you need to go back a step and re think. In space that 'exception' is in fact the rule!

If we're in a different background...

view entire post

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT
Hello Peter,

I believe that you've addressed my questions. (I was thinking of the wave nature of matter and that was how the plasma boundary was produced).

BTW the quotes you used from both Einstein and Minkowski are absolute gems. I was never a big fan of Minkowski. I always blamed him for the block universe.

Thanks,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Judy wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT
Hello Peter

I was left shellshocked by your incredible essay. It really did take a new way of thinking,(to me anyway) but I got it in the end, and it's brilliant! I susect most won't. I do see your problem, though I'm afraid I have no influence to help. i comment anyone to spend a few minutes lookijng for the pot of real gold. Very best of luck.

I'll think more and may return.

Judy

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 02:48 GMT
Hi Peter,

I've read your essay yet again (and looked through the postings on your page) and gave you a rating of 10. I think your brilliant essay complements mine because yours has a more "scientific flavour" while mine might remind readers of a dreamer. That's not necessarily bad because Professor Timothy Ferris wrote in his 1988 book "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" that Einstein's submission of Special Relativity resembled the work of a crank, not even containing citations from the scientific literature. We have to be very grateful for the insight of scientist and editor Max Planck who, when he read Einstein's paper, knew the world had changed.

If we could somehow combine your and my essay, I don't believe we could ever produce another Einstein but maybe we could convince some scientist/editor that the world is changing.

Rodney

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 19:51 GMT
Peter,

I'm happy to see that your essay is being appreciated.

I have been looking at 'ring laser gyroscopes' and thinking that you might also be interested in these devices. They produce two counter-rotating laser beams around a closed circuit. When the circuit physically rotates, one path is effectively lengthened and the opposite shortened, with consequent interference fringes that can produce 'beats' on a photo-detector proportional to the angular rotation speed. This allows the device to function as a gyroscope for navigational purposes (used on Airbus A320 and many others).

Also interesting is that Martin Tajmar used such a device to measure the C-field. By placing the 'ring' around a C-field dipole, one laser beam is flowing 'with' the C-field, and the other is flowing 'against' the C-field and of course the interference allows highly accurate measurement.

Just google 'ring laser gyroscope'. I believe you'll find this interesting. Among other questions is what happens when the beams are in vacuum and one beam is effectively 'speeded up'.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 23:03 GMT
Edwin

I agree they're very interesting, I covered them in an earlier paper, I'm just getting ready to shoot off to the Caribbean for a week and can't remember which, I think it was one of these two; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0041

It's the classic Sagnac effect, but there was some nonsense about them included on wiki last year. I'll get myself up to date.

Thanks, Best regards

Peter

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 20:35 GMT
Peter,

I think we've been scooped. I just read Dr. Christian Corda's essay and it mirrors my essay on so many of the innovative points, that I was certain he must have gotten them from me. But after reviewing his reference page, it seems he has a long history of such innovation. It's like you said on my forum, it almost makes you want to believe in quantum non-locality, for it is definitely spooky :)

Since he has position and credentials, and his essay is much more sophisticated, it's sure to be a winner. If you get a chance, check it out and let me know what you think.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 03:58 GMT
Hi Peter,

I liked your essay very much.

It struck me as a good balance between theory and

physical reality.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

joseph markell wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 02:36 GMT
Hello Peter:

I really enjoyed your essay. No doubt I will re-read it several more times as I continue trying to piece the jigsaw puzzle of the universe and nature together in my own head.

Good luck!

joseph

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 19:53 GMT
Hello Peter,

Sorry about dropping out of sight past couple of months. But as you know I am coauthoring a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics and my focus has for now been diverted to that project. This contest, however, opens another opportunity to exchange ideas. I continue to be interested about your ideas on refraction and how this can be explained by a time delay due to 'accumulation before manifestation' of energy. An idea that is central also in my thinking, as you know.

I have a curiosity that I want to share with you. In my essay I present sound mathematical arguments and show that Thermodynamics (the Fundamental Relationship as well as the Second Law) requires that 'events' in Nature take some duration of time to occur. That physical time is in the sense of 'duration', t-s, rather than 'instantiation', t=s. An 'event' however as considered in GR is given by a set of coordinates, (x,y,z,t) where of course time in 'instantiation' t=s. This seems to me to violate Thermodynamics. And if so, wont the Cosmology that is based on GR, deeply Thermodynamical, also be false?

Best wishes for a successful contest. I have not read it yet, but I will. Hope it does well and your views are considered by the judges. Who knows. If more of the essays that call for 'physical realism' reach the final round maybe this call will be taken more seriously by physicists.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
Hello Peter,

You seek empirical falsification of ‘discrete spaces’. Theorists would give you a theoretical falsification, based upon GR.

Grab yourself a pint and imagine the following conversation with Einstein.

Einstein: GR deals with gravitational fields according to which the velocity of light appears to vary with the intensity of the gravitational field.

You: Based upon your logic and data from space exploration, I postulate ‘local parts around “ponderable mass” as discrete regions..., within which light travels at speed c’.

Einstein: Recall in the Black hole ‘problem’ the ideal solution for you to avoid tidal gravity (consistent with your inertial field) is for you to be a point. Granted this is unrealistic, hence, suppose you are larger than a point but sufficiently small enough to ignore tidal gravity, then according to GR, if you were to resist that freefall into the Black hole (experiencing g-force) then you would measure the speed of light ‘locally’ as greater than 299,792.458 km/s, and the greater the g-force you feel the faster the speed of light appears to you. Hence, unless your model permits you to experience g-forces, and still ‘locally’ measure the speed of light as c, I cannot agree with your ‘discrete spaces’ postulate.

I hope you do not mind me bringing this to your attention. Perhaps you have gotten around that problem, but if you haven’t then you have some ‘food for thought’.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 22:45 GMT
Hello Peter,

Please do not think I am picking on you. If you have an answer to the above problem, then good for you. But if you don't then you have an opportunity to strengthen your model, or to predict something different to GR. Either way you win!

Best Wishes,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Guys & Girls

Thanks for your exceptionally kind comments, sorry but I've been on Hols in the Caribb. Riding a bumpy 150knot jet stream back while reading papers seemed a perfect example of the DFM solution to how inertial fields really work. A plane doing 500 knots 'locally', did 650 over the ground (sea) and touched down almost an hour early!

But it seems very few are capable of the right, 'out of the box' way of thinking, handling the extra conceptual moving variable, to see it. I really do appreciate and value you few who are.

Robert, I like your question. It shows deep thought. I'll reply in detail.

Constantinos, Very good to hear from you. I look forward to reading yours.

Joseph, Do re-read, and ask questions, the realisation is a warm feeling.

Steve, Do at least post a short essay explaining spinning spheres! I'll proof your English if you wish. (And do give me a rating as the essay seems to be languishing!)

Every one else, Thank you with all my heart. You give me great inspiration and belief when I start to despair at the cerebral limitations of humankind, particularly my own at explaining the answer.

Thank you

Peter

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT
Hi Robert.

Much food for though indeed. Mostly, in physics, answers are from such a different viewpoint to questions that no harmony results. I fear that here, but will first transmit on my own frequencies anyway. The conversation continued;

PJ; "I agree Albert, gravity is non zero in all inertial frames, but let's imagine ourselves 100 years in the future, and we find Galaxies have over 300Bn solar masses in their ion plasma Halo's, many kpc's deep at densities up to 10^9/cm^-3. And the Earth has a similar density plasmasphere. Do you think light could pass through these respectively at 'c' with respect to deep space, and at 'c' wrt the sun? Or would it change to the local 'c'."

AE; "Hmm, so you believe my friend Arthur is a bit of a duffer, light changes speed and curved space time is all about diffraction?"

PJ; "Well, let's just say you were right insisting Cartesian co-ordinates had to be attached to a body not used in the abstract, as there are no point particles, But the real point is that it proves your Equivalence of gravity and Inertial Mass, as particles, ions, can then condense from the ether increasingly with speed through it, representing the mass that attracts other particles."

AE "Mien Goot! That's so simple! Yes I did say space without ether was unthinkable! But! ..Will it pass the acid test?!"

PJ; "OK let's ask and find out. "Marleen.. have you got a sec to tidy the bar counter for an experiment?"

Marleen tidies the bar, PJ wets it, puts Albert at the other end and slides his beer along it at breakneck speed. Albert catches it.

PJ; "Now, ..Marlene, ..did the light going through the glass and beer take a different time to do it just because the bar was moving with respect to it, and the wavicles arrived at a faster rate?

Marleen "Of course not dumbkopft! did you never listen to Auguste the lighthouse keeper!?

AE; "Ahh' I see what you say! Unless we slide WITH the beer, light can appear to change speed both due to the 'n' of the beer AND the 'v' of the glass, so CAN be c/n plus v! Without Hendricks' exponentials, but still not actually break the 'c' limit! but of course!!, your beer is a galaxy!

PJ; "Yes, or just one moving electron. If only you could see 100 years into the future Albert, you'd probably still be brighter than most of them who may only be able to see 100 years into the past. And you were proved right, inertial mass really does = gravitational mass so a = g. I wonder if anyone in the future will have the intellect to see that!"

AE; "Ahh! but we won't be able to solve the problems of physics with the same kind of thinking that created them!"

PJ; "Who said that - Oh yes it was you, and perhaps your wisest words!. Another one for Albert please Marlene.."

If only! Peter

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 00:43 GMT
Herr Peter,

Ah yes Peter, but whereas you try to empirically show a = g, Robert uses his derivation of 'the Light' to show WHY a = g. Further, 'the Light' is deterministic and objective, the followers of QM will not be happy! Another beer for my friend please.

Cheers,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 12:46 GMT
PJ; "Yes, I agree that Robert does this and 'why' is also important, as I assume is the correct mathematics, so on reflection it must be of more equal worth than mine so I shall return a 10.

My holiday? .. a large and beautiful piece of nature, fought over for over a century by two great powers, but both too far from a solid basis, so had to agree to an unhappy partition, until in the end Local Reality, those who were originally enslaved, threw them out and gained possession. But it was a hard fight! The old rulers re-took control for a while and fought to the death, but the 'Locals' could not loose in the end as they held the Reality.

In fact the Dominican Republic has great similarities with Science, it's just that science is still a bit behind! There is no 'Independence Day' but a 'Restoration Day'. One day physics may have the same, - but we must all support each other to achieve it"

AE; "I'll drink to that!"

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Peter,

You are correct old friend, we must support one another. The 'old one' is subtle, but not malicious. The question is are we clever enough to know 'his thoughts'? We can only hope.

Who are we to challenge the status quo? Thanks to FQXi for giving us the opportunity!

Let's drink to that!

Cheers,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 05:51 GMT
Hello Peter,

I've been discussing with Edwin Klingman (in my thread) a few things on the idea of cosmic mass-energy genesis and the idea of motion transformations instead of spacetime transformations. Your essay was mentioned.

My understanding is that in your view black holes recycle mass and energy. This is an interesting idea to me because that is part of my own view.

I have however the extended idea that black holes are actually involved in the 'creation' of new 'cosmic' mass-energy out of the fundamental and infinite 'chaotic' mass-energy reservoir. My idea is that basically the 'chaotic' null energy in the void 'flow' into the gravitational systems and are transformed into 'cosmic' densified mass-energy that get fissioned and stabilized in the domain of the cosmic observables, or that get radiated and attenuated back into the domain of the chaotic void. The overall process is biased towards the increasing cosmic mass-energy domains as time passes.

My idea is that we have the 'super thin' 'dark void' at one extreme end and the 'super dense' 'black holes' at the other extreme end, with both characterized as having the invisible 'dark' or 'black' motions; while in-between we have the variegated visible or observable quantized motion constructs.

My propositions are based mainly on the idea that 'motion' is the basic component or essence of all the phenomena within space. Everything that we see or touch is of the essence of motion - i.e., particles and waves are all constructs of motion.

I have held back quite a bit on my ideas. But I hope you will read my essay and give it a rating, too.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
Rafael

Brilliant! I shall read your essay immediately. I don't blame you for holding back as I expect you've found similar truths to those I have, and know they need breaking gently. None the less I have ventured a little further (than in a paper recently accepted for peer review) and explained some in a (my latest) pre print web archive paper at; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 From your comments above I definitely feel a couple of well earned tens coming on!?

I'll comment once I've read it, but for the record, and in practical 'buildable' terms, yes; Mass is energy, which is held by motion, and does condense and evaporate, by local 'compression', though indeed peaked during the black hole based recycling process. I also show significant evidence that the Universe is just a bigger version this, with interesting consequences! - you'll see in the paper.

I can't wait to read yours!

And Robert; I'm becoming more and more convinced Status Quo have had their day! I expect you should read it too.

Best wishes

Peter

Robert Spoljaric replied on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 22:28 GMT
Hello Peter,

Thanks I will take a look.

If you are interested to know what 'the Light' is, then you may like to read the last post on my thread where I attempt to explain it. At the very least it may explain my low rating.

Incidentally the score I have given you has registered, but not yet your score to me.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 00:01 GMT
Hello Peter,

I wanted to thank you for your last correspondence on my forum. I left a response there. I also wanted to let you know that I was in full assault mode on my last entry of the time traveler's blog. You might want to check it out and let me know what you think.

As always, thanks for your support.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:36 GMT
Peter, Robert, Dan,

I just read Paul N Butler's essay at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 01:03 GMT
Peter,

I thought it would be more convenient for you if we discuss you questions here, instead of on my essay's page.

--------------

"If we say the 'problem' is to explain how a constant speed of light is measured by all moving observers, does it understandably explain how this can be achieved with a quantum mechanism?

If successful, this should lead to the success I referred to."

---------------

Peter, can you expand on/clarify your question?

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 11:54 GMT
Hi Peter,

First thank you very much for your comment on my essay, for me (not being a professional scientist) it is already an honour to be published among such a erudite company.

Untill now I read twice your essay, and really this explained for me some essentials of SR, your title 2020 vision is I hope pessimistic we have as you say to overcome the centric specialistic personal vieuws, where we go deeper and deeper into the fractals of our knowledge and only come across the same formula.

I liked very much the explanation of the quasar jets at 7c , imagine what would happen if we did not apply the "within media" ands the "relative velocity" of media elements, the photons from other "space" would go back in time , and emerge in our past, observers at that time would see emerge from nothing a strong beam of photons (then at c locally), if this happens we should now also see emerge these kind of strange explosions of photons, and I don't think we do.

You mention that a massive body is surrounded by a discrete area of space, this causing the plasma shock, the illustrations give a very good proof of that, I understand that when we go to the smaller scales , you mention even below Planck matter domain, we will encounter the same kind of effects, and here Peter your essay and mine have a point of contact, if in my idea the Planck scale 10^-33cm is the ultimate measurable so observable length in our 4 dimensional world, if it also surrounded by space is space the right word, or is it, and that is what I would prefer a "Field" emerging from the existance of the Planck quantum, the collisions of these surrounding fields could very well be the origin of what you call plasma shocks that are responsible for gravity and inertial mass , this would explain also the so called "holographic" appearance of our Universe. Of course on the larger scale these multiple plasma shocks become a continuity forming another observable space with its own local c.

The contenence of your essay is very wide, I am awaiting a book on this subject that goes perhaps also deeper in Gravity that depends on accelleration and speed via mass (where time runs slower) through a condensate/potential, the whole shabang of our universe is waiting for people like you and verybody partcipating in the ultimate contest of understanding.

kind regards and of course a high place in this contest.

William

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 15:48 GMT
Wilhelmus

I'm flabbergasted by your excellent comprehension of the concepts in my essay. You have true conceptual intellect. The additional variables are beyonf most minds to hold. In fact due to so many missing the key logic I quickly re-read it myself this week and didn't fully understand it! (half joking of course). But then, as you say, you were already in the same territory so knew the conceptual language. In that case you may be interested in this voyage into the unknown land of logical conclusions; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 Let me know if you think a scientific derivation of life after death is a journey too far!

Thank you and best of luck

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Lev

Hopefully Wil's post above may give more hints, but you ask me to clarify;

"If we say the 'problem' is to explain how a constant speed of light is measured by all moving observers, does it understandably explain how this can be achieved with a quantum mechanism? If successful, this should lead to the success I referred to."

I was asking if you understood the essay, which does explain how a constant speed of light is observed "irrespective of the motion of emitter or observer". What is more it uses only current science, no new or complex maths, and a quantum mechanism, which therefore unifies SR,GR and QM. Penrose referred to this as the Holy Grail of physics

It's predictive power and ability to resolve anomalies and paradox is astonishing. It uses comprehensive observation (over many fields), rigorous logic, and an entrained ability to conceive and visualise a number of moving variables and consequential effects. it is something mathematical abstraction is not equipped for.

There are a hundred ways to describe it; A proof of a = g. the switch back to a reality 3D Body co-ordinate system from 'point and line' abstractions, The use of multiple space time manifolds themselves as 'inertial fields', the transformation of motion rather than numbers between frames, "Infinitel many 'spaces' in relative motion" (Q Both Minkowski and Einstein), the "Spatial extension" of mass (Einstein) etc etc etc.

The only problem is that I'm not a full time professional physicist, and the thoery isn't a mathematical one, so it cannot be recognised or understood by most current un-eminent physicists. So despite writing it up in every way possible and pointing out all the predictions that have been met (the most spectacular 3yr+ lensing delays) it is still ignored. Also see p18 of 19th Feb and p16 of 26th Feb NS re plasma and light.

It is however correct, and I am patient and tenacious, so it will eventually be understood and get science out of it's current rut. The number of consistent theories seems to be growing exponentially, but I still expect it will take till 2020.

The changes to the SR postulates and principles? None. It's only our lack of logical comprehension and over reliance on maths that has kept it cloaked. I believe your thought organisational approach may benefit.

have another read, and of the link i gave to Wil (though a bit hard core!) and let me know if you can see the implications.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
To all; Bells Inequality

Joy Christian and Edwin have shown flaws in Bells inequality but no doubt much doubt may remain, so I explain the conceptual solution here that also shows the limitations, of it's domain.

The fact that motion is transformed locally to a new 'manifold' via condensed matter condensing (the implementation of the change) means effectively that it's particle form CAN effectively 'depend on someone observing it', yet up to that moment it remains part of the 'continuum' (or Schrodinger wave-front if you prefer) so doesn't breach anything and is thus allowed. this cannot of itself 'explain' entanglement, but we should remember this arose more from mockery be Einstein than by discovery, and none of the very limited experimental evidence has a conclusive or only one explanation. To much assumption can be dangerous!

Peter

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 18:14 GMT
Quite impressive, Peter. Do I need to print your essay to be sucked in by your embedded black hole. I haven't done that yet but will. With my meager background, I certainly need more time to digest your thoughts.

You are justified in sitting on top of the FQXi mountain.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 19:13 GMT
James

Far from the top yet, but thanks for the kind words. the black hole is only a photograph. Look carefully for the giant Tokomak (Toroid - or donut) lensing light in HH34. I can't find any evidence it was previously spotted! Or indeed the head of the 2nd red shifted Jet. There should also be one at the centre of the universe, (a bit bigger) which the 'axis of evil' points us to. As Einstein said, discovery is easy once we know what we're looking for. It's noted in my last 2 papers, including the preprint linked.

Peter

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 03:31 GMT
Peter,

You manage to pack a lot of mystery into a few references. Does the proto-star, HH-34, have jets or is that a quasar from the black hole revealed by the debris around the event horizon (head of first jet). What makes you think that donut is an accretion disk or am I looking in the wrong place?

Then you seem to delight in opening the "axis of evil" Pandora's box without giving me the cosmic "GPS coordinates" for finding the BH in the center of the universe.

Hasn't the Planck mission disproved the "axis of evil" yet?

The fun continues.

Regards,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 21:07 GMT
I've been asked to explain my statement above re Bells inequality, Briefly; but to set the scene; The inconsistency Joy C spotted is essentially mathematical, so i won't comment!, there are issues that the main loopholes identified may have been closed individually but not yet all at once (Freedom of choice, fair sampling and Separation/Locality) though being tried, and the Cambridge 'Locality Collapse' loophole, But I refer to none of these!

It's simply that measurable properties do change between inertial fields so the whole assumption limiting 'localism' is extended beyond it's valid domain. It's a bit like the invalidity of moving points in geometry. Once you rely on the maths and assume they're ok all results are rendered invalid. (think about it, that's an awful lot of recent physics!) Sorry if it's a shock.

The other thing it does do is allow QM in a Discrete of 'Block' universe, essentially by creating the boundary domain. This in reality is our very own plasmasphere / ionosphere, where light speed changes from 'c' wrt the sun to 'c' wrt the planet. Occams razor rules ok?

If anyone has any scientific disproof of that (but not 'beliefs' please) please do give it here.

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
Peter,

Great opportunity to pick up our discussions from months ago! I am curious on a curiosity! How those of the 'particle' persuasion explain how 'photons' pick up speed again after they have been slowed down going through a medium like glass! Of course in our view, there is no problem! The same principles I use to explain the double-slit experiment (as well as many other results in my essay) apply here as well:

1)Energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely.

2)Before there is manifestation there is accumulation of energy.

3)The 'photon' emitted is not the same as the 'photon' detected.

More generally, what is the mechanism by which waves propagate through a medium? I don't mean a 'mathematical model'!

Recently I have been thinking about your Discrete Field. I am trying to make sense of how this fits with continuous propagation of energy. Can you elaborate?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT
Constantinos,

You asked Peter "How those of the 'particle' persuasion explain how 'photons' pick up speed again after they have been slowed down going through a medium like glass!"

In a comment above [Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT] I linked to a new paper that treats that question: GEM and the Constant Speed of Light.

I hope this makes some sense to you. It also relates to Jason's remark about information being lost due to redshift.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 02:12 GMT
Peter,

As Constantinos implies above, intuitively we all want an 'ether' of some kind for the waves to 'wave' in.

As you know, my essay is based on the gravity field existing initially. After symmetry breaks the 'gravito-magnetic' aspect of this field appears, providing an inflationary force and interacting with itself in turbulent fashion to give rise to elementary particles. These particles, some of which are charged, produce electro-magnetic fields or photons.

In my view, the gravity field has 'fluid-like' properties, and there is no reason that is obvious to me that this 'fluid' would not support electro-magnetic 'waves'. Remember that all fields have energy, and energy has mass, so there is some 'substantial' character to the gravitational field to support electro-magnetic 'undulations'.

If this were the case, then the 'ether' that Michelson and Morley tested would actually be the local gravity field, and this would (as compatible with your 'discrete frame' based system) be local in character, not globally 'absolute' (in a Machian sense) as the 'luminiferous ether' was assumed to be at the time.

From the perspective of these local discrete frames Michelson and Morley found exactly what would be expected, since they only rotated their arms in a horizontal plane. And testing at different locations and different times of the year, as they did, would produce no different results.

Of course Pound and Rebka did find that a photon traveling vertically in the earth's gravity is shifted, but that is fully compatible with the 'time dilation' equation in my essay. And for the photons observed during a solar eclipse, the photon will blue shift as it falls into the solar gravity well, then redshift as it climbs back out (compatible with my "GEM and the Constant Speed of Light" paper referenced above). So the photons that we observe on earth are approximately what we expect them to be.

Do you see any immediate problem that I am overlooking?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
Edwin,

Thanks for your comment. I have taken a quick look at the paper you linked, but I didn't find the answers I was looking for. Let me explain. Explaining physical phenomena mathematically is certainly necessary and unavoidable, but the kind of explanations I am looking for are 'physical explanations' that make sense (“what is the physical picture”, as Einstein once asked of Bohr).

Thus, to my question, if we consider that light is made of photon particles moving in empty space, how in this 'physical view' can we account for photons 'picking up speed' after being slowed down going through a medium like glass. I didn't see that answer in the equations you've written.

Also, I am likewise having trouble making sense of Discrete Fields. These don't quite feel philosophically complete to me. If there is such a field around each and every discrete particle in the Universe, what is in between their 'boundaries'? Or, if each field meets each other field in boundaries which are mutual and there is nothing (no space) between such boundaries, then this raises serious questions about what constitutes such boundaries. Wont they need to have some 'physicality' to be physically real? The very notion of a field to me is just a mathematical idea. It is a mathematical abstraction.

But the most important of the questions in my previous post is 'what is the physical mechanism for the propagation of waves in space'? I don't see how Discrete Fields answer this. The very term, Discrete Fields, seems to me paradoxical. It is an interesting way of combining two antithetical notions. But are we creating a conceptual contortion or a true conceptual synthesis? I am keeping an open mind.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

Extremely interesting essay, of course! I likely may never fully comprehend, but I will take some time to understand as best I can.

In the meantime, I invite you to consider two perhaps distantly related conceptual questions regarding the perception of the universe. I expect your comprehension of the physics involved may allow you to quickly identify some misconception...

1. While the identified CMB emissions are almost certainly the highly redshifted EM emissions permeating ancient spacetime, might not local spacetime currently be emitting sparse (infrared and other spectra) energy waves, just as virtual particles seem to appear from nothing? Unlike the detected uniform microwave signal, local sparse, uniform emissions of 'space energy' would likely not be discernable from other 'signals'. Of course, the recent local emissions would be much 'cooler' than the distant ancient emissions of 'space energy' in the hot, dense early universe. Nevertheless, the CMB may actually represent only the ancient tip of the spacetime continuum 'iceberg'.

2. The determination that the universe is accelerating was based on the discrepancy between distance estimates derived from (1 type Ia SNe consistent peak emission luminosity and (2 standard cosmological models (based on redshift) with standard parameters. The discrepancy only occurred for SN >5Glya. The SNe luminosities indicated they were 10% - 15% farther away than models predicted. To produce agreeable model estimates for more distant objects, researchers modified their model to include a positive cosmological constant parameter ('vacuum energy density') and a negative deceleration parameter (intended to indicate acceleration).

Since it was the more ancient light emissions from more distant objects that exhibited greater effects from spacetime expansion than the more recent light emissions from nearer objects, I assert that the observational results only confirmed that universal expansion has temporally decelerated, as previously expected.

As I understand, both light emitted 5G years ago and light emitted 4G years ago both traversed spacetime imparting identical (uniform) conditions and effects of spacetime expansion for the past 4G years. The only distinction between the two sample groups of photons is the effects produced by the conditions of spacetime expansion that occurred 4G - 5G years ago. Since the more ancient light emissions from more distant objects indicated greater expansion, it was the earlier expansion that produced those effects. Is this interpretation incorrect?

I hope you can spare a little time to consider these issues.

Sincerely,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 11:01 GMT
James

You ask; "Does the proto-star, HH-34, have jets or is that a quasar from the black hole revealed by the debris around the event horizon (head of first jet). What makes you think that donut is an accretion disk or am I looking in the wrong place?

and Re; "GPS coordinates" for finding the BH in the center of the universe.. ..Hasn't the Planck mission disproved the "axis of evil" yet?"

HH34 IS a Quasar James, (or 'Blazar/Gamma Burst/Radio Source/Pulsar' - there's much confusion!). The jet heads aren't what's termed 'event horizon's. The closest thing to that is probably the lensed (curved and magnified) light around the toroid form (from stars behind the BH). Quasars have two contra flow jets, which often spiral as a toroid is symmetrical. The jet heads are the plasma (ion) clouds condensed as the superluminal plasma jets hit the continuum (energy) medium and are slowed down to the local 'c'. Condensed matter shouldn't be too much to swallow, we do it every meal time!

Look at the Chandra IR photo of the centre of the crab nebula (there it's termed a 'neutron star'), but the black hole toroid is exactly the same shape and much more clearly visible. Does all that make more sense now?.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 11:11 GMT
James

Ooops, sorry - I forgot the 'axis of evil'. It was the SloaneDSS and Plank missions that picked it up! It just needs someone with a decent telescope to follow the axis and find the centre of the universe, which should look just like the ESO photo in the essay, much bigger but further away, and probably no more active that the crab nebula one at present (see the weak jets).

Did you pick up the point about the 2nd jet to HH34, it's so red shifted it's outside our visible range past the IR, which is why it's termed a 'radio source'. Do we have an astronomer in the house whose got over the dumping of Freemans Law?

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT
Constantinos

Ballistic photons can easily change course at sharp angles and instantly speed up when you have your head in the sand! Lena Hau etc. can make them go from 0mph to 'c' (coming out of BEC) on the spot, and all with zero mass/energy! The whole thing is a nonsense of course. It's well known in Optics that Huygens Construction is the solution, extending through Fourier optics,...

view entire post

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
Peter, you write

“I'll double check I've scored your essay as I note it's way below where it should be!”

What ratings are you referring to? The last time I checked your public rating was 8.3 compared to 8.5 for mine.

Ah, Peter, you are so sly! I like it! You are always a challenge and a pleasure to engage in these blogs! Politics is no less a match for you than Physics. Have you tried your hand in it? I predict you will be very good. I already voted for you!

Moving on, however, from these murky waters of politics to the murkier waters of physics.

We agree on many views.

Certainly, we know physical reality by our observations and measurements of the Universe. But clearly such measurements are always done 'locally' where we are and our instruments are. So I agree with your “locality/reality” principle. And I agree that this has the potential of answering many puzzling enigmas of physics. You have been concentrating on explaining the constant speed of light and SR. While I have been more focused on explaining Planck's Law of blackbody radiation.

The most astonishing result in my papers and essay is that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It is a mathematical result! Nothing to do with physics!

One outstanding characteristic of Planck's Law is how remarkably exact it is to experimental data. Check: The Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from COBE! In this graph, the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve. And unlike many other laws of physics, the better our instruments get the closer the fit! I ask all the physicists out there: “What is the explanation of this remarkable exact fit?”

My work CAN explain this experimental fact, however! In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. Clearly, the COBE blackbody spectrum is recorded 'locally' by the 'sensor' making these measurements. These measurements describe the mathematical identity that is Planck's Law!

I am still puzzled by your DFM. At this time, at least, it still feels to me like the “wave-particle” paradox. Having solved that paradox, however, I have a sense this dichotomy may be resolved too. I anticipate that we may agree on that point too. I just have to see it somewhat differently, in my way of thinking that fits all my other results.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT
Edwin

Yes, a few points (and congrats for your excellent position!!).

1. I haven't been sure if there is an actual gravitational effect from the field itself, the particles are propagated to implement the effects of gravity, i.e. diffracting em waves due to 'n' to create the effects of curved space time. But the energy for the ions must come from somewhere, so logically it would leave an energy deficiency with the same curve as 'gravity'. I discussed it in an early paper, but was probably floundering; did I pass it to you? http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

The field certainly has 'limited compressibility' (which I think Planck suggested when supporting the Stokes/Fresnel/Heaviside original iteration of the DFM; 'Full Ether Drag' - never disproved, and supported by M&M!

2. What may really be needed is a catchy word for the 'condensate' or 'C' Field. As most Science seems still to be based on the eternal triangle of Belief/Maths/Fashion, which excludes logic, perhaps we should play that game and slip the logic in unnoticed. 'Continuum' seems the most common, but is wrong. "Dis-continuum" is too long, 'ether' is out of fashion, Inter-whatever medium doesn't work overall. The mind boggles but nothing stands out. I don't see 'C Field' as adequately self explanatory for a PR job. What do you think? ..Anyone else any ideas?

3. Last Point (Pound-Rebka etc). In the DFM the whole process is wave particle interaction, i.e. FM, (as in your radio) via diffraction. Our atmosphere is stuffed full of ions at increasing densities!" this is a real solid material physical, reproducable and measurable process - producing inertial frames and everything SR and GR does, via a Quantum Mechanism. (and lots more rewarding work for unemployed string theorist to do!) I hope the C field is consistent with that as thinking it through it gives Unification, ToE, cheap slimming pills, what else is there?

Thoughts?

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your reply. I am not thinking so much of a gravitational 'effect' on the photon as I am simply a 'medium' in which electromagnetic waves can 'wave'. My basic C-field equation does contain a term for "change in gravity" and this is of course supported by Pound-Rebka. But it says nothing about gravity that is not changing, although, as I said, the field has energy, hence equivalent mass, hence 'substance' of some sort.

As for your paragraph 2, I fully agree. It's very frustrating to know that the proper word or phrase may lead to success without any change in the logic of one's argument. And I have not been able to conjure up this word.

And as for your third paragraph, I agree with your ideas about transmission through plasma; I'm just trying to get an intuitive feel for transmission through 'empty' space (which always is 'full of gravity'). I have continued to work on the ideas expressed in 'GEM and the Constant Speed of Light' and have new results that are very interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 13:32 GMT
James

I think 'echo of the big bank' is a misleading propagandic crock. This is not mainstream science (till about 2020), but listen to those at the top not the 'midrift bulge' of sheep.

The CMB radiation we get is at the frequency 'LAST SCATTERED', i.e. it has been passed on by local particles (plasma) scattered to a higher or lower frequency subject to relative motion (Equivalent to Raman - Stokes Anti-Stokes up and down shifting). This is what gives the 'absorption lines' (from IR spectroscopy) we haven't entirely learned how to read yet, but which effectively contains a full log of the EM wave inertial frame history.

Virtual particles don't quote appear from 'nothing'. The condensate has to be perturbed, by other massive particles or 'blocks' of condensate moving through it, condensing matter and a local plasmasphere (diffractive boundary). (Venus Express just confirmed theirs is like ours, in the planets frame).

The very existence of the CMB rest frame is completely inconsistent with the assumption (actually 'stipulation') of no absolute field for SR, so it's been 'heads in the sand' again. This means we've missed the 3rd option, no single 'absolute' frame, but an 'ether type' field none the less, (the C field of Edwin) as a privaleged 3rd frame. The Discrete nature and local conversion of all em waves to 'c' resolves the issue of all em waves being measured at 'c' locally. Simple really, (but not that easy to get the dynamic pattern onto your brain cells the first time!

It also points to much of the redshift being due to the very low impedence and resistivity of the medium (which we know precisely along with it's permitivity, but buried in the sand somewhere)! The logical conclusion dictates we're expanding but at a slowing rate. I'll explain more if you wish. 'Temporary' is relative. If you read the viXra paper I posted above you'll see what I mean!

Anyway - remember I'm only guessing here, but it does seem to fit the complete data range much better than any other theories I've heard, and does resolve the anomalies and most of the 13 great unanswered questions. I hope some of it sounds sensible to you?

Best wishes

Peter

Anonymous replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 14:31 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for responding so quickly.

I admit I don't follow GR very well, but I conceptually envision the local gravitational 'curvature of spacetime' to be the product of an external (generally radial) contraction of external kinetic energy that imparts velocity to matter (including photons). I think this is in general agreement with your explanation of redshift, but I don't think I follow how that applies to redshift imparted by spacetime expansion.

However, I am wondering if you were able to follow my interpretation of proper astronomical observational perspective? I think that the local field effects of gravitation on redshift do not explain the distinction between observational samples nearer than and greater than 5Glya. Something evidently did qualitatively change about 5 billion years ago.

My interpretation is that, since the ancient light emitted from more distant objects indicates a requirement for increased expansion effects the evidence supports an increased rate of expansion in the earlier universe.

Can you follow my reasoning - that the established interpretations are spatially-temporally inverted?

I do appreciate your time and apologize for being so dense.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
Jim

Not dense, but, like most, you may need to 'step back' for overview, and read, consider and absorb more slowly.

I entirely agree with reducing expansion rate, but I don't think that's for the reasons you suggest. The concept 'last scattered' is important. Yes, we are getting signals from local emissions, but they are mainly 'scattered' emissions, i.e. they have entered plasma shocks and halo's and been diffracted, (subject to relative speed of the body the shocks surround) to different frequencies, i.e. redshifts.

This means part of redshift may perhaps relate to Polarisation Mode Dispersal (the particle charging delay causing diffraction) by the ion plasma particles and part to the impedence of the condensate itself. (2.7 degree pre condensed matter condition) also note the 2.7 changes slightly with frequency!

You may still have a point about 5 Bn years ago, as that was around when the Milky Way should have had it's last recycling, (see the viXra paper) but I'd have to consider what effect that would have on incoming signals. That means I'd need to scrutinise all "the evidence" of what the difference between "observational samples" at that distance is. Can you provide that, with links?

Peter

James T. Dwyer replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT
Peter,

Thanks. I should have explained that I really view the two questions I'd raised as separate issues (of course they're interrelated, but not necessarily directly).

I'm most interested in the second question, as in reviewing the observational evidence as best I can, it seems that the researchers identified that the redshift of photons detected from more distant objects required that expansion has accelerated. Most simply put, as I understand, they determined that galaxies at the periphery of the observed universe are receding away from us at an increased velocity, thus universal expansion is accelerating!

Again, I simply understand that the ancient light indicated greater expansion.

My resources are limited so I prefer to focus on the original source: "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant", Riess et al.:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201v1

It states most simply: "The distances of the high-redshift SNe Ia are, on average, 10% to 15% farther than expected in a low mass density (M = 0.2) Universe without a cosmological constant."

A warning: the report is very astronomical-technical. For example, "light curve fitting methods" refers to determining where a SN observation fits in it brief period of peak emission luminosity, as it is only the observed luminosity for the consistent peak emission luminosity can be used to estimate distance. Of course the diminishment of luminosity is directly related to the distance the light has traversed, not any real distance to any observed object.

A more general source might be a summary, "The Accelerating Universe":

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1162

In a section "The discovery of dark energy", the author states:

"The definitive results, based on ~ 50 SN by either team that combined the nearby sample previously observed by the Calan/Tololo collaboration and the newly acquired and crucial sample of high-redshift SN, came out soon thereafter [Riess et al. (1998); Perlmutter et al. (1999)]. The results of the two teams agreed, and indicated that more distant SN are dimmer than would be expected in a matter-only universe; see Fig. 1.2. In other words, the universe's expansion rate is speeding up, contrary to expectation from the matter-dominated universe with any amount of matter and regardless of curvature."

I can understand if you are not in a position to tackle this, I think, very simple issue made very complicated by astronomers. I had hoped you could quickly point out some obvious error in my assessment, if one exists. I can certainly understand if you cannot invest your time in this issue... I thank you very much for your interest!

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Gary Hansen wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 01:56 GMT
Peter,

Congratulations.

The essay theme and your essay title implicitly pose the question whether they are inclusive enough to admit the possibility that either, both or neither options truly represent reality. Insofar as the great preponderance of questions, asked and unasked to date, remain unanswered, it is reasonable to presume that of all the possible definitions of reality of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 14:39 GMT
James

I'm happy to give the logical DFM derived view.

In logic if just one of the initial axioms is imperfect the whole model is false. In the accelerated expansion model there is no continuum (from which particles condense) as this is what Einstein believed he was forced to assume to explain constancy of 'c' (CSL) for all observers in Special Relativity. (SR) In this case the alternative 'tired light' alternative was not adopted.

However. The need for that assumption is now removed by the DFM. By advances in our brain power we can see (well, ..only some of us so far!) that there is a simple logical answer to CSL via the local speed change at local fields (SR and GR are after all 'Local' theories, as Maxwells.) I point out the well know boundary mechanism of Stokes scattering at the plasmaspheric/ ionospheric shocks and Halos', but our brains must be able to visualise one more dynamic variable that most of us can to understand inertial fields. (Einsteins "infinitely many 'spaces' in relative motion").

So he was right in saying "Space without ether is unthinkable", and the well know impedence and resistivity of the continuum/ medium/ C Field/Ether/ 'Inter stellar medium or whatever you wish to call it to EM waves does NOT have to be ignored any more. This means certainly SOME of the redshift is due to the medium. Precisely how much we don't yet know (and it'll take 10 years for most to catch up with this at all!).

There's also the matter of calculation; take a 1ft length of elastic, mark the centre, put one end by your eye and stretch it. Does the end move away faster than the centre? Of course not! And don';t forget how long the light takes to get from the end just to the centre, and the same(ish) again to the eye. Again, with maths, if the initial concept is incorrect the results are nonsense. You must understand z is nor speed, it needs apriory assumption of speed. Anyway, that's less important than the above.

But the other paper (you read?) gives the other evidence of the process, which is only consistent with a decline in speed! so we can approximate expansion rate more accurately. How are you getting on so far?

Peter

Anonymous replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 15:34 GMT
Peter,

It took me quite a while to find the context of DFM (Discrete Field Model), which was key... I think I am following your conception and don't object to anything so far.

However, I should explain to you that I refernced the 'z ~ recessional velocity' perspective because it seems to be commonly held by astronomaers. It is my simple view that (short duration SN) light emitted long ago has been independently propagating (coincidentally in our eventual direction) through expanding spacetime as the Milky Way has been receeding away from the approaching light. I recognize this view is also limited, but I think actually more corrct that the astronomers' view that all distant galaxies are receding away from 'us'.

I also suspect that the universal medium is the field of universal kinetic energy that initially produced spacetime and continues to produce its expansion, that is locally contracted by the potential energy of mass, which is in turn agrregated by that external field of kinetic energy. But I'm still thinking about it...

I read the second paper (book chapter) some time ago and did not focus on it. Can you please mention what specidfically you're referring to as the 'other evidece of the process'?

Please continue, further commenting on any misconceptions you may identify.

Thanks,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Peter,

It may help you to know that I'm considering the cosmological redshift of light from distant galaxies to be solely the product of the kinetic energy of spacetime expansion, physically, linearly extending the wavelength of light. In this way there is no relative motion involved, but distance is increased.

Jim

P.S. Sorry for the poor spelling in the preceding comment...

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT
Peter,

I've read your paper, "Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil".

To the extent that the discrete 'curvatures' of spacetimes of neighboring galaxies are independent, i.e. not interacting, they represent discrete fields. That intergalactic spacetime is expanding whereas discretely localized gravitationally bound regions of space are not provides some indication of the extent of which, universally, spacetime is localized into discrete gravitational fields. It seems to be, on whole, a minority. I suggest that it is a kinetic energy permeating intergalactic spacetime producing the diminishing expansion of the universe that is the principal agent producing the redshift of intergalactic light, simply by physically expanding the linear distance between waves as they propagate.

I'm afraid I cannot see any application of your hypothesis that might be applicable to any alternative interpretation of SNe Ia observational studies. For that I still abide by my previously stated assertion of improper observational perspective.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Peter Mastro wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 14:48 GMT
Peter,

Excellent, excellent, excellent. You win the prize as far as I have read so far in all the essays. It isn't just the content, but the sense of zeal you communicate for the subject.

The one thing I think I have learned from this whole experience in this essay review is how difficult it is to express new thoughts in science. Everything that is ever stated has to be reflected against the work of all the other "pillars" of science in the past. You do a great job of it.

My personal view of the universe is very simple, but this essay contest has made me realize that science has made everything so complicated that it is impossible to communicate. Damn that tower!

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 16:22 GMT
Gary

As a member of UK sceptics I fully understand your questions;

1. Time; You have to carefully think through the implications of CSL. They are massive in foundational terms, the constant around which all else is built. E = fLambda only because c = flambda. There is no distance without CSL, so no 'known' solar system or universe. There may be tiny adjustments with frequency, but it's more essential to nature than we realise.

2. Space; I agree, and have shown it's demise was unnecessary. But although 'continuum' is now the fashionable word it only does this as a 'dis-continuum', more of a dynamic 'block' universe - each in relative motion. Einstein knew and said it was, he just didn't have the plasmasphere evidence we do for what forms the boundaries.

3. Gravity. The logical conclusions of the above in the DFM derives an unbelievably simple solution to the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass that gave us GR. The faster a body or particle moves through the condensate the more mass condenses. That's it. no more, no less. OK I lied, it's also obviously proportional to size, and frequency (synchrotronic) is directly proportional to the change in f needed to preserve c and E. Look at heavenly bodies; the Earths plasmasphere reduces dramatically in the evening, when the 'solar wind' stops bashing into it! And look at what happens around particles in accelerators, and also in the pipe at the accelerating magnets. (the plasma is made of photo- or 'virtual' electrons, i.e.ions.

And what do em waves do when they go through a plasma cloud? diffract, to implement the effects of curved space time, confirming the quantum mechanism for GR. Of course we'll still need something like your gradient in the (dis)continuum to complete the job. This is not new physics its just the best logical fit to the evidence.

Where did we think matter condensed from anyway!? Now we just need a good word for it. What's the Sanscrit for discontinuum, or 'field'?

It seems the real problem is not that it's too simple, but that we have been.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
Jim

We crossed in cyberspace (at relative 2 x 'c')! The other paper link is; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

I don't think astronomers do exactly what you may assume they do, and certainly don't consider us as the centre of the universe, but agree there are other axiomatic starting points. Read the link paper first, it's part of the basis of a full paper just accepted for peer review, but is a bit more hardcore!

Peter

Anonymous replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT
Peter,

Yes, I might agree, but consider that wikipedia's 'recessional velocity' entry includes the statement: "The recessional velocity of a galaxy is usually calculated from the redshift observed in its emitted electromagnetic radiation. The distance to the galaxy is then estimated using Hubble's Law," and that the referenced Riess, et al. paper repeatedly refers to the distances to observed distant supernovae...

Your abstract looks very interesting - I will read it. It has previously occurred to me: if the (I agree) 'big whoosh' was spinning/rotating (don't the laws of physics demand it?), perhaps condensing matter was axially aligned, producing no antimatter!

Similarly to an accelerating universe, I think dark matter was improperly derived. I wrote a short essay last year, "Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem". I'm now working on a refining revision.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
Constantinos

Sorry I'd missed your post! they're a bit thick and fast. Congrats on your good public score, but I refer to the Community ratings, which are the ones that count. click the right hand option at the top of the page for which order to show the essays in. I checked and I had given you your well earned (top) community score earlier.

Now if you can just help by collaborating and sticking some maths onto mine as well it might be taken note of by the odd physicist!

But you'd better absolutely fully understand it and it's implications first; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 and let me know of any closer linked relationships between ours, like plasmon diffraction (delay) at various ion densities?

Best wishes

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT
Peter,

Thanks, for pointing out my lower-than-yours community rating! This is a surprise to me since in my essay I am presenting some truly radical and significant ideas, all clearly and convincingly argued with mathematical reasoning. The results in my essay have also experimental confirmation!

In an earlier post I included a link to the COBE cosmic background radiation spectra that shows the experimental data matching EXACTLY the theoretical blackbody spectrum obtained from Planck's Law. The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve.

My simple and elegant mathematical derivation of Planck's Law CAN ANSWER this remarkable experimental fact. It is the ONLY explanation to this exact fit! I in fact show that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. So clearly, what the 'sensor' is measuring will match EXACTLY what Planck's Law predicts. This goes along well also with your 'locality/reality' principle!

Peter, I know you have spend great intellectual effort showing why the speed of light is constant for all observers. I am currently working on an amazing simple mathematical proof of this that ties in with my previous results and with de Broglie matter waves! As soon as I have confirmed and double checked the math I will be posting this result. But I wanted you to have the first 'heads up' since this is an interest of yours. It has now also become an interest of mine! Thanks!

Check the link to the COBE data and let me know your thoughts. I find this fascinating! Anything that has THAT kind of accuracy in Physics MUST be a mathematical tautology! Let that be an intellectual nudge to all the physicists out there that take pride (as rightly they should!) on the high accuracy of their QED results. Are we dealing here with more mathematical tautologies? Edwin, what do you think?

The Age of Mathematical Modelings of the Universe are OVER!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 15:31 GMT
Constantinos,

Since you ask my opinion, I will say that the data are very impressive and your work is very impressive.

What I do not necessarily agree with is your interpretation. As I have already addressed this above in the series of comments beginning with: "Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT" I don't think the details should be repeated here.

I believe that you have some confusion about what I have done, and I am somewhat confused about your beliefs, despite that you have explained them to me several times.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 19:25 GMT
Pete

Thanks again. I think the complexity only comes from lack of knowledge. We have so many layers of patches we've forgotten what simple beauty is. You're right, we're in a forest of pillars.

I've designed a domed roof to span most of the space so many pillars can be cleared. The problem is it seems physics is truly belief based, and the pillars have been there so long most now believe the sky may fall on their heads if any are removed.

Are we to become a failed experiment? An irrelevant blink of an eye? Surely it can't be up to one person!!?

Have you read the recycling instructions yet?

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 19:46 GMT
Constantinos

I confirm my belief that you may be a true genius, but we both have to invest more perspiration yet. It's the implications that matter. Have you read my recycling paper yet?;'Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil.

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

It raises questions about the claims of the implications of the radiation curve, which I always did suspect as including too much propaganda for the Big Bang model. There are some horribly worrying early assumptions which could easily invalidate the whole house of cards. I'm not criticising your mathematical tautology, there are areas I don't yet understand (do help me if you can) and I'm certain there is information of fundamental importance there, but I feel certain the whole truth is far from yet exposed.

When we look back at similar cases we invariably find our first guesses and assumptions have proved embarrassingly wrong. Do we really believe we can sit back and confidently believe they must not be now?

I believe your true genius will only be proven and seen by combining the math with a correct picture logically pattern matching more than just one snippet of data.

Very best wishes

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 23:14 GMT
Peter,

Your “true genius” categories and characterizations are not mine! I simply don't think in those terms. As I also don't think in terms of “good” and “evil”, or judge other people. I don't think that any of this is really about me, or you! I love ideas, and I love to reason with ideas. I also have an insatiable need and desire to understand my world in a 'sensible' way. What I show in my essay goes a long way to satisfy this need.

Point at hand. Have you checked the amazing link showing the indistinguishable match between experimental data and Planck's Law of the blackbody spectrum? Aren't you amazed? And if so, doesn't this beg the question “why so exact?”.

My essay provides just that answer! I show that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. There is nothing more accurate in Nature than the assertion that A = A. I also like to suggest for others more knowledgeable that the exceptional accuracy of QED may also be explained in the same fashion. That this also may be concealing mathematical tautologies that result in such exactitude. A mathematical trick of cards, as it were!

Peter, you write “I feel certain the whole truth is far from yet exposed”.

The Whole Truth is ALWAYS exposed and right in front of us, in our sensible experience. It's our THEORIES that get in our way of seeing it!

Peter, I believe in 100% inspiration and 0% perspiration. If it doesn't 'make sense', I don't bother!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 05:42 GMT
"My essay provides just that answer! I show that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. There is nothing more accurate in Nature than the assertion that A = A. I also like to suggest for others more knowledgeable that the exceptional accuracy of QED may also be explained in the same fashion. That this also may be concealing mathematical tautologies that result in such exactitude. A mathematical trick of cards, as it were!"

Constantinos,

I am inclined to agree with you: any very high degree of accuracy smells like "math. truism".

But what should all this imply concerning the nature of physical theories? It may mean, as I suggest in my essay, that science should not be about the numeric truisms but about the *structural* descriptions of "reality", which would be in line with the biological mechanisms of perception.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 21:15 GMT
Hello Lev,

I agree that current scientific theories leave out much (most) from people's lives and experiences. More than what I say in my essay, I do believe that underlying everything is the same process of 'creating' that unifies our experiences – whether these be in our personal lives, in physics, politics or biology. A Theory of Everything! I sense this is what you may also be saying in your essay, though I have not read it to be sure.

Great ideas can be found in anything and by anyone. And in unexpected ways! The belief that physics is such a specialized discipline that only 'experts' can know its 'truth' only shows how far afield physics has veered from life and what sustains life! From Creation, in other words!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 10:37 GMT
Kostas

Yes I read your link before I replied. Did you read mine? John m just posted an excellent link on the blogs showing most of the issue I have, you must read it; http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_Wav
eMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

Step back and consider what the proof means physically, and what it's implications are. That's what's important. ...I'll explain.

If you found two different but equally brilliant tautologies or maths truisms, one leading to no physical implications, one saving the world or feeding all the starving, I consider the latter to be 'of more value' to humankind, i.e. of more real importance to US.

If, as you say, you may be happy to just find the solution, then not do the work to explain it to anyone, forget it and go looking for a way to drink more ouzo without getting a hangover, my personal view would be you'd not then be a genius but a worthless old fool.

I agree the highest point of personal pleasure is in the eureka moment, but to leave it at that is very selfish, as members of the human race that should not be held in high esteem (though I agree it is too often!).

Please do read my own linked paper and John's important link and come back with a broader overview of why the curve is the shape it is and so smooth, and if it proves only a 'big bang' and increasing as claimed. And what about 'last scattering'!!

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:49 GMT
Peter,

Reading those papers was 100% perspiration and 0% inspiration. The nebulae photos did provide some reprieve, however. But did you really have to lay that guilt trip on me? People are hungry because the world is run on egofuels! Not because I seek to know!

You write, “Step back and consider what the proof means physically,”

What proof? My proof showing that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology? Although this result does explain the indistinguishable nature between theory and experimental fact, it has nothing to do with the Big Bank! In fact, I don't believe in the Big Bank! Actually, I don't believe in much of anything! That's what it means to be a free thinker!

Peter, my participation in these blogs and in this contest shows a little of my commitment to get the truth out to the world! If I have just a little to do with bringing physics back to 'physical realism' and away from QM weirdness -- to “A World Without Quanta” -- I would feel deeply gratified! Demystifying people from QM-mysticism has profound physical consequences in their lives!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 21:55 GMT
Constantinos,

You say: "Demystifying people from QM-mysticism has profound physical consequences in their lives!"

Amen to that.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
Peter,

I read your essay. As far as we know, even in deepest space, there is no place with a complete vacuum. The index of refraction, n, will never be exactly 1 and there will always an effect of the momentum frame of the material be it solid, liquid, gas or plasma. But the index of refraction does change with frequency of electro-magnetic radiation, just look at a rainbow. Over the whole EM spectrum, the index of refraction (assuming you can find something that refracts gamma rays) changes wildly for any given material and can even be stated as complex for a plasma in radio frequency. You have a good point, for c, we have assumed an ideal that does not exactly exist.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 23:42 GMT
Peter,

Your paper online regarding Helical CMBR Asymmetry, raises many fascinating points. Should I assume that the basis of the galactic recycle period for quasars is the age of stars in the galactic thin disk vs the age of stars in the galactic halo. I count something like 8-9 billion years between stars in each realm in the MW. Your recycle period only applies to galaxies and is repeated? Steinhardt in "Endless Universe" estimates the universe recycles in a trillion years.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
Kostas

Sorry about the guilt trip. I do understand, But I feel like I have a cross to bear, which I just want to pass over to 'physics' to do with what it will so I can get on with my life. It solves a whole lot more problems than seen a first glance, meaning massive advances in physics, but 4 of 5 can't seem to do the conceptual dynamic relationships needed to see it anyway! So what do I do, just tut tut and go off sailing? Help me! Actually I've just read you photoelectric paper, which I do see the brilliance of, and it does support the DFM model. Will anyone notice that too? Perhaps we'll meet in the life after death and laugh about how pointless it all was!

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your comment! We have more in common than we believe. Including the 'cross to bear'. I too feel an obligation to deliver this 'message' to those that have the resources (both physical and intellectual) to make best use of it. And I too want to move on to others interests (and I have many) once the 'message' is delivered. If I can get this essay to the 'panel of generals' to consider, I will feel totally 'mission accomplished'!

Concerning your DFM, this has always puzzled me. But I am beginning to see how it may fit to my views and results. What I don't quite accept is that these 'discrete fields' are existing and centered around 'particles'. Rather, my view is that energy propagates continuously through a medium (I think many of us now accept this – I call it eta, Edwin calls it C-field, others have called it ether – what ever). But how that physically occurs is by 'accumulation/manifestation', as energy first accumulates to reach an equilibrium level locally than it manifests in space as having moved. This process may be seen as 'continuous/discrete'. As your DFM! With this view, there is no need to talk about already existing 'particles' and 'fields' with boundaries formed of ???? plasma??? that results in refraction. It's your 'compartmentalization' of space into distinct discrete fields/boundaries that has been giving me problems. But I think this view I am now forming (not complete yet) may help me over this.

Peter, I have embarked on this intellectual journey for no other reason than my commitment and passion for Truth and Reason. What ever the consequences, I am prepared to accept. I don't believe in 'afterlife'. But I could have a glass of ouzo with you at some Aegean island and laugh at the whole enterprise of physics!

Have fun! As Ray Munroe often admonishes us …

Kostas

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 15:55 GMT
Jeffrey

Thanks for that. You are spot on about EM waves and rainbows. I did a paper on harmonic refraction showing how they 'reverse' just outside our visible range - bizarre but true, and derived the reason. It sums up the state of science that the specialist optics pub's didn't consider it 'new discovery' based as it only better organised and explained recent discoveries, ..and mainstream general PR journals considered it too far way from the current paradigm to print!!! What chance does the human race stand!? I don't know if you considered the implications of the simple DFM solution but they are massive! As well as CSL it actually leads to resolving, Flyby, Pioneer, Voyager, Lensing, Twins, Red shift, Expansion, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Galactic evolution, Re-ionisation, Circular polarisation, Twin slits, Lithium 7 shortage, axis of Evil Quadrupolar asymmetry, Black Holes, Big Bang and most of Quantum Gravity. But of course it's considered 'totally ridiculous' that the Holy Grail really does exist so the blinkers go on and it's ignored as it's too simple!

Gamma rays can be scattered, which means can be refracted, so as well as explaining inertial frames qualatatively the refraction also quantatively matches SR and GR quite precisely. As it waddles, quacks and is really nice roast with orange I'm having it for lunch whether the 'better informed' can yet see it's a duck or not.

To be absolutely clear; 'c' is fine, (to 2nd approximation, and subject to observer frame), as are the postulates of SR, but only locally. We just haven't understood inertial frames due to our belief that points, lines and mathematical conclusions are real without 'renormalisation'. It simply changes on demand to be 'c' everywhere. It's entirely logical, and when we start looking around it's also so obvious.

Thanks and congrats for being one of the 1 in 5 with the conceptual brain power to see it. How on earth do we convince the rest?

Best wishes

Peter

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 00:10 GMT
Peter,

Scattering does not always lead to refraction. In scattering, photon energy is lost, but the velocity remains the same. In refraction the velocity of EM radiation is changed, but energy is conserved. In stellar cores, the density might be high enough to refract gamma rays.

This is a small point. The larger point is inertial frames might not be truly independent. If inertial frames are not independent then "c" might be local and something could violate local "c" and not effect "true" c (which might not be knowable). I look at things a different way, but this is something to think about.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
Jim

Steinhardt!?.. dammit! Well they do say there's "nothing new under the.. sun?" ..and I thought universe recycling was a completely new idea (/discovery)! Well I darn hope galaxy recycling is. Actually I'm pretty sure it'll prove not to be. I must look him up, I assume 'Endless Universe' is a book.

The 5Bn yrs or so to our next recycling is a straight 'off the cuff' guess, ('first approximation') but from 30+ years of research, and making allowances for some errors and wrong assumptions in the odd excessive star age claims. It meets the evidence best, and also happens to co-incide with estimated 'lights out' time for the sun in about 5bn years, so seems the right time to plan a bit of a kip.

The problem is stars are still being formed, both in the Halo, due to physical field perturbation and condensation, and at the active galactic core (toroid SMBH) as it builds up energy. The 'brightness' ratings and Gaussian distribution maths etc. are therefore all a bit irrelevant as it's 'a bit more technical' than we've imagined. It's also amazing what a range of different helical jet patterns there are. Beautiful and totally random.

I think I said I think we're at about half life at present, so have to get on with physics a bit so we can build the 'ark' maybe ride the jet if needed come bale out time. I was in a 140mph jet stream back from the Caribbean last week and I can tell you it was pretty bumpy, though the different (discrete) inertial field got us in to London almost an hour early!

And do you know what? I bet the EM waves through the wiring didn't change speed and light went through the cabin at 'c' plus V1 (plane) plus V2 (jet stream) for the guy measuring it from the boats we flew over. (I kept spilling my beer as the plane contracted each time! -lol). Why the hell are the old guys here still using decrepit 100 year old nonsense physics when there's a more logical and fully consistent answer? It beggars belief. In fact that's all it is,; 'belief.'. What do you think the Pope thinks?

Best wishes

Peter

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 21:44 GMT
Peter,

It is a book, Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang by Steinhardt and Turok.

"Why the hell are the old guys here still using decrepit 100 year old nonsense physics when there's a more logical and fully consistent answer? It beggars belief. In fact that's all it is,; 'belief.'."

I am an old guy but only recently got into cosmology, since retiring.

In all popular writing that I see about UFO engineering,few seem to apply the time differentials you mention regarding your flight. The doubters seem to think it takes years to reach a destination, for example, over 20 to travel from Gliese 581G, not even thinking about near light-speed travel.

I think we have been visited since ancient times. Does that make me a nut?

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT
Kostas

Don't worry, It's still only down to about 1 person in 5 able to comprehend it.

No wonder you're struggling; you say "What I don't quite accept is that these 'discrete fields' are existing and centered around 'particles'"

They're not. If a particle is at rest it is part of the background field. Remember the CERN stuff I sent you, Only once it moves does the photo-electron plasma cloud start to propagate (now more trendily called 'virtual electrons'). The cloud is related to the EM field as another one then also builds up in the are (and rest frame)of the magnets. The particles emit the synchrotron radiation (as the UK Diamond light source)

The field appears only when it'd NEEDED, at at just the frequency required for the wave particle interaction to convert EM wave speed to 'c' within the cloud. It's so simple and obvious when you look, it's painful!!

Brian Ridley described it very well in 'Space and Time and Things' but never quite worked it out. Virtually all CERN work is about getting RID of the darn parasitic stuff that wastes so much power, obstructing the search for dark matter!!! Again, it beggars belief! It's entirely consistent with your PE effect work, and yes, they condense from the condensate of C field.

Have a look at the 'train' scenario I posted for Tom, it's difficult to see logic with one's head in the sand but at least you should see it OK. Let me know if you struggle with it at all.

Very best wishes.

Peter

Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 04:40 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your kind remarks on my essay. I have enjoyed reading your essay (and the nice pictures too!) and the lively discussion in the posts above. The key impression I came away with from your essay is that we agree that `reality' has strongly intermingled digital and analog aspects. I am very sympathetic to the Block Universe concept, at some fundamental level. It will be great to see the development of your ideas into a mathematical framework [physicists as you agree feel more at home when nice ideas are turned into a quantitative scheme :-)].

Best wishes,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
Hi, Peter

Thank you for directing me to your paper, which I read with great interest. Thanks also for your appreciation of my own, which is on a completely different level. Your work is over my head, so there is not much response I can offer technically. Your general point that “focusing on duality we may miss more conceptual logic” seems well taken. Wave-particle duality teaches us that these are relative states or descriptions, not absolute ontological categories. Your general framework is very interesting, in a similar spirit to the work of Haisch and Rueda (your reference [20]). Your approach seems an encouraging example of the simple fact that in spite of orthodoxy unresolved fundamental questions do not go away, but continue to resurface in new creative thought.

Very best wishes,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
Many thanks Dan

I've posted on your site with an Einstein based logical analysis, showing we'd only have to change one of our assumptions to remove the paradoxes and show SR driven by a quantum mechanism.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 23:03 GMT
Tejinda

Thanks for your agreement and sympathy. I'm acutely aware of the need to extend it with mathematical proof to allow physicists to "feel more at home". If you feel you may be of any help in collaboration I'd be delighted. As it's a logic and empirically based 'conceptual' theory the first problem is what to calculate!

Best wishes

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
Peter,

Many of us seem to feel that big change is potentially coming, and many essays are focused on new approaches to physics. My GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other new particles.

The response from many has been "There has to be SUSY!" But this week's Nature (3 Mar 2011) says that over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (some already say that 'SUSY is dead'.)

Nature says "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

That surely makes clear why the resistance is so strong.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT
Edwin

Grasping at any straws around when the ship isn't really fully seaworthy can't be criticised.

And it's been so long since we've seen a lifeboat that letting go of the straws before being pulled aboard is probably also too much to ask.

Congratulations on your exalted position, you deserve it, but we've still much work to do, and I just wish I felt I could bring forward my estimate of 2020 for when the change is really established. But without hope we have nothing.

Actually it could be 1984 all over again! - (burning all those old physics text books!)

I suspect Lawrence may have seen a first chink of light if you want to pop back there with your bit of the window on reality.

We need something of a splash, - I'm rooting for you!

Peter

Willard Mittelman wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 17:20 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks for posting at my paper; I just responded to you there. Glad to see you and Edwin are getting high marks from the community; congratulations!

Best Wishes,

Willard Mittelman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 19:30 GMT
Peter,

We practice our trade and hone our tools. I like your recent comment to Lawrence: "I agree SR simply tells us 'c' is constant IN all frames. I suggest another way of conceiving that; If you're not ON that bus going past you're not IN the same frame. (after all - all light you receive FROM that or any frame you receive at 'c' in your frame, so nothing breaks the rule!!)!"

Someone recently mentioned receiving a photon in an interstellar rocket-ship and wondering how light could 'know' how fast the rocket-ship was traveling.

I think "If you're not ON that bus going past you're not IN the same frame" is one of the simplest and clearest expressions of the essence of the problem.

Like Eckard, I came into this contest thinking that special relativity was a 'done deal', and now have a whole new perception, in which your ideas and the C-field interaction with photon momentum present new perspectives. FQXI truly is a valuable forum.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 04:37 GMT
Dear Edwin

I like your "I came into this contest thinking that special relativity was a 'done deal'". I too thought that some years ago also about GR, when correspondence with the courageous late Caroline Thompson convinced me that Einstein's Relativity was not sacrosanct. He very cleverly and unnecessarily recast Lorentz and others' ideas where the universe is absolute (space and time) but observation is relative (measured length and clock time) into a theory where the universe is relative (flexible space and time as dimensions) and observation is absolute (fixed c). This worked fine in SR but vastly complicated GR and still causes conceptual problems. In the process he also banished the ether, a substance that is now clamoring to re-enter physics after a hiatus of a century! I explore all of that mostly qualitatively in my essays (see links in another post today in this thread). Cheers

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Peter,

You describe the propagation of light through a medium as discrete intervals of "c" and absorption/ reemission interactions - somewhat like a hurdler who slows slightly to clear a hurdle, but then regains his normal sprinting speed. It sounds as if you are representing some possibly continuous effects with discrete approximations. In principle, one might think that we could improve our digital sampling (beyond a red-laser DVD or CD, beyond the better blue-laser Blu-Ray, and beyond to a large sampling - say 10^41), and "digitize" any "continuous" effect. But such a "digitized" representation might not properly explain interference and non-linear effects such as "feedback".

Are we distorting our view of reality by reducing possibly "continuous" effects into a collection of digital samples?

Regarding the speed of light, the "vacuum" has a speed of light, c = Sqrt(1/eps*mu), where eps is the permitivity of free space (implies the polarization of the vacuum) and mu is the permeability of free space (implies a residual magetization of the vacuum). If the "vacuum" is a continuous vacuum, then we should expect these quantities to have a continuous nature. If we can represent the "vacuum" with the Dirac Sea (as I did in my essay), then this may have "Blu-Ray" type characteristics (a large number of discrete quanta).

There is a visible second-order rainbow caused by a double-internal-reflection within a water drop. This rainbow has colors that are reversed from the normal rainbow, lies outside of the normal rainbow (larger scattering angle), and is dimmer than the normal rainbow. Weather conditions must be nearly perfect to see this phenomenon - the last time I saw it was about a year ago and I even managed to photograph it.

Good Luck in the Essay Contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear D.C.R (Dr. Cosmic Ray)

I am still having fun, and just read your comment "vacuum" has a speed of light, c = Sqrt(1/eps*mu), where eps is the permittivity of free space (implies the polarization of the vacuum) and mu is the permeability of free space (implies a residual magnetization of the vacuum). In my papers (see links in my other comments today in this thread) I theorize that everything, including the vacuum, is made up of dielectric spinning nodes. That would be the source of eps and mu. I wish I had a more thorough grasp of electricity and magnetism to analyze that further in the context of my theory.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 14:35 GMT

I like your idea because it ties in with Gingras' Magnetic Spin Ice (a quasiparticle analogy of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole) and because it ties in with some of the ideas in my book (specifically HyperFlavor-ElectroWeak), and I'm trying to put together the right model to incorporate all of these ideas. It currently looks a lot like an SO(32) torus...

I hope that your sight recovers well enough for you to resume your art. My wife is also an artist. Sometimes my physics representations start looking a little bit like her art.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray

Sorry for the delay to respond - cataract op successfull - sight fully restored thanks to all the scientific advances in technology (ultrasonics, microscopy, lasers, plastics, etc.) and the physics we all love. I will have to read your book and explore the other concepts you mentioned. Hope your physics inspires your wife's art and vice-versa. I have a strong neo-Greek feeling that in the end everything should be geometrical in the sense that it can be visualized in diagrams or models.

Having fun!

report post as inappropriate

Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:10 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for commenting on my essay. It is really nice to see several correlations in ideas. Your essay is very interesting and you have provided several good thought experiments and examples. It seems your essay has a solid set of core assumptions that are applied to a wide range of relativistic effects.

In my essay I try to define internal motion of particles as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
Dear Peter,

I read your essay with interest some time before, but it happened in the weeks when I was having cataract operations. Now that thankfully I have successfully regained my vision (it still needs eyeglasses to get to 20-20 !) I enjoyed reading it again. I totally agree with you regarding the necessity to regard the speed of light in gravitational and other fields as intimately linked to local refractive index changes. It is an important and venerable idea (vide Thomas Young who un-famously considered diffraction as due to a thickening of the air around a mass, and Eddington who interpreted GR that way) that needs to be revamped. As you can see from my own ideas this emerges naturally from considering the vacuum as containing angular momentum, an idea you yourself present in your paper. I also like your intuition regarding the gravitational field "If a massive body were to suddenly stop dead, the field itself continues."

This agrees with my conceptions, and I have tried to imagine the details of a universal ether 'mechanism' that does all of the above and more. Unfortunately I am working alone outside of academia and do not have the skills (not to mention the energy of youth) to simulate, develop and ultimately prove the ideas in my fqxi paper and the earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based. I had first explored the gravitation = refractive index idea in an earlier paper of 1993, United Dipole Field Oops the room seems to have acquired angular momentum of its own, a minor earthquake in progress! Ah Einstein's stress tensor has regained its former eigenvalues, or whatever it needed to do to regain its former state - in my theory GR is interpreted differently, only in terms of local changes of ether density, causing a refraction index change - and I can safely sign of with best wishes for your success

report post as inappropriate

TommyG. wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 12:21 GMT
Heh heh, I see that reaching out has worked out nicely for you. That's Justice, in a way.

I read your essay and enjoyed it very much. Honestly can't provide any more feedback as you don't need the Publicity, looks like--lol.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
What a wonderful morning FOUR OUT OF FIVE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE MODEL !!!!! No statistical conclusions possible, but I felt that first Eureka moment all over again. Thanks guys, I feel real progress at last. I'll respond to your points, - below or on your strings.

Dear Ray

Thanks for your post, and having an initial go, but you're not quite there with your hurdler. That's not what I'm saying. Did you read the 'bus' analogy in Lawrence's string? (repeated by Edwin in mine above).

If one hurdler jumps on a passing bus he's IN a different inertial frame (via acceleration). He may well run along the bus at the same speed as the others, but unfortunately is DISQUALIFIED from being observed in the same terms as the others without a mathematical adjustment. i.e. The camera at the finish is perfectly allowed to see him at an APPARENT C plus V, but there is only one VALID inertial frame, that of the running track.

There may be dozens of hurdlers around, on bikes, in cars, planes on infinitely many vectors, but only those in the SAME INERTIAL FRAME of the observer comply with the rules that the maximum possible speed is 'c'.

This means light on the bus will do 'c' with respect to 'wrt' the bus. (Let's imaging a pulse going through a gas on the bus.). The gas molecules scatter light sequentially, at 'c'. It goes through the window (n=1.5) and air at c/n, and everyone else will recive it at 'c'. The fact that to all them it may APPEAR to be doing C plus V DOES NOT MATTER, because in reality it isn't!!

(This is precisely what Georgina is saying, also consistent with Edwins, Constantinos Regazas and many other good essays here, as the posts above).

Yes it IS different, Yes it IS reasonable huge, and yes it does meet and explain both the SR postulates, and identifies how Equivalence works.! The boundary (between the bus and the track) in space is the quantum mechanism of diffraction of plasma, ionised particles, which form all shocks and may well prove to be the core constituent of dark matter. (Eddington was wrong). GR then slots in neatly as the ions condensed with speed ARE mass, with inertia.

The emipirical evidence is unbelievably consistent once we look. I't the discrete field model,(DFM), and you heard it here first, can you see it too? Have fun exploring it!

Best wishes.

Peter

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 14:57 GMT
Hi Peter,

You said "The fact that to all them it may APPEAR to be doing C plus V DOES NOT MATTER, because in reality it isn't!!"

SR also gives this result. What's new? the interpretation of a discrete vs. continuous reality? If reality is fully discrete, then I want you to explain the "vacuum", the permitivity of free space, and the permeability of free space (all of these terms are important in defining the speed of light in a vacuum) in terms of discrete phenomena. I think that the discrete answer to this question should tie into my FCC lattice of the Dirac Sea, and Constantin Leshan's quantum spacetime holes. We are closer to the same bus route than you may realize...

I did not enter this contest to challenge SR and GR - I think that they stand fairly well in their realms of applicability. Certainly, we observe some apparently super-luminal jets. Is this an optical illusion due to gravitational lensing effects, or would the unknown Theory of Quantum Gravity explain it all?

Rather than overthrow SR and GR in their present form, I prefer to try to understand how Quantum Gravity should behave (based on anticipated symmetries), and use it to "modify" our understanding of SR and GR.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 17:56 GMT
Ray. Hmmm, you need to slow down a bit (to below C?). I make it clear I'm not trying to overthrow anything!! And yes, the jets are also explained without needing optical illusions.

Firstly; Of course SR gives the same result ('c') this IS SR. But, - as we understand it it has paradoxes, unfalsifiable contraction & circular logic, is non compliant with QM, and can't have the fields of GR and now the CMBR! Lets' get real Ray, it's not perfect it's a mess, so all I say is; - Hey! if we think carefully there's a way SR may work without ANY of the messy bits, and unified with QM!

So.. are you saying; "Don't be silly, it's all fine as it is, the theory can't possibly be right so I'm not even going to bother checking it out."??

For those who HAVE made the effort and SEEN it Ray, someone who says that... ..well I'm sure you can imagine how they'd be perceived. I rate your perception higher than that, but do understand how unlikely you may feel this is.

Unless of course you're using the standard model of new physics!; - (ignore, criticise, deny, then claim it's self apparent). I that case It's way further on than I'd hoped!

Frankly I already wrote long ago it's able to be consistent with the Dirac Sea, as with lattices, as it ALLOWS (though not necessarily demands) a background frame, (not one giant bus but 'infinitely many') and provides a quantum matrix (ions & scattering) to implement change to em energy propagation (rate/f/lambda).

The superluminal jets are simply 'Incentric' streams, - small buses within bigger buses within bigger buses, on planets in solar systems in galaxies etc. Light changes speed at plasma shocks around matter to do 'c' in the local 'bus.' THAT'S what's new! and suddenly all else slots neatly into place at last. I really do hope you get this as it seems we could be heading for an astonishing ridiculous situation where it's only (some) physicists who can't understand how physics might really work!!! It needs bright physicists to help falsify it, fine tune it and work on the quite vast consequences.

there are some other papers to read in the string and in the references (stacks of empirical evidence) which may also help. With the 1st paper already in Peer Review this is no joke Ray, and I hope you can maybe give it a just a little respect.

And I really hope you give understanding it a decent shot.

Very best wishes

Peter

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
Hi Peter,

Did I disrespect you? I read your essay, and felt that it underemphasized the importance of the vacuum, and the permitivity and permeability of free space. I did not say that I disagree with your results - in fact, we may not be as different as you think. By the way, I haven't rated your essay yet either - I like to think about ideas for a few days before I vote on them.

Of course, I learned the Standard Model in graduate school, but if you have read any of my FQXi essays, recently published articles, or book, then you would know that I consider the Standard Model an insufficient guess at reality. You are trying to clarify the understanding of SR and GR. I am not fine-tuning our understanding of SR and GR because I'm working towards a Theory of Quantum Gravity and a TOE. What good is a "TOE" that doesn't explain Quantum Gravity? Read some of the earlier posts on my thread that explain the possible stability of the gravitational near-singularity, and confirm your expectations of the importance of tori. I don't quite equate changing buses with quantum gravity.

Please read Sections 5.5 and 7.5 of my book(You may need to click on the "Preview" button under the picture of the front cover for a free partial preview). It will give you an idea of just how "non-Standard" my ideas are.

My ideas also include tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light. If you recall, I am a "Cosmic Ray" whose newest vehicle has 150K miles on it, is 11 years old, and would probably blow up if I pushed it over 80 mph (130 kmph). So I'm not very familiar with traveling faster than c, my analogies are just different from everyone elses!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:32 GMT
Russel

Brilliant to see such excellent comprehension! Most just skim over so miss the pot of gold.

Your equations may be important as it seems I for one certainly need to accurately test the equivalence of plasma diffraction to curve space time.

I do get the impression yours moves a little beyond the falsifiable in places. i think you need to research things like Birefringence, PMD, Stokes Scattering, Huygens construction, Harmonics, and complex superposed waves, Certainly wave, signal, group and phase velocity are still very poorly understood, even in Optics!! But to mix metaphors we don't need to throw mainstream babies out with the bathwater if not demostrable/y essential.

Best of Luck

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:41 GMT
James

Sorry, struggling to keep up. Thank you kindly.

I think you're certainly no more of a nut than I am.

Watch out for the men in white coats!

Peter

Talking of that.. Steve! where are you you crazzy Bruger? I've actually got some spinning spheres built in! - see the link to viXra somewhere above here. Have you got your head round the real moving buses yet?

P

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT

You have no idea how nice it is to find comprehension after reading comments from disparagers who probably could but don't want to comprehend. I forgive them as they know not what they do, but it makes it harder work than it should be.

Sometimes Physics seems very different to the Architectural profession, there are many awards there but no cash prizes. It seems to be true that money may be the root of all evil as it certainly seems to make it more difficult to be wise, supportive and charitable. Of course there is competition but the whole ambience is one of mutual respect and co-operation, with no 'superior than thou' attitude. But, though sad, I must make it clear it seems only a minority and I've found some super nice intelligent people here too.

Surely science is about securing and improving the future of humankind not of massaging short term ego? - But down off my own high horse (white charger) now!

When you mention my reference to the field 'carrying on' if a body is stopped, this is of course precisely what happens to EM fields, which is why they're considered to have inertia. It may however logically be the local carrier field that continues. the em field does of course 'fall' and regenerate radially at 'c', which oft considered 'anaomalous' fact can tell us much.

With respect to your field ('C' field/ether/condensate) density derivation to gravity, it seems our research reversed as I explored that, and left it as unfalsifiable. I'll try to get to your earlier paper but the greater logic does seem to apply to condensed matter, which does all jobs at once, embodying the inertial mass for equivalence with gravitational mass, at the same time as dragging light down to 'c' locally (or up) using Chistian Dopplers sums. If these are 'REAL' (have inertial/Gravitational mass) they will of course also have inertia, so ensure no anomaly.

The general poor understanding of f/lambda realtionships realtes to motion and inertial frame dynamics, giving apparent, not real, effects. Georgina is having the same trouble I am convincing those indoctrinated that black is white to even consider, as Edwin says, that the basis of 30 years of work trying to find what is wrong, may have been wrong.

Anyone who fully understood that first time should understand DFM dynamics pretty quickly!

Hope the house is still up, and your eyes are still improving. I find things like that do give us perspective on our values.

Very Best wishes.

Peter

Guilford Robinson, MFXJPVFZ wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:04 GMT
Peter A. Jackson

I read your article and I understood it. I was amazed! Our ideas are along the same theoretical path! You supported your article with cosmic emperical ideas, whereas, I used microscopic empirical ideas such as the interrelation of the existing universal constants of nature to support my article. It is just my opinion, but I believe that your ideas of a DFM is on track with what will be discovered in the future: that GR has a particle structure that is compatible with the QM particle structure.

Your explanation of how the doppler effect would logically alter the discrete space field exactly parallels my mathematical ideas of how the doppler effect changes the discrete proton space structure into the discrete neutrron space structure. Your condense matter idea is the same as my idea of compressed matter into the Planck length realm leaving mainly the discrete space field.

remarkable!

Guilford Robinson

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:25 GMT
Peter,

Hi, I have read your essay a couple of times. I am looking at it again just picking things out. I am interested in your perspective on some questions. Here are a few for now:

"Particles absorb signals, re-emitting them at the local c."

If a particle in motion emits a photon forward and then emits a photon backward, does that particle measure both photons as moving at different speeds. (The particle is the observer)

"A massive body in motion is surrounded by a discrete area of space bounded by a plasma shock of n=?."

In a general sense, how does the plasma density compare front to back?

"As individual protons can't physically increase in size the proton bunch would have to propagate, or condense, a surrounding plasma 'cloud' of temporary or 'virtual' particles to hold the mass. This would have a density and frequency subject to relative motion through the field. As no massive particle would ever quite be able to reach the new local c, this propagation would follow the Lorentz exponential curve. The power requirement for acceleration of mass towards c follows a similar curve."

Can you explain why you expect a similar curve? Are you assuming that this must be true or have you worked it out mathematically?

If I am taking things too much out of context or misrepresenting anything, please point that out. I appreciate accuracy. Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

Nadia wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 22:57 GMT
'Remarkable' and 'Amazed' (as Mr Guildford above) just doesn't say it Mr Jackson!

I sometimes view this site, and it's never offered anything foundational, but now I don't regret that. Bravo! At Last. I would like your babies.

Please talk to me of waves and Takamak black holes as that is my life.

A new paradigm in science is about to begin and I am at it's birth, forget the fools and speak to me, I will Email you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 09:48 GMT
Guildford

Thanks for your kind comments. A 'Mensa' badge is on the way! It does seem to need all three of; Willingness, Conceptual ability and Empirical knowledge to be able to see it.

Feynmann was spot on saying when the solution came it would first appear difficult to understand because it was different, then it would reveal how simple it really was.

Mind you, instead of citing a hungry philosopher his answer to the student asking whether we saw an object or light bouncing off it, perhaps should have been; "It's light emitted from the objects surface particles when excited by light impacting on them." That may have led earlier to the DFM, it's explanation of fine structure, and the understanding that for light moving within a different frame (bus, train or plasmasphere) we only see a sequence of signals from different emitters NOT anything breaking 'c', - which is where Lorentz had gone wrong. Just a simple misunderstanding. It now seems Huygens, Fresnel, Doppler, Planck and Stokes were the real stars all along.

I agree key elements of our theories are in agreement, and also consistent with a number of other very good essays here, including the apparently brilliant mathematical Planck tautology (in the essay) and photoelectric derivation of Regaza.

Best wishes.

Peter

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Peter ,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It seems you are not short of supporters and voters, even Nadia wanting your babies now! I am glad that you're getting all of that appreciation and it looks like you may well be a finalist, which is great. I really would like your work evaluated by physics experts who know far more than I do about dielectric media, shock waves, matter condensing in particle accelerators, astronomic anomalies and the whole phenomena of light, whether considered as discreet photons or continuous waves traveling through different refractive media etc, etc, etc.

I did write a whole list of what was good. The most significant thing on the list was that you are looking at the transmission of light and how it is affected and how this in turn affects observations. It is a very, very important aspect of reality to be considering, being the link between what is and what is observed. The emphasis on the significance of reference frame is also very, very important. The other main thing that I really liked was that you were tying a lot into actual astronomical observations or phenomena observed during experimentation. This is relevant to actual current physics data. The competition question is asking specifically about -reality-, so this important aspect of reality is very relevant to that.

It would be easy to be swept along with your great enthusiasm but despite spending time with your essay in the end I have to admit, with regret, that I just do not currently have the expertise to give a fair evaluation and reciprocate your enthusiastic support. I have read it several times. It is very content rich and full of supporting evidence, that I do not currently have the time or energy to educate myself about. That is my problem not a fault of the essay. I understand why you wanted to include so much in it but it may have been at the cost of greater clarity.

Very soon it will be up to the FQXi judges to evaluate. I wish you the very best of luck in that and thank you once again for your encouragement and support.

Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 12:41 GMT
James

Very good questions;.

1. (Emitting photons at 'c') "If a particle in motion emits a photon forward and then emits a photon backward, does that particle measure both photons as moving at different speeds. (The particle is the observer)."

No. The particle doesn't 'know' it's moving. BUT; 1. As we know from scattering, a 'photon' (waves) is emitted in the same general...

view entire post

James Putnam replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 19:13 GMT
Peter,

You mentioned that: "As Georgina reminds us, the subject here is REALITY, and maths is abstraction."

I do not see math as being an abstraction. However, my question about "Can you explain why you expect a similar curve? Are you assuming that this must be true or have you worked it out mathematically?" was meant to apply directly to your explanation about accumulating mass as velocity is increased. If that extra mass was accumulated linearly then the relativistic effects would not hold. So, I assume that your point is that mass is added on by the accumulated "shock wave" and that this accumulation is very minor for most of the increase in velocity, but, as the particle approaches light speed, there is a great increase in "shock wave" material that greatly increases the mass. What I was wondering was: What support, theory would be welcome here, is there to show that the accumulation of "virtual particles" follows a relativistic curve? I was looking for an explanation that did not rely upon referring to observed results. Those results may be caused by something else. Each explanation has to find its own logic so that the result may be predicted. If you think my logic here is incorrect please point that out.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 21:26 GMT
James

You say; "I do not see math as being an abstraction".

I'm suggesting that our long evolved assumption that maths is naturally reality is itself what has kept us from the truth. Points and lines are not real but abstractions. Descartres xyz co-ordinates were conceived as 'describing' a body, and Einstein correctly specified them as 'rigidly attached to a body'. But we forgot. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 22:13 GMT
Peter,

I wasn't thinking in terms of including a pipe, although that is more realistic than just speaking theoretically. Thank you for your reply. I am still thinking things through. Your know, even though we both say that the speed of light varies, our explanations are very different. But, you are doing very well. Good luck.

With regard to mathematics, I have seen some things said that I didn't agree with while I perused the essays. So, I posted this remark in my own forum:

"As I read through some essays, I find the basis of math to be misrepresented. Mathematics is not abstract. It is a collection of shortcuts for counting. That which is being counted may or may not be an abstraction, but counting is not an abstraction.

Another point: Calculus is not based upon instantaneous anything. I saw it said in a forum that "Caculus is based upon instantaneous speed." So, I wish to affirm that calculus is based upon the right triangle. It is not based upon a dot."

You know I am not an expert. I am not a physicist. My opinion is that Einstein was a valuable intellect, but, not correct about some of the most important conclusions. I think, he is most responsible for opening the theoretical door so that theory is no longer earthbound, but, has become a race into theory heaven. Imagination rules. The danger, from my point of view, is that even purely imaginative speculation can succeed in producing successful predictions about reality. The reason is that all professionally developed theory has to rely upon patterns in empirical evidence. Those patterns can be extrapolated to suggest predictions. The theoretical interpretations that are attached to the meanings of those patterns can be wrong and yet the patterns can still be used for successful extrapolations.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT

Thanks for your very kind offer.

TOKAMAKS. You probably know far more than me of the Tokamak heart of Toroid black holes. They only have one hole but need to suck in and eject the plasma building blocks of galaxies and universes two ways, this provides us with solutions to the 'anomalous' (spiral) quadrupolar asymmetry of the CMBR, Chiral,/tri-axial polarisation, re-ionisation, 'axis of evil', Lithium 7 shortage etc. But I diverge. With Tokamaks (you will know the derivation of the word) we are only reproducing natures most fundamental powerhouse and recycling machines, from the scale of the sub atomic to the universes. A continuous double helical construction (where have we seen something like that before?) of multiple axis dynamism, which I also expect may prove to be the root of spin.

WAVES? These are my true love Nadia, since childhood. I must do some work now, but will definitely revert to speak of waves.

Best wishes, and thanks for your support.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 15:02 GMT
Thanks Georgina

It's also explainable in the simplest terms (as Einstein predicted) helped by the better understanding your reality gives.

The light pulse moving though a florescent tube on a bus passing by does max 'c' in the tube. The light signals (or photons, as you wish) telling you where the pulse is at at any moment are sent at 'c', and travel at 'c' (or c/n) on the way to your eye or detector.

The bus is a different inertial field (frame). No matter how fast it goes nothing in REALITY does more than 'c'. No shrinking of the bus or Lorentz transformation is needed to ensure that is the case. It's simple logic. Only observation from the same frame is valid without correction. The postulates of SR are correct, just the enforced 'assumption' of no ('3rd/Preferred') background frame was wrong. (but it's still correct no 'absolute' frame exists - even the CMBR rest frame).

One of the links I just passed to James identifies why and how we went off track. We hadn't been to space at the time so didn't have the information to solve the 'Chinese puzzle' of constant light speed.

You'll remember my essay last year. I hope I've explained it better this year?

Best wishes.

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for the comments on my blog site!

I also like falsifiability. Chapters 4 and 6 of my book tie into experimental data, and are falsifiable. The obvious problem is that most everything that I have done since is so speculative that it isn't yet obvious to me if it is or isn't falsifiable (although the lattices that I use are fundamental to Solid State Physics). I like...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
(Copied from Rays SuperString - response to excellent post above)

Ray

That looks absolutely spot on to me, I think it's a done deal. Some may accuse you of foolishly missing Buriden's ass, but as two fall out of the equation anyway you end up with SUSY.

The only issue is it's now precisely equivalent to the theory in Tommy Gilbertson's essay! How fast are your publishers?

Having fun

Peter

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 22:57 GMT
p.s. - Ed and Peter might want to read B N Sreenath's essay. Sreenath tries to build an equation for Quantum Gravity - in similar fashion to Ed's Master Equation. Sreenath's description of equivalence is similar to Peter's (acceleration comes in discrete energy packets - each of these packets would represent a different inertial frame and a different bus in Peter's essay and analogies - if I understand them correctly...).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT

...and WAVES (Also see post to Ken Wharton)

I feel they're largely quite poorly understood, though a little better in optics, due to complexity.

From testing wave barriers on the beach as a child to representing the UK at yachting gave me a good intuitive feel for superposed surface waves, from tiny ripples telling of wind, through those that seriously effect boat speed, to tsunami's and equinoxial tides, all interfering, in a flowing medium at different depths and vectors. I learned to anticipate the steep face or flat patch before it's created to accelerate or feather the boat. No wonder we see the difficulty of finding a fixed reference at any point and moment as uncertainty! For the brainpower we have it certainly is. The relationships of energy, velocity, f, lambda and Doppler shift are real when approaching a windward mark and turning to run downwind or reach across them using face inclination and gravity, and they are different in all approach frames, or when drifting, or at anchor. Yet these are the simplest!

Sound waves are not all about 'billiard balls' nudging each other, and light waves are not all about photons. We may find they're rather more similar than we thought. Certainly waves are made of particles and particles of waves.

I see waves as harmonics and rainbows, and perhaps empathise most with Huygens, Fresnel and Schrödinger. Motion is oscillation is inertia is matter is waves. It may be a while until we understand what is waving to us and why, but it is something continuous if by comparison to 'ponderable mass'. Is it part of reality? Of course. It gives us the complex discretion that we and reality are modelled with.

That's scratched the surface of waves as I feel them Nadia. Was that ok for you?

Peter

Arjen Dijksman wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 20:33 GMT
Hi Peter,

Good to see you again this year. It seems to me that you progressed in your "System of the World" description. I like this essay more than last year's, especially the first part.

I like the following sentences:

"Separate disciplines are imposed by man yet all nature must be connected. Too often we say for our own clarity that a phenomena is 'not connected' to another."

"Wave oscillations can modulate particle oscillation and vice versa."

"Whatever relative speed waves arrive at they'll be reemitted, or scattered, at the new local c through the voids in the medium."

"Particles absorb signals, re-emitting them at the local c."

But when clocks enter the game, I am lost. As you said "Niels Bohr taught a young Heisenberg that knowing how instruments work was crucial". I really need a description of the physical mechanism of the clocks in order to follow the rest your reasoning: how do you count the ticks, motion of electrons, emission of photons... So I can't say anything sound about the rest of the essay except that I like it when you take "physical" examples like the fast flowing stream.

Best,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 22:09 GMT
Arjen

Great to hear from you. Hope you'll be Dr D soon.

Time seems to transform very simply in the DFM. (Actually that's an assumption as I haven't thought much about the details til now, but it's a good test so here goes); Before consideration of whether or not oscillation rate of a clock somewhere else changes if YOU 'move', or vice versa;

If you accelerate with your clock it reads the same. You're observing it from the only 'valid' frame, the SAME one (as noted above).

Simply; If a clock accelerates away from you it slows down. By the time it's 30,000m away it's a second slow!

If it comes back towards you it speeds up again! (the time dilates as the light blue shifts). If I'm right, when it arrives back it tells the right time again.

If it flies on past you? - I think you can guess!

There are some good ref's and a paper by me on GPS linkable from the Ref's. There's a lot of misunderstanding, the best ones are probably from NASA's Dan Gezari. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 (2009) I think if we sent 2 round the globe they read the same on return. (the full 'clocks round the globe' story is one physics needs to forget).

If we just consider the light from the clock face (or digits) physics IS simple! like the man said. If you think about it, time not only dilates but expands. (diffraction dilates it in the plasma anyway of course, and it will vary subject to observer vector in the CMBR rest frame - or gas). That gives Einstein lensing/Shapiro delay.

I hope that doesn't prove to be a load of cods when I compute it tonight!

There IS an interesting take on contraction, (and expansion) kind of to do with Doppler shifting loosely bound mass. Can I get you on the case with that? Let me know if you can work it our from this simple video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.h
tm

Very best wishes

Peter

Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 23:14 GMT
Hi, Peter

I came across a news article in physicsworld.com that might be of interest to you, "Doppler Shift Seen in Reverse": http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45366

Best wishes,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 16:24 GMT
Dan

FANTASTIC! Many thanks, that confirms an effective prediction of the Discrete Field Model, discussed in my Chromatic Dispersion Paper (about harmonics, Huygens Principle and why rainbows invert when just out of our visible wave band. Seemingly bizarre but true. Their method didn't allow transmission speed to be easily checked, which allows me to also FURTHER PREDICT HERE effective superconductivity - or superluminal phase velocity of the red shifted waves within the matrix (subject to the matrix speed, which I haven't read about yet).

I'm also not surprised to see yet more anticipatory plagiarism, it's seemed rife ever since I mislaid Matti's 'Wells' machine -sorry Matti. Some Russian chap first predicted something similar in the 1960's! Someone will be telling me next that George Stokes got his knighthood for predicting something like the DFM in the mid 1900's!

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 14:54 GMT
Peter,

In reference to the argument put forth by Ray Munroe in Tom's forum that my derivation of Planck's Law (without using energy quanta) in my essay is circular ...

Here is Ray's argument! Judge which argument is 'circular'!

1)Planck's Law is derived using 'energy quanta'

2)Energy quanta is a fact of Nature

3)Ragazas' derivation of Planck's Law does not use energy quanta

4)Therefore, Ragazas' derivation of Planck's Law must have used energy quanta.

This is the kind of 'logic' that characterizes 'metaphysical belief'.

Good luck to all heretics!

Constantinos

P.S. I am about to post a paper that mathematically proves the following proposition, using the same ideas in my essay: IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 16:52 GMT
Constantinos

I agree. That definitely sound a little inverse! I did see Ray Munro's post but didn't quite follow the logic. I hope you're discussing it direct - I'll keep tabs. It certainly doesn't conflict with Rays latest theory, which seems to proves equivalent to Tommy Gilbertson's. I think they're in a race to publish!

Your latest proof is even more interesting, as the mathematical equivalent and proof to the pure logic base of the DFM. When and where can we see it? Have a chat with Chistian Corda? or use Phil Gibbs well run viXra preprint archive. But of course that's for 'long range' em energy transmission, and no-one can stop your waves getting together in bunches to cause local mayhem and confusion. Again it's consistent with my CD paper (see reply to Dan). Now a field is allowed the long range model of the photon as a 'particle' is of course redundant. I hope you get in the top 35 as it does need studying.

Have you also checked stochastic Levy distribution curves, which would naturally be similar. In spectroscopy this is equivalent to the Van der Waals profile of the frequency variable case.

I think we've hit the heart of the essay subject, tightly defining when matter condenses; a phase transition by and for interaction, i.e. change. Now just the last 90% of the answer to clear up! This includes what to call the (dis)continuum condensate if it's not ether. Though as Edwin's hit the front we may be sticking with 'C field'!

Best of luck squeezing in. I agree you deserve to and it would be a massive shame if you didn't.

Peter

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

Tommy Gilbertson's essay? The only obvious similarities that Tommy and I have are:

1) we believe in having fun! and

2) I could explain the Soul or Consciousness in terms of self-similar scales and many Universes all in communication with each other (perhaps via tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light, and communicate action-at-a-distance phenomena). Perhaps the Dream is our Soul's awareness of alternate realities and alternate scales. Perhaps the Soul itself has a tachyonic nature (what if the Soul is the Kramers-Kronig transform of our physical selves?). But I don't publish stuff like that. I already use too many pentagrams - if I started talking about Souls and Dreams, then I would probably be classified as a "witchdoctor"...

Dear Peter and Constantinos,

I will keep this short because I don't think it is appropriate to monopolize Peter's thread with my little disagreement with Constantinos.

Constantinos' Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that they (Constantinos and Bose) agree on the form of their equations and their agreement with experimental data.

My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore Constantinos is legit using this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.

Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 04:39 GMT
Peter,

As promised: “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

Constantinos

P.S. You can read my response to Ray under Tom's forum. He has posted exactly the same comment there and who knows where else. I am getting the feeling that these were not meant for me, but rather for his 'ratings'.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Ray,

I see you are not only repeating the same arguments as I have addressed before, but you are also repeating the same posts that you have in other forums. This puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to pick up after your droppings here and there.

Let me try once again:

1)The derivation of Planck's Law in my essay does not depend on any physical properties of bosons, fermions or anything else in fact. It is a purely mathematical tautology. Think of it like the Pythagorean Theorem.

2)What Planck's Law says (as is derived in my essay) is that if we know ΔE and if we know Eav over an interval [t0 , t], then using the formula we can exactly calculate E0 .

Now Ray, the E and t in all this can be anything! The application of this to Physics is for E to be energy and t to be time. Then the formula describes the relationship between E0 , and the energy ΔE absorbed at an average energy Eav .

In other words, Planck's Formula is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This, I argue explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve obtained from Planck's Law.

Everything in my essay can be easily understood using simple mathematics and clear logic. But you can always muddle the arguments by looking at this through the prison of your theories. I am not in a position (not professional enough) to “analyze this” !

But if you want to describe what I actually say, please do it accurately and don't leave misleading comments in other forums.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT
Peter:

Thanks for the post on my essay thread.

You´ve got the points you asked for (all of them, because I really liked your essay). And tell your friends, no one has gotten poor by asking. We still have 4 days, and any comment on my essay will be thanked.

report post as inappropriate

Petra wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT
Dear Peter

I did not intend to message here but I wish to congratulate you and thank you. I had seen something but was not sure what. The power and implications hit me in thinking it through this morning. It was such an enlightening.

You have explained the Einstein said of C and the laws of physics constant IN each frame. If we go there that is what we find, if we do not we will not. Why are you not ahead in this contest by 100 years? They have not yet read and understood your words. This is a new start of science.

I wish you well and all success, which I know you must have, and thank you.

Petra

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
Petra

Thank you for your kind words, yes, it should indeed be a re-start for science, and hopefully not take another 100 years. But these are early days, and you have vision to have seen it before most, It fills me with pleasure that you have.

Please do help by spreading the word if you are in a position to dare.

Best wishes

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 13:39 GMT
Petra, and ALL

To find HOW you understood it was valuable. To expand; Tom has not yet 'taken on' Georgina's thesis in the 'Time Travel' Blog, so I interceded with this; It includes the logical analysis of the key issue, with thanks to Akira for confirming correct application.

"Tom,

Would you agree Einstein said, in the SR Postulates, that - The speed of light C and the laws of physics are the same IN all inertial frames. ?

If so, there are two ways to consider that.

1) That if we 'go to' and are 'moving with' or at rest 'with respect to' each inertial frame (simply 'condition of motion') we will find the postulates correct.

The second is;

2) That we don't need to bother to go there, to get IN each inertial frame to find out as we can observe it from any one of infinitely many other inertial frames and expect our measurements to be correct and the postulates to still apply to our observations.

What I, and I believe Georgina, suggest is that we suffered a failure of conceptual logic and assumed both must be true when perhaps only 1) was true, in which case we may expect to see c plus v in our 'observed' reality, and have to learn how to use mathematics to subtract the v to get the 'real' result. i.e. No LT, paradoxes or anomalies. (the LT was a 'fudge' to patch over the gaping hole in our logic)

In logic, Galilean Relativity was extended 'syntatically', which adds assumptions and freely increases predictions by allowing in contradictions. If we try to rely an axioms to suppress original axioms validity is lost. Logic demands monotonicity. Our over reliance on maths and loss of focus on logic allowed us to assume No 2) above was also true. That assumption cannot possibly be logically valid.

In this case, and with the only other logic possible, that of discrete 'body's or fields, as reference frames, physics becomes far simpler, as Einstein, Feynman and others predicted it would be when the answer was found.

Where on Ear... .. ...Vulcan was Mr Spock when we needed him!?

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 17:15 GMT
Peter,

You just broke 200 comments and are 'spreading light' everywhere. Who would have thought that 100 year old special relativity could be so divisive.

I like the way you clarify points 1 and 2 above. The issue of 'in the frame' or 'looking at the frame' certainly deserves more attention.

It may be just that I am more engaged in this contest, but it seems to me that there are more original and worthwhile perspectives appearing than in previous contests. Certainly a lot of insights floating around. Many of these essays deserve re-reading more than once.

And there really has developed a sense of community, although there are, as in most communities, two sides of the track.

I appreciate that you, and Willard's early remarks, have caused me to re-think aspects of SR and to apply the C-field equation to photons. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Edwin

Many thanks. It's simply rewarding to see the concept of how to remove the well veiled wrong assumption of 100 years ago understood at last, by a steadily growing few with the right conceptual skills at least.

What a roller coaster ride! I'm trying to run my practice, family and boat.. but I tell myself it will be worth it to get the solution seen, and off and running. How could I not? Your support is well appreciated and I'm glad if I've helped facilitate and falsify your own model. I too was pleased and surprised that logic is creeping back into physics with some excellent consistent essays.

Much work will need to be done defining the qualities and properties of the field once we are allowed to see it again!

I hope we may keep working together on this to the benefit of all, though for me it is not my day job!

Very best of luck.

Peter

Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

I went thro' your intriguing essay often and tried to see how you have succeeded in facing the requirements of the essay contest.Although you have tried from an odd angle,finally you have not come to any conclusion.

In the photograph,I saw high speed gas gushing away from the blast (or explosion?) place and it could be as a result of shock wave emanating from collision between two white-dwarfs or plsma emitted form a black-hole or a pulsar or even a white-dwarf.The shape of the gas curve emitted in all such cases would be almost the same.

If you are too good at maths,I will give ideas on how to solve problems related to black-holes.

Best regards and good luck in the competition.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT
Sreenath B N

Thank you for reading it. You said I come to no 'conclusion'. Hmmm. Perhaps my English understatement Sreenath, I am explaining what may be a paradigm moving discovery, (which I fear you may have missed!) which also shows two distinct solutions;

1) The 'continuous' condensate must become discrete (ions) to implement change, and

2) Space itself is divided into discrete 'blocks' or perhaps 'causal sets' of volume surrounding condensed matter and limited by diffractive boundaries.

So without either one, the other could not exist. So not only is nature both, but I show how and why, which unveils the problem and derives SR via a quantum mechanism. Did you read the logical analysis in the post above here?

you must be able to manipulate multiple dynamic spaces and diffracting waves in your mind to make it intuitive, which it quickly then becomes. It is difficult! If it was easy it would have been seen 100 years ago. And then thinking through the implications... they are substantial!

I hope you have another go.

Or once you are ready, look at the quite stunning logical conclusions in the short preprint here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

The Photograph? - The previous analysis is (I believe) incomplete. It is a Quasar, with just the 'approaching' jet visible as the receding jet is red shifted to radio frequencies (but both jet heads are visible. A Quasar is a toroid black hole (see the other paper for a photo of another) with the jets perpendicular to the 'disk' (as our own smbh). The gravity is so intense there is much lensing or 'microlensing'. If you look around the source of the jet you will see lensed (enlarged and curved) light from stars behind, outlining the toroid curvature. It is rather large! M87's jets are many millions of light years long.

I feel we must better use observation and empirical evidence to support theory wherever we can.

Peter

Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:15 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your nice comment on my essay!

Regarding your essay: I think the observations you have taken the time to include are very important and are unfortunately overlooked most of the time. For example: what is really going on from observer O's viewpoint using a tyndall effect.

Regarding your step-by-step fate of photon(s) when changing from vacuum to air, plasma glass, etc.. I wonder if anyone has applied this thinking to the Michelson-Morley experiment?? On the surface one might think effects would cancel anyway because the reflection devices are at both ends of the interferometer, but the fact that "new" photons are replacing old ones during the journey may have an impact.

I hope we can all keep a conversation going even after the contest ends.

Best of luck - Chris

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT
Chris

Thanks, pressed wrong button and long detailed post lost! Precee;

Yes. Thanks, Brilliant; Mirrors reflect light at same speed as incident light ref incident medium!!!!

M&MX supported Stokes/Plank closely equivalent theory to the DFM, but sponsor Bell shut Michelson up on that! see here; Only false logic NEVER BEFORE RECOGNISED put Lorentz on another track (Stokes 10993 Fig13). see here; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

The CMBR rest frame logically destroys SR as we understand it. I feel like Galileo. The SUN IS NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE! We need to think more carefully. It is a preferred 3rd frame. Only the DFM avoids the logical inconsistencies. AND it meets observation better, AND it uses the SR postulates. It IS SR! But an Extra Special Relativity (ESR)? with no paradoxes.

Do let me know if you can see a better way to explain it!

Best wishes,

Peter

Cristi Stoica wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Peter,

thanks for your kind comment. If I understand well, you propose in your well-written essay a mechanism based on the plasma wind, by which relativity emerges from quantum mechanics and optics. The "standard" relativity has been derived from electromagnetism as well, more specifically from the invariance properties of Maxwell's equations - which led to the Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski spacetime. Possibly there may be an experiment, at least a "Gedanken" one, which can exhibit differences between the predictions of your explanation and those of the "standard" SR. I think that such differences may appear if the light travels through large regions of small density of the plasma.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
Christi

Thank you. Indeed all Gedankens actually do that as they produce logical results without paradox in the DFM without the LT, but do not with the LT. It also matches all empirical results, i.e. 'Lensing' delays; We've 'patched' Shapiro delays to death, even needing 'gravity wells'! but this matches all observation with no anomalies and patches.

NASA (Dan Gezari) experimented with Lunar Laser ranging. The results were consistent with the DFM's SR NOT SR with LT. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818v2 (A 'mainstream' denialist quickly put out a paper saying the lenses must be dusty or something, which had no logic anyway!).

Wang has also done a number of consistent experiments, but as there's been no alternative to SR with LT UP UNTIL NOW, it's all just been ignored, and the ranks of dissidents wanting to throw out SR keep swelling. The DFM offers the perfect compromise to remove dissent, just perfect SR AND QM a bit to match.

I posted a full train Gedanken in Tom Ray's string. He was previously disparaging, but stopped on reading it. It's passed all falsification. I've also discussed infinitely many buses with Dr Cosmic Ray! Did you read the 'Stream' one as well.

I predicted the quadrupolar CMBR asymmetry in an early paper, and the recent result in the string above, along with others. Not one has proved wrong, and many anomalies are resolved. But will science take note? For three years I've just been ignored. Papers are rejected as they vary from current mainstream theory.

I'm worried we may be beyond the point where ANY experiment or proven prediction will be taken note of. If it gains ground it may have to be by erosion! Unless this essay process and the super support here leads to anything.

Venus express has just found the plasmasphere of Venus, as ours, Saturns and the suns.

If you can think of any new experiment or prediction please do suggest it.

(You'll find a link somewhere in my string to another viXra paper giving more extraordinary predictions, but not yet falsifiable - the most 'mainstream compliant' are in a paper currently in peer review - who knows!).

Very many thanks. Best of luck to you to.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 14:59 GMT
Christi

Falsification. A recent job was Atlantic weather routing advice for a round the world race boat, so I looked closer at the S Atlantic anomaly. It's the central depression 'cusp' of our plasma toroid, and getting bigger! (we're due a polarity change).

Did you know The Hubble takes a peak of over 3,000 hits/cm^2/sec in this area? and the GPS satellites are wearing out faster than hoped due to the ion hits (sim profile to Pioneer/Voyager anomaly). In NS the vast zone between max balloon height and min orbit, (where a 'new gps' is mooted) is termed to 'ignorasphere', as we know very little about it and have ignored it.

This gives the opportunity for a prediction; There will be a dense ionosphere, with higher electron to proton ration higher up far denser than the Hubble finds, but all in the EARTH'S reference frame. geocentric is therefore good, as the cusps are problematic. These will grow and move more, with the magnetic poles. Our kids would be well advised not to sunbathe as much as us. But mass extinction is unlikely even if the em field collapses in a pole change (there have been hundreds) as the ions will largely remain! If we all die? I was wrong.

I've logged it here as I'm certain no-one else will publish or record it! it may also give a chance to check for the scattering delay/shift rate gradient the DFM predicts.

(We overtook quite a bunch and moved to the van in the S Atlantic staying East)

Thanks, best wishes.

Peter

Cristi Stoica replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 05:33 GMT
Peter,

there seem to be many possibilities to test your ideas. I think that it's a good idea to never stop challenging our theories and trying to find the best possible explanation, no matter how good these theories may seem.

Best wishes,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Peter,

Nothing in my essay or in my latest posts contradict any of your ideas – namely “locality/reality” as the basis of the constancy of the speed of light, and DFM as the basis for propagation of light. But these latest results, in my humble opinion, do bring clarity and light to what has in the past been mystifying.

Among the most mystifying of physical ideas that date back to Einstein's work is the (PH) Photon Hypothesis (which makes any intuitive physical explanation of the double-slit experiment, for example, incomprehensible even to the likes of Feynman) and de Broglie's 'matter waves' hypothesis that were incorporated into Schroedinger's equation and into QM. These were plainly assumptions.

In my first new post, “What is the Matter with de Broglie Waves?” I am able to derive the de Broglie equations following and extending previous work, and show how these can be more intuitively understood. This demystifies the de Broglie 'matter'. Furthermore, this formulation in my post now fully justifies the 'exponential of time' that I used for the local representation of energy that leads to a very elegant mathematical derivation of Planck's Law. This I had assumed (with ample mathematical reasons and arguments for that assumption).

In the second post, “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”, I give a very simple and equally elegant mathematical proof that is we take the speed of light to be constant, then it must be true that light propagates as a wave. Thus, one of Einstein's major hypothesis (CSL) that leads to Relativity contradicts another major hypothesis (PH) that leads to QM.

This is big! This is not “photons”.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 22:39 GMT
Constantinos

Thank you. I agree all your mathematics is fully consistent with the DFM thesis. I would like to better understand the fundamental logic (which is due to my inadequate mathematics rather than logic) an am interested in your view of the Stochastic Van der Waal profile in relation particularly to the Planck Curve.

I'd also like to ensure I've properly corrected the misuse of the term 'exponential' in the essay ref the resistance curve / LT relationship. I suspect I was trying to retain some relevance for the LT, when it may really need to be returned to Fresnel's original meaning.

I agree it's important you get into the last 35 for assessment.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:59 GMT
Peter,

I think you should check this essay. This has similarities with your DFM.

Is Reality Digital or Analog? by Dante Hugo Barbis

Congratulations on a strong finish, beginning to end! And thanks for all your support and help. It meant a lot to me!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author Philip Gibbs wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 08:20 GMT
Peter, it is good to see you in such a string position as we reach the last day of the community vote. Your ideas about discrete space and plasma are very original and nicely illustrated with real observation images. Good luck for the final round.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
Phil

Thanks for your note. Glad you got to read it. I didn't want to mix the conceptual with this at this stage, but, ..(as even a conscientious obejector can be a medic!) considering the language of yours, is it possible you could look at mine in terms of a Q-net (as a fibre optic) and quantum registers QUBITS 'lumped' together - "wanderland", or right down to individiual bits ('balls S^3') I believe SR and LT link to this picture via QC=SR, "2+2=1+3" (Hermitean picture or 'Klein correspondence').

If you're impressed with that don't credit me, you should read Lucian Ionescue's brilliant essay, his words and maths have been a bit overlooked and should be way up the list. I only saw it yesterday!

Let me know if that computes. You should hopefully spot that along with the other group of excellent consistent essays here, each giving a different glimpse, it is actually paradigm shifting!

Great to see you on a late charge. Momentum is everything! (including a = g).

Peter

Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Peter,

I reread your excellant essay. I think that Physics is a bilingual thought process involving both language and mathematics. Sadly enough, most people fall on one side or the other and don't do a good job of balancing language and mathematics. As a mathematics-conscientious-objector yourself, you do a good job of introducing just enough mathematics (such as the index of refraction and frame-of-reference transformations) to tie into physics formality. From a language perspective, your essay was comparable to other great language presentations, such as Julian Barbour's and Tom Ray's, and I enjoyed your pictures.

There was a point near the beginning of your essay that confused me slightly. You said "As it slows down it shifts slightly to the blue (as Rayleigh scattering also turns the sky blue)." Putting these two very different phenomena together as if they are related is confusing. The light is blue-shifted as it approaches a stronger gravitational field (the Earth's vs. space), but Rayleigh scattering removes more blue than red light because blue wave-lengths are shorter than red wave-lengths, and therefore have a shorter interaction distance in air.

Figure 1 does look a lot like a hot, fresh doughnut plus a bow shock (my wife, daughter and I ate breakfast at Krispy Kreme Doughnuts the other day - I don't eat there often because I'm usually watching my calories, but it is fun every once in a while). I finally put together a paper model of a lattice-like torus with Buckyball symmetries. Now I'm ready to cut up a couple of soccer balls...

You quoted Minkowski's "endlessly many spaces". If each bus is a different "space", or a different frame of reference, and the photons get on and off of buses with different local speeds, then this can explain your view of Relativity. My math background (I only minored in Math, but most PhD Physicists are exposed to lots more Math) wants to use "delta" notation to represent this, and then convert it into a differential and/or integral equation. It would probably look a lot like the Principle of Least Action.

You say that your model does not require an "aether". I agree that the Classical aether is dead, but I wonder what effect the "vacuum" or "Dirac Sea" have on large-scale "continuous" effects. In the case of the speed of light, we have c=1/SQRT(eps*mu) where eps and mu are physical properties of the "vacuum". I'm not sure of the implications regarding a vacuum-like "new-aether" - see Constantin Leshan's essay.

Good Luck in the contest & Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 16:21 GMT
Ray

Ah! ..you'd already scored it then. Shame! No worries, I liked yours anyway as it has real ideas and wasn't just another 'my personal take on history' resume so the boost is nothing to do with the compliments, which I know were just you being a really nice bloke!

Rayleigh? Brilliant man his Lordship, did you know he did it all without maths? A bit incoherent and scattery, but he knew the fourth power of waves! Yes, I agree, but via the DFM we find there's more to it than that - to start with it seems it might be the plasmaspheric ions not air, and part of the PMD process! You're right, I should have explained, but it was cut out by Occam to make the limit. It's in another paper on PMD and harmonics, which explains why rainbows invert the moment they're out of our sight (I kid you not!).

Fig 1 is the shock not the donut. As NO-ONE FOUND THE HIDDEN BLACK HOLE I'll reveal it. It's in the HH34 ESO Fig. Look out (think BIG!) from the source of the jet/s. You will find some curved light, and one large bright splash. That (my prediction is) is all lensed light from behind the black hole. It's actually as big as more Krispy Kreems than you and I could eat! The outer bit has been termed the 'dust cloud', but it's a toroid of helical twin axis rotating energy. This one should be slowing down soon as it's run out of Krispy Kremes to eat and spew out!. You may see why I struggle to reconcile it with Bucky's vandalised footballs.

When I said the DFM doesn't 'require' "ether", I went on to hint that actually, once we get past the mainstream 'belief' problem (around 2020 unless we find someone with both authority AND courage!), we might find that as it 'allows' something similar we can have it back as the whole of physics and cosmology can then work properly with a unified field. I used to quite like the Dirac Sea, (but which way up?) But if Edwins C field pans out that does the job just fine, essentially the (dis)continuum or 'condensate'.

Did I mention it resolves the re-ionisation issue too? There's a link to a paper in Phil's archive somewhere above.

See below for another analogy I just gave Tom. It's all about needing holistic rather than self centric thinking. The sun is not the centre of the universe! (I'm moving to a nicer house in case I'm arrested!).

Now, ..about that new book I mentioned....

Peter

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

I try to be discrete about my scores, but I gave you a good score today, and I don't think it lifted your overall ranking much (you already had so many good scores).

Have you seen a double rainbow? The colors are reversed and dimmer but still in the visible frequency range.

I could live with Galileo's fate - it was much better than Giordano Bruno's.

Isn't it worth sacrificing a couple of inexpensive Soccer balls for the greater good?

Regarding the next book - It is difficult to end a book when you still have good ideas...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
ANALOGY

Below is a response in the 'Time Machine' blog, where neither Georgina's or my equivalent theses on reality were clear enough for Tom. I thought it worth repeating here as recognising the weakness with current through basis is important.

"If you (and dozens of others) are flying in spacecraft beyond the moon on various vectors watching the earth go by, and see flashes of light go through the atmosphere in the same direction as the orbit. Who on earth believed it was right to have to say we'd need a Lorentz Transformation to stop it looking to us like it went faster than 'c'??

Do you really believe that? If so please give your logical analysis of why it's needed?

An who wins the argument between the moving observers about how fast it went?"

So do we imagine the flash of light' really gives a damn who is up in space and which way they're going? All light signals reach them via scattering at 'c' anyway.

Imagine we have a 30,000km road across the US, with street lights, switched to all come on, from one end to the other, within 0.5secs. Saying we need the LT is like saying this breaks the laws of physics! (many of which incidentally are hereby repealed so we can finally get physics moving along one more).

We can call it the DFM, Extra Special Relativity, or whatever we wish. It is SR, with the postulates and a quantum mechanism but without the paradoxes. Otherwise called 'nature'.

Are some still not yet able to see it, even when spelled out?

Peter

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Hi Peter,

Congratulations, you are today twice mentioned in the front page, I think you deserve it,

You and me are each on another side of the earth so we are moving each with a velocity of 450m/sec around the center of the earth as you are on the other side earth we are moving each about 900m/sec, that would be true if we were moving in paralel lines , as we are both "locals" the difference remains the ca.450m/sec., so our movement (relative to the center of the earth) is local and the locality is the earth, we don't feel any movement.

relative to the solar system our velocity is about 30km/sec.

relative to the heart of the milky way it is 210 km/sec.

relative to the origin of the universe, wich is in my opinion 5.39121x10^-44sec after a virtual zero, we move at 600km/sec towards the constellation Leo (New Scientist 19 february 2001 , Roger Highfield)

and still both of us are locals, our consciousness tells us we are not moving, perhaps relative to another universe we are moving at 7c who knows,

This also means that we need no eather (Ray !), because when you introduce in Peters theory the eather, then you will always meet an eather bow shock which occurs only when one locality encounters another, we could view our universe as a whole and then when meeting another universe we could encounter an eather bow shock, but only the kind of eather that is meant as observing our universe as a locality, the eather of the other Universe will be of different constitution. In this universe the abovenamed eather (locality eather) does not interfere with minor localities it only interferes with other eathers of other Universes.

In this way Peter I think we can make a definition of every kind of "locality", each having its own limits, wher internal c=c, when a bow chock occurs we meet another locality. Please corrigate me when I am wrong.

I also studied Edwin Klingman's essay (and his first one that I still digesting), he also reacted positive on my essay. I really I think that combining your ideas could solve a lot of problems in physics, again thank you for being the first one to read my essay (I am learning the tricks) and to comment it so positive. On the last day of rating I feel very proud that I could share my ideas for the first time with so many thinkers around the world.

Very good luck Peter, but I think your chances are great,

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:13 GMT
Wilhelmus

Yes. You're using the correct Holistic not Self-Centric viewpoint. (my Ref[25]).

Apparently Western Europeans and US Students are the worst at this!! Asked 'Where is the truck?" The self centric response may be "around 300m away, behind me, to the South, moving away." The proper (Holistic) view would be; "On the road beside the red building moving south." This is the 'Lab Frame' error. Lodge made it (1893 Fig 13) and we've kept on repeating it. There is only ONE VALID FRAME for measurement, the SAME frame as the object.

The first respondent may have been on any of 10 moving buses, so the answer tells us nothing of the truck. SR assumes that doesn't matter, to explain constant light speed. Now that is otherwise explained (by the c/n of plasma- ion gas/shocks) we need to recognise it DOES matter, and all paradoxes and anomalies evaporate!

However! This shows your logic below fails. Remember Einstein said "Space without Ether is unthinkable" (Leiden 1921). There may indeed be a continuum reference frame, (CMBR) except it's a DIScontinuum, precisely as Einstein predicted;

(Gothenburg 1923); "There are then an infinite number of inertial frames which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other, and hence there is also an infinite number of mutually equivalent, physically preferred states of motion. Time is absolute, i.e.independent of the choice of the particular inertial frame; it is defined by more characteristics than logically necessary, although - as implied by mechanics - this should not lead to contradictions with experience. Note in passing that the logical weakness of this exposition from the point of view of the stipulation of meaning is the lack of an experimental criterion for whether a material point is force free or not; therefore the concept of the inertial frame remains rather problematical."

All the DFM has now done is solved that problem. If only AE has space travel to hep he'd have done it himself.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
Genius from Georgina

I had to post this brilliant response from Georgina Parry to my agreeing with Tom that (current) QM is not intuitive (except I blame our current intuition).

G; "I do not agree that it is counterintuitive, when interpreted as I have outlined on this thread. Current logic has been false because there has been an assumption of an actual concrete object distributed across a multiverse or a pervasive quasi reality. The hypothetical supposition of states is purely theoretical and so does not qualify as in any way real. Though due to sequential change in foundational reality an object has a sequence of spatial positions and the one that is detected depends upon when the data is received. The sequence is purely historical and the object only has one existence and is not smeared across space or distributed across a multiverse.

So Re. a) Logic has been false, as it was based on a false assumption, leading to counterintuitive outcome.

Re. b) Intuition -is- inadequate, on its own but it can provide insight which then needs to be evaluated for usefulness. Allows one to readdress a)

Re c) Our understanding of quantum physics has been inadequate, because of a)

(Back now to PJ); - I stand corrected and concede entirely. - OK, Perhaps it's saying essentially the same as I was, -that our understanding has been 'incomplete'-, but says it in a far better and more specific way. The DFM of course does also change our understanding of QM 'in operation' slightly, (scattering in plasma) but only to even better comply.

All mathematicians & quantum computists see also above and Dr Ionescue's essay.

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
Peter,

Good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsibnle for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

KOFI KISSI DOMPERE wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT
This is an interesting approach to looking at the fundamental discreness and relate it to continuous processes from the space-time phenomenon. A good essay. The concept of many spaces is easily grasped if one looks at the digital-analog problem not simply from quantity-time space but from quantity-quality-time space. Each ontological object is defined by quantity, quality where time may be viewed as neutral. The same object can be viewed in many spaces that are generated by qualitative motion that will help to define the nature of the space that is available to the scientist. There are therefore many spaces span by qualitative transformations. In physics, quantitative motion requires an implicit or explicit assumption of constancy of quality of the objects under critical inquiry. Any equation of motion under classical laws of thought is unstable and meaningless if constancy of quality is not assumed. Similarly, the understanding and the use of the methodological discretness require this constancy of quality. The result of the use of this constancy of quality and the classical laws of thought simply provides a model of epistemic reality that must be checked against ontological reality. It this unsurenes that lead Max Planck to discuss the problem of exact science as not properly braced with an undisputable methodological principle. Contradiction and paradoxes arise when the mathodoligical discretness runs into epistemic peoblem at the presence of simultaniety of quantitative and qualitative motion. I would like to conclude that the approach taken by Peter may help the current works on energetics, synergetics and complexity theory.

KOFI KISSI DOMPERE.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT
KOFI

Thanks for your kind response. The observer frame question throws up the critical difference that a Doppler frame transition from A to B (from 'ahead' of the frame B motion) viewed from frame A gives just a wavelength reduction, whereas viewed from frame B it reduces the wavelength but also increases the frequency.

This gives E = f*lambda, to confirm the the law of conservation of energy, as well as c = f*lambda, to conform the the SR postulates.

That is NOT however true of the 'APPARENT NOT REAL' picture from frame A.

All the time we insist on the naive philosophy that what we observe from another inertial frame is reality (that we can measure no matter what our relative motion), then Physics will remain in the dark ages!

Peter

Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have read your wonderful article about recycling nature of the universe and that is the truth. One who fully understands this truth is immortal and lives eternally. I am including the link to my essay here, so that people who like your work can see what I had to convey as well.

Theory of everything

I wish you all the best in your pursuit of the truth.

Love,

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 03:58 GMT
Peter,

The object you are hiding must be in the protostar photo....with a jet that long it must be the TBH you mentioned, but can such large objects be also like remnants of the small and we are the witnesses of the tiny object at cosmological proportions?

In your essay I was most curious about the idea that pressure only affected amplitude and not frequency. Pressure is indeed our enemy. Personally, I think the Navier Stokes equations will always blow up and that there is indeed a mass gap. That mass gap registers at the media model you incorporate into your essay. It is my suspicion that pressure also affects frequency but we are always in the wrong places and times so far to minutely measure this. LISA might change this?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 12:41 GMT
Michael

Well worked out. But did you identify the lensed light betraying the Black Hole's outline?

We must define the meaning of 'pressure' in more detail to validify our generalisations. We have missed something VERY important in present science, as I mention above;

When a light signal in medium A enters a new medium B, moving at v, we observe (from A) a different wavelength.

The light speed also changes (c/n), but, before we start thinking about the LT to stop it exceeding 'c' when we add v (medium) consider; An observer in medium B will also see a FREQUENCY change! This validates the SR postulates and Law of Conservation of energy (both c and E = f*lambda.)

This is NOT TRUE from the viewpoint of observer A, as that is now not a valid observer frame from which to measure the phenomena within medium B.

The reasons for introducing the LT are REMOVED. Light scattered from B to A does max. 'c' anyway. The SR postulates can now be met without paradox or the many anomalies that are thrown up.

Are the powers of logic or visualisation of the majority of humankind really not yet adequate to comprehend this?

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT

A quick example and test for all re the post above;

I think it's been rather missed that this, the DFM, is precisely the paradigm shift we've been searching for to remove the rift between QM and SR, and all the anomalies.

I am a little nonplussed. Hmm, but, as an example; should I not be less unsurprised ? ..as this is simply one short step beyond most brains natural capability!

Peter

Peter Mastro wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 13:53 GMT
Hello Peter,

Well now that the voting is done it looks like you are going to make the cut.

Congradulations. Just wanted to let you know I still think your essay is the best and hope to see you as one of the winners. I did think the ratings would have been higher across the board. You science guys are tough.

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Peter

Much appreciated, thank you. I'm strictly not a 'science guy' but yes it's tough! look at this;

I've had an extraordinary 40 different bloggers, and 56 scores! (not to mention public ones).

35 bloggers were authors and ALL POSITIVE and supportive. Over 50% saw the answer!

Let's use logic to analyse the stat's;

Many said they'd given mine 10, indeed some, like Prof Ionescue and another read it very late and kindly did so without even messaging here.

So, 1st approximation is say about 33 original votes, at average just say 7.5. = 247.7

Mine was 5th before the last day. I went to bed with over 4 hrs to go.

On top of the two 10's there were around 21 more votes to make 56. Each would have had to have scored it just 1 (total say 285) to drag the average back to the 5.1. shown !!

I't may be considered none of those '1's were really valid in terms of essay content. It's probably the same for most, though I'd scored many around mine earlier and properly. An interesting idea may be to remove ALL the last minute '1' scores and compare THAT result!. Yes, that's tough, but it's really just all very silly. (Lucky I don't do maths really!)

The really important point confirmed here is the one shown up in my essay,; That science currently seems quite happy to use invalid data for it's analysis. (Write to your senator?!)

That's what's overdue for change, and why I have to be here.

Thanks again and very best wishes with your work.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Mastro replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 19:57 GMT
Peter,

Your assessment is probably very accurate and I also find it very humorous.

When I first started reading essays I started to try and rate them and after a few I decided I was going to go digital and just vote high or not at all. My particular philosophy was to try and identify essays I thought should be in the final review and give them all 9 or 10. I figured that was the best way to maximize my influence on the competition. If I didn't think it was appropriate to the finals I didn't vote on it. What purpose does it serve to rate someone low? In what way does that reflect a supportive spirit?

The motivation for rating low, particularly at the last second, is obvious. I guess there are alot of people who take this stuff very seriously.

Of course I view a painting as just a painting. It has no more or less value than what you give it, and its true value is personal and only lies in the process of creating it.

And so I wish you good luck in the future. I never really commented specifically about your essay so I will leave you with this final thought for future investigation. Since you know you have to understand your measuring device when collecting data, does a clock really measure time?

Pete

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 18:33 GMT
"Steinhardt!?.. dammit! Well they do say there's "nothing new under the.. sun?" ..and I thought universe recycling was a completely new idea (/discovery)! Well I darn hope galaxy recycling is. Actually I'm pretty sure it'll prove not to be. I must look him up, I assume 'Endless Universe' is a book."

Peter,

Not being immersed in your esoteric world, I was slow to realize I was being mocked. I served well as a patsy.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 22:27 GMT
James

Not at all! Just my humour- but I was serious. I hadn't read 'Endless Universe', so I got it immediately, I was also interested in co-author Perimeters Neil Turok's view. Thanks for flagging it up.

I got to the recycling chapter this week (I'm reading 3 at once as usual!) and started reading about branes. Well I have to tell you I've been braned brainless in recent years. Another string theory - you keep delving deeper and deeper looking for the substance and you realise you've ended up back where you started but tied up in 13 dimensional knots. I decided I might even play my trump of 32 dimensions, then I did a drawing with 33, so I realised it would be infinite and went elsewhere!

Anyway, my philosophical basis are research (empirical) logic and falsifiability. I have the most open of minds, but if I can't bring it back to fit with observation it's dropped.

Peter

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 23:34 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for responding. I might be too sensitive or cynical at my advanced age.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 19:26 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for your nice message on my forum. I have to admit being a little nervous toward the end, since it seemed like my essay was always "on the bubble" and there was a lot of fluctuation in the ratings right up to the cut off. How about Jason Wolfe's late charge to get in under the wire. I didn't see that coming, he seemed to come from nowhere. Good for him though.

The community scoring in general was a lot lower, across the board, than I had ever imagined. Still, I feel honored to get my essay before the judges. Maybe, I can squeak out an HM.

Best of luck in the next round,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
Dan

You deserved it. I was gobsmacked by Jason as well, (I normally am) It must have been his prototype hyperdrive.

I ran it through the sausage machine and actually have a theory. Everyone was doing much better til the last few days. Because Jason was a bit out of it and is such a nice straight honest bloke (worth a mint!) no-one picked on him. Then when most were machine gunning all round them with 1's (see my note above.) Jason got missed, so they all dropped around him.

I don't expect Brendon to comment, but the DFM quantum computer says it was relativity i.e. as much others going down as Jason going up! It's all about understanding relativity and inertial frames properly to remove the paradox.

I intend to read yours again as I high marked you, (and may have even admitted it at the time Tom!) but my mind can only hold 20 essays and names together at a time (lol). I seem to remember there was one issue I wanted to discuss, but I seem to have mislaid that Qbit!

Peter

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 13:23 GMT
Congratulations, Dr. Jackson, if I am refernencing the proper website. It would seem that silent threads are not rewarded, much, after all (a.k.a. Justice).

Thanx

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

Again my congratulations, but you deserved a first place (nothing wrong of course with Danielle Oriti) because of the innovative compromising science.

I also think that when even number one has a score of only 5.4 out of ten this means that the total result of the contest is even less as everage in vieuw of the participants, and that my friend is strange when you see all the positive posts on the forums, perhaps the maximum to give was a 6 and the minimum a 0, then everything again is in equilibrium.

Hope we can continue our contact.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 13:27 GMT
Wil

Thank you kindly. I tend to agree, but improving conceptual abilities and effecting paradigm shifts take time. Perhaps 2020 wasn't far out, but I am suddenly starting to get busy, so we never know.

It seems from the blog that some feel such as Christopher Wren and Buckminster Fuller should be allowed no forum or involvement in discussion of nature or the physical world.! I still believe most in science have a far more commendable philosophy. My philosophical view is if there weren't a minority of blinkered thinkers it may be US at the bottom! So a useful purpose is served, and we are reminded where the 'bottom' is as we hopefully head onward and upward.

Best of luck finishing your studies, and yes, I'm happy to stay in contact.

Peter

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 21:55 GMT
Alan

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

I did respond previously that I've found the multiple helix form far more universal than just for our DNA. If we consider the field of a rotating toroid (black hole) the lines are helical. I have a paper in PR on the subject of Quasars, which invariably have helicicity in the jet plasma trail, the quadrupolar asymmetry in the CMBR can be reduced to helicicity, and the list goes on. The C-field (referred in Edwins essay) also naturally involves the form.

However. In the discrete field model (DFM) the graviton should not exist as a 'particle' at all, as we understand condensed 'matter'. Do have a careful run through the frame transition 'cases' below as I don't believe you were one of the 1 in 4-5 who managed to fully 'see' the dynamic relationship proving SR with a unified field and quantum mechanism. (Predictive power and falsifiability are both high). Once you see the clear picture the role of the helix may also become clearer.

I appreciate your own dedication to your concept, but the most important thing in science, often seeming to be short in theoretical physics, is to ensure you gain full gain understanding of theories beyond your own, particularly those that appear to conflict. Only then can we end up with theories of real value. The problem with yours at present it's seeming complete lack of falsifiability, in which case the physics community can only judge it as of zero value. If you can find falsification you find the start of a long road!

Very best wishes.

Peter

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 13:20 GMT

Cheers,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Peter,

In my thread 833 you wrote for example: "Only our poor understanding and self centric thinking allowed Lorentz to ignore the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Plank solution when Stokes died and hijack Fresnel's formula to invent the LT."

I highly appreciate your courage to address recent experimental results that apparently contradict theories. However, I do not consider your imprecise style appropriate for a top ten essay writer.

Did my and your poor understanding and self centric thinking really allow Lorentz to do something?

Is "the correct Fresnel/Stokes/Planck solution" a well established term which is understandable to everybody without explanation? Hopefully you will not take it amiss that I corrected Planck. Can you please reveal what paper by Planck you refer to?

I was not familiar with the word hijack because it seems to rarely occur in scientific literature.

Didn't the name Lorentz transformation go back not to Lorentz himself but to Poincaré? How relate e.g. Woldemar Voigt and FitzGerald to Fresnel's formula?

At least it looks as if you are convinced that the LT (Lorentz transformation) is wrong, but you do not consider this worth any further scrutiny. You just do not need LT as to nonetheless also arrive at Einstein's SR. Right?

Hence you persistently ignored my repetitious hints to Van Flandern. Right?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT
Dear Eckard

Thanks. I was trying to keep it rather too short! which unavoidably precludes full precision. In English we commonly use the extended 'Royal 'we'. Her Maj uses it instead of 'I', but we can only do the opposite, referring to the plural right up to 'Humankind', to save blaming it on 'them'. So it was 'us lot on planet Earth' I referred to. And yes, if you read the paper and consider the DFM's non-absolute frame solution, it becomes clear it was only due to 'self centric' thinking that Lorentz felt the LT was needed.

I rather thought Stokes famous 'full ether drag' was common knowledge, (referred by me and also in last years essay), as were his supporters, which also included Heaviside and others. I have no issue with your correction of that part of Plancks' work you corrected, but you are here guilty of the same fault you accuse me of, not detailing your correction! But I do forgive you as your memory may not be quite as good(ish!) as mine.

The details of Planck's discourse with Lorentz are interesting in themselves. Here is a derived extract from http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022; "Contrary to some opinion (Lorentz) had accepted that the Fresnel/Stokes etc. 'Full Ether Drag' option complied with M&M. His objection was that flow over a sphere is uneven and would not be zero at it's surface. Max Planck supported Stokes thesis and suggested compressible ether, more dense at the surface. Lorentz responded; "..this assumption of an enormously condensed ether, combined, as it must be, with the hypothesis that the velocity of light is not in the least altered by it, is not very satisfactory."

Poincare, yes indeed, but the equation was originally derived long before by Fresnel, I believe when originally considering the lack of backwave in Huygens Construction, to become the Huygens-Fresnel Principle, but used for another more valid purpose, also considered in Larmors mooted relativistic frame transformation, nailed to Fitzgeralds Irish maths, to create the LT. But no history of course is anywhere near complete even if we write 1000 books!

I have made it clear the DFM shows the LT as superfluous (wrong) Eckard, though the formula (not belonging to Lorentz) has other uses. However, it's imprecise to say 'arrive at Einsteins' SR' as, if you understand my thesis, you'd recall that while it arrives at Einstens SR 'Postulates', the DFM makes a small adjustment to an 'assumption' which gives give it a working Quantum Mechanism. (Unification).

I know Tom Van F's work quite well, but I don't think your 'imprecise comment here is appropriate for a top 10 essay writer', (just joking Eckard!) You didn't say about which of Tom's many theories and papers you 'hinted'. Please pass me the specific reference, as I have to you a number of times, and I'll respond in full.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 00:14 GMT
Dear Tom,

Thank you for so many words of reply. Perhaps you mistook me. I referred to your typo Plank, I did not correct Planck's work.

Let me omit the history and focus on the central question that puzzles me:

Is the Lorentz transformation as formulated by Poincaré a correct basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity and the subsequent Minkowski metric?

Because I am not a physicist I looked into the textbook "The Special Theory of Relativity" by Bohm. It tries to tell that the twin paradox is no paradox at all.

Also looking into Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik ..." I am ready to agree with the postulates but not with his (Poincaré's) return method of synchronization, which seem to me corresponding to a paradoxical dependency on (v/c)^2.

In his 2005 paper "Is faster-than light propagation ..." Van Flandern revives what he calls Lorentz relativity (LR), the opinion by Lorentz himself, de Sitter, Sagnac, Michelson, Ives, Tangherlini, Mansouri & Sexl, Beckmann, Hayden, Hatch, and Selleri.

Already in his 2003 paper "Lorentz Contraction" Van Flandern explained convincingly to me the time desynchronization.

I reiterate my question again: Are the results of the lunar laser experiment agreeable with the opinion of the late Van Flandern?

What do you consider wrong: LT including Lorentz contraction, LR, both, or none of them?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT
Ideas Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern delight.

Unfortunately, until recently, did not know about it.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT
Eckard

Yes, I meant Planck, and you meant Peter!

The solutions become clear once discrete fields are understood. The answers are not simplistic Yes or No's. I will however give the simple answers here, and yet another step by step DFM logical analysis in another post.

Q1). Is the LT as Poincare the correct basis for Einstein's SR in Minkowski flat space time? A1) Yes it is correct for SR, No, it does not give not an accurate description of nature.

Q2). ..agree with the postulates but not with Poincaré's return method of synchronization, A2). I agree it gives paradoxical dependency on (v/c)^2, but the SR Postulates are correct. In fact all the supposed 'proof of SR' is actually only proof of the postulates.

Q3). Do the results of the lunar laser experiment agree with the late Van Flanderns opinion? A3). Yes AND No. Yes in that they are consistent with the LR 'dragged ether' (or 'elisyum') element, (which was based on Stokes/Plancks theory), and No, in that they are fully consistent with the DFM, wearas Van Flanders depth of consideration, and therefore other assumptions, were incomplete, unfalsifiable, and some false. Indeed this is probably why Van Flanderns thesis was not adopted.

Q5). What do I consider wrong: LT including Lorentz contraction, LR, both, or none of them? A5). The DFM shows the LT is wrong but there is a case of contraction which is equivalent to Doppler Shift. The BASIS of Lorentzian Relativity is correct, but it failed to address CSL (Constant Speed of Light irrespective of speed of observer). This is where Einstein came in, but made the wrong change, just giving different paradoxes.

The DFM now finally removes ALL paradoxes, reverting to the LR (and Stokes/ Planck) basis but marrying it properly with Huygens/Fresnel and Dopplers work, which gives it a Quantum Mechanism (well known Atomic Scattering) to explain the big issue; CSL.

It was really a case of using proper logic, and just 'joining the dots'.

Only physicist 'beliefs' now veil the simple picture of how nature really works.

I'll put the step by step analysis below as I really need to find out the best way to 'move the veil', so more than the present 1 in 4-5 can see it.

Best wishes

Peter

PS. For 'contraction' and 'dilation' watch the video; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 17:00 GMT
Eckard AND ALL

As the DFM solution requires so many variables and cases I itemise each 'case' of light passing between inertial frames, which must be considered as 3D spaces, or different media, 1 and 2, with scattering (refractive boundaries) at each transformation. This may perhaps be a block of ice or gas.(Put the Cartesian system out of your mind) Consider a visible light 'pulse', or...

view entire post

Henri V. De Roule wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Peter

After reading your post on my essay I reviewed yours. I could follow your arguments and most of the math. I find your approach to gravity and light most interesting. I have also read most of the other posts and some of the other articles. I find all of them facinating. In your paper I have to presume that you are making the argument for Reality being digital, although I did not find any statement to that effect. As I pointed out in my paper, we do not yet have evidence enough to determine the fundimental question presented. The next 50 years should be a most interesting time in physics and math. When we solve the problem of physical dimensioning below the Planck length and the action of particles therein, and when we discover the "graviton" (which I believe we will), we will be in a better position to answer the question posed.

Again, thank you for some interesting reading.

Henri

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 20:12 GMT

See Blumschein essay.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 21:20 GMT
Sorry Peter,

I do not know what a Grand Slam is, and the more you are trying to enlighten me the less I see my questions answered.

Good luck in the contest,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

basudeba wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 04:37 GMT
Dear Sir,

We agree with your views that “Science itself can be discrete at times, not always linking to form a seamless body of knowledge”. In fact we term the “seamless body” as “knowledge” and the “discrete segments” as “science” or “special knowledge about a segment of Nature”. We...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
Basudeba

I thank you for almost re-writing your essay for me! I did understand your theories, and certainly agreed with much, and did so equally again.

I was however hoping that you would understand the implications of mine, and while you say you'd 'gone through it' it seems clear you hadn't found that 'Eureka' moment of understanding. That is no criticism as only 1 in 5...

view entire post

basudeba wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 16:17 GMT
Sir,

We were extremely happy to read your reply which tends to resolve many of our perceived differences. We have not repeated our essay in the post, but covered other areas. As we have said, while most of the times we may be talking about the same issue, it may appear different because while we talk more on general terms applicable to all interactions, you generally limit it to specific...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 17:12 GMT
Peter,

I tried ... but my way of thinking is quite different from yours. I approach reality after I have constructed the corresponding abstract model. So it is good that we all have different ways of approaching reality. I wish I could be more helpful to you but, as you know, we all have our limitations ...

My best wishes to you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
Basudeba

I agree our theories are quite close, and that we are looking from different places. But I have a few issues;

You say; "direct observation is different." But if the observer is in a medium, and light is transmitted by scattering, it would be exactly the same. I referred to it as 'secondary' as it is 'lateral'; - we are only seeing a sequence of particles charged and...

view entire post

basudeba wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Sir,

You are a real seeker of truth. Thus, we will reveal some of our theories, which we had not done till now.

First answer to your question regarding how direct observation could be different. Since you are fond of spectroscopy, we will give you an example from that branch. Look at the mechanism behind the emission spectra and absorption spectra. Both the emitter and the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT
Basudeba

I'm very appreciative of your explanation and fascinating theory. In particular I had by-passed Set Theory but your explanation shed new light, and showed me the paradoxes provide a perfect demonstration of the discrete field solution.

My methodology in problem solving and analysis is quite different to most in that;

1. If I can't rationalise something with my own...

view entire post

basudeba replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have declared that we are an amateur. Thus, it is not surprising that we do not understand much. However, because of the same reason, we are free from many cultural shackles that affect modern science. May be we are wrong, but it appears to us as if you are contradicting yourself.

First let us examine your assumptions. If you can’t rationalize something, you “assume...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 10:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congrats for making it to the top ten! This is because of your relentless effort and innovative essay.I saw in your essay your visiualization of reality,as you said,from different cerebral hemispheres.It is good that you have tried to connect it to my theme of the essay and I gladly welcome it.Iam extremely sorry for not expressing my congrats before you posted your response to me.

Iam delighted to know how you have connected the idea of 'quantization of acceleration' to condensed matter physics thro' your imaginative article.

Regarding BHs,their existence for me was presumptuous.For this,please, go to my web-site "http://www.sreenath.webs.com".

Iam glad to hear that you have been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication.I want to participate in this, if you are willing, by contributing an article.

Thanking you.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT
Sreenath

Thank you. Excellent. Contacting on direct Email.

Peter

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
Hi Peter,

I saw on another thread that you were concerned about me cutting up a couple of perfectly good soccer balls.

Too late! I bought a couple of inexpensive size 4 (kid-sized, regulation is size 5) soccer balls at the local discount store. One has black pentagons, and the other has pink pentagons (I wanted to be able to distinguish the two). I put 17 cuts into each of them, and have taped and glued one of them into a half torus. I still need to finish the second one. Some interesting geometries are arising from this mess - it looks like this "torus" will be oval shaped, and it may have hyperbolic saddle surfaces. If we are willing to warp the soccer ball's pentagons and hexagons enough, then we can make a perfect torus, but I'm trying to get an idea of what this torus looks like with more-or-less normal shaped pentagons and hexagons.

If my ideas about Buckyballs representing the core of a Black Hole, and about torsion reshaping these buckyballs into tori is correct, then these odd-shaped tori may represent the core of a rotating Black Hole. Carbon-60 Buckyballs have superconductor properties that expel electromagnetic fields. Wouldn't it be cool if this torus likewise excluded gravitational fields? That would be a GEM-like analogy that Edwin might enjoy...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 22:54 GMT
Sir,

Black holes, like neutron stars, are dominated by magnetic fields, which close on itself. Thus, they spiral inwards infinitely towards the center of mass. Being magnetic fields, they are also cooler regions. The mechanism of Sun spots are the same as that of the black holes. That's how they can exist at the center of hot galaxies. The current theory of black holes are totally wrong and must be discarded.

The structures dominated by magnetic fields three times numerous (99 different types in number) than those dominated by high energy structures like galaxies and stars. In case you want to know more about it, you may write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Peter and Basudeba,

I'm still playing with this 3-D puzzle with two butchered footballs, but I think that Basudeba is correct - it looks like I'm building a toroidal spiral...

It isn't a simple toroidal Moebius strip, it may be closer to a toroidal set of paradromic rings. I might need to cut up 4 more Buckyballs to see if they spiral around into a completed 1,080 degree loop. Is it worth the sacrifice of 6 perfectly good footballs (even if they are cheap kid-sized balls?) for the sake of progress?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 00:13 GMT
Oops! Not 1,080 degrees, but rather 1,440 degrees.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 10:26 GMT
Ray

Before you go too far, I've done it on the drawing board and it's very interesting, but rather more Krispy Kreme 3-spheres that geodesic Architecture. I'd recommend that before you destroy the local stock of soccer balls you look closely into Hopf fibration. And have you heard of Clifford Tori?

The Wiki Hopf page has got a nice dynamic slice clip showing the geometrical relationship, of google it for some good piccies.

Lucian Ionescu has just reported back from a conference that Hopf seems to be becoming the next paradigm of guage theory! so it may be good to 'catch' that wave. (though I have to tell you, it heads direct for DFM local reality!).

You ask where do the 32 dimensions live? I may have mentioned, I did the 'up & down' thing back at uni, though many universes, I recently got to 33 and realised (via logic and empiricism) that it was actually the 4th where they live Ray. Time. It's all about that other recent paradigm - recycling. If you really want to have fun and explore some logical conclusions check this out;

http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 and let me know where you think they are!

Peter

PS. Did you know, with respect to ways of thinking, as well as Buckminster Fuller and Christopher Wren (Royal Society founder), Boscovitch was also an Architect. The left / right brain thing is about massively more than just language and maths!

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 12:06 GMT
Hi Peter,

When you were talking about tokamak geometry earlier, I was envisioning Hopf fibration, but I ame convinced that a discrete lattice-like structure must exist. At the bottom of that Wiki page, it says:

"The regular 4-polytopes: 8-cell (Tesseract), 24-cell, and 120-cell, can each be partitioned into disjoint great circle rings of cells forming discrete Hopf fibrations of these polytopes. The Tesseract partitions into two interlocking rings of four cubes each. The 24-cell partitions into four rings of six octahedrons each. The 120-cell partitions into twelve rings of ten dodecahedrons each."

From my prior work with 120-plets (icosahedron, H4, SU(11)) and pentagonal geometries (the pentagram contains the Golden Ratio), I would guess that this 120-cell partition is important.

Still - I wasn't diappointed that my other path was leading to lattices of generalized Moebius strips...

The other dimensions live at other scales - some much smaller than ours (like Lisi's E8) and some much larger. My question pertained more to "Which dimensions live in which scales?" Perhaps this thing we call time is more complex - my F-Theoretic model has real and imaginary time.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 23:57 GMT
Quoting from F. Winterberg

"To overcome the present crisis several leading theoretical physicists have entered a maze of speculations from which there appears to be no escape: The conjectured existence of higher dimensional spaces, previously reserved by the spiritists as the seat for the ghosts of the dead, not supported by a single piece of physical evidence, with all physics laboratories still three-dimensional."

http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
Hi Yuri,

We just met a couple of months ago, and we probably have a few ideas in common. I like your 3+1 dimensional arguments, but do you really think that is all there is?

I haven't always played with multiple dimensions. The Georgi-Glashow SU(5) preliminary "TOE" has a rank of 4 - which is the minimum dimensionality of a representative torus. And yet SU(5) is not large enough to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 10:37 GMT
Basudeba

Thanks. You say; "The structures dominated by magnetic fields three times numerous (99 different types in number) than those dominated by high energy structures like galaxies and stars"

I think you've just pointed out the irreconcilable difference between your theory and the discrete field model. In the DFM there is no differentiation. ALL structure is based on em energy and it's field configurations, from a single condensed ion particle the the esmbh at the centre of each universe. No, that was not a typo. I regret I can't reconcile your theories without adding complication to no purpose, when all my work has brought simplification to a core purpose.

Interestingly the DFM unites many religious theories but particularly Hinduism! Do you believe in destruction and regeneration?

Peter

basudeba replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Sir,

We do not mix science and religion because science primarily relates to interaction between innate objects, whereas religion relates to cognitive processes. That is the reason psychology and philosophy are not part of science.

In response to your post dated Mar.22, we have given a reply and you can respond to it. It is not surprising that with a closed mind set you jump to conclusions, that are far from simple or true. Hence We agree to disagree. Let us terminate the discussion here as there seems to be little meeting ground.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 17:35 GMT
Basudeba

Mixing religion? Certainly not!. But I note you feel philosophy has no part to play in science. It may be said that theoretical science (previously 'natural philosophy') only ground to a halt and headed for it's current crisis when it eschewed philosophical logic. Logic and philosophy are inseparable. I believe also rigorous logic and science should not have been separated on the alter of mathematics.

You say; "..with a closed mind set you jump to conclusions, that are far from simple or true."

I have spent much time studying your theories, with a fully open mind, and gained a good understanding to enable comparisons to be drawn in critical areas, (despite the many Indian language terms). I have complimented your considerable work, pointed out the areas of agreement with the results of mine, and wished you well.

You have done little of this, yet feel it is you who can call me 'closed minded'! If becoming a 'scientist' means coming to such conclusions in the face of such contrary evidence it seems you may be making very good progress Basudeba.

I cannot agree with or follow this route, but wish you luck if you see no other path. My motto is 'seek and we shall find'. Many here are too busy selling to seek.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 04:41 GMT
Dear Sir,

Dr. Cosmic Ray has opined earlier in this thread "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." Thereby he distinguished philosophy from Natural Philosophy. We meant that only. You will find in all our responses that we use rigorous logic and Natural Philosophy ONLY. Can it be said about all others?

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
Basudeba

Thanks for re-posting your post of 22nd (1 of 3) which I have gone through again in details. The following needs explanation as the 'contradictions' are indeed only apparent;

1) In saying I do the opposite to most and 'assume the problem is with me' it means I don't turn away and assume I'm reading nonsense but persist, as you say. I use logic, so didn't consider anything...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Sir,

As usual you impose your views on us. Hence let us clarify each.

1) We should not assume the fault is either in us or in the theory. In fact we should not assume anything – least of all wrong assumptions, but locate the contradictions or inconsistencies from the natural process and try to resolve them through logic and natural philosophy.

2) “Different view...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

basudeba wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear Sir,

The opinions of Dr. Cosmic Ray is very interesting - specifically: "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." So we reply from that perspective.

What is dimension? How is it different from direction? Can there be angles involving more than 360 degrees? These questions must be precisely and scientifically answered before we proceed...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 10:18 GMT
Hello Peter,

We were talking earlier about the visualisation of protons and neutrons w.r.t toroids, (the neutron having a Mobius twist). I woke-up with a new idea after talking with Ray. I've copied the essentials over for you to comment on:

I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

I've been thinking some more. I thought of a three braided helix 'rope' as the configuration of the proton and neutron toroids. The central thread at the start of the creation of the structure could have a repulsive nature and emit anti-gravitons. The other two would be the familiar Archimedes screw gravitons in attractive configuration. It's a novel thought that needs expanding on I think. Anyhow, bye for now,

Alan

attachments: 5_Note1.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 16:57 GMT
Alan

If we consider 'path', and not a graviton 'particle' I'm fine in principle. As you know, I've found a whole sequence of helical forms upwards of DNA to the CMBR quadrupolar asymmetry, suggesting the universe is just the result of a large toroid quasar black hole recycling process. Follow the 'axis of evil' down the dominant reciprocal cmbr vector and we'll find it, though it seems it should be dormant for a while so don't panic yet. I just referred to the rest of the process in an answer to Ray here.

But ref polarity, spin and 'anti' matter, consider the mechanism; The twin jets of a quasar are both trying to use the centre of the toroid, so will have precession and a right messy time!, the former giving the conical helicity. So to start with we may have two sides of the universe with different something-or-other! gradually coming together as the whole caboodle starts rotation on its new (jet) axis. Will we find increasing antimatter!? As the ejected ions also disturb and condense matter from the energy field (the pretty dark black one!) this will also affect polarity or spin.

It's a very random Stokes-Navier fluid dynamics process, so maybe there will be close local symmetry. It may depends on the actual process of condensation itself. Unfortunately I can't remember that (Q)bit as that particular oscillator either got away or got wiped clean in the re-ionisation process, which is after all the whole point of the process I suppose.

Oh yes, ..and circular polarisation is thereby also explained, ..somehow. The luckiest bit for us is, if time is eternal, but we assume it passes in an instant when we die, and we won't 'know' anything if we're just suns or rocks on recycling, we could go through 10^loads of recycling processes before any of our ions (Q-bits) become part of another sentient being. But then.. we 'think therefore we am'(are) again, so the first thing we know when we die is that we're someone else! (So I'm going to be good again just in case). It's logic, but is it science? They do say science should be fun.!

Does that sound sensible to you?

Peter (Mk17^33)

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Peter,

Yes, it does begin to sound plausible. I'm lost in the language of a modern physicist to some degree perhaps, but I'm getting some of the mental imagery you speak of. The neutron star is definitely something which I'm interested in modelling and relates to the 'inclination hypothesis' which can explain the ice age cycle better than Milankovitch's standard insolation changes with eccentricity. I'm happy with talking about paths and not necessarily particles if you prefer, no problem.

The combination of physics with "we think therefore we am" is an enduring one and I also find the topic upbeat if not a bit fanciful. I've always been aware that a story of creation and an end-life is something that the laymen of the world -want- to hear. If western scientists solved a t.o.e which didn't include this human element, then the psychological game of world unity might be unwittingly lost, in the short term at least.

My original question with regard to proton and neutron torid shapes and constituent configurations was about the so called 'weak gravity field of matter' which doesn't necessarily mean that the gravity force itself is weak. My mental imagery at the moment is a smaller scale than quasars and so called 'black holes', I'm trying to visualise the domains in magnetic iron. Do you remember the first time you felt the magic repulsive force of two magnets Peter? I'm still mystified around 36 years later.

How does your personal model explain the mechanics of an iron magnet? I'm convinced that it's due to gravitons, which can be both repulsive and attractive. The internal dynamic geometry has a break of symmetry which gives a residual weak gravitational field from matter. You must have a different opinion of how to combine the gravity field with the magnetic field presumably. Can you provide something simple that a layman or Scientific American reader could understand I wonder?

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 13:11 GMT
Alan

Not really I'm afraid. And I consider us ALL laymen!

I've never been a fan of 'cannonball' messenger particles. They only had to exist due to removal of the ether, which only had to go to explain CSL for all moving observers.

Now the DFM shows CSL can be explained WITH an 'ether', or quantum field 'condensate', which HAS to 'exist therefore it is' as the CMBR rest frame anyway!, there is no need for all the confusing nonsense that grew around it like mould and weeds. Physics is far simpler, and the only stumbling bock now is those who can't see the rest is now just 'beliefs'.

Magnets can repel because there can be a field (below 'matter' scale) structure the em force configures to attract or repel. We KNOW it's there from experiment. How else could the em field of a moving object carry on, with apparent momentum, when the object is suddenly stopped dead!!? Yes.. it does!

I'm continuously exasperated by the lack of basic intelligence and logic sometimes shown by our supposedly most eminent physicists. If they don't start listenning to me I shall throw my toys out of my pram and go back to Vulcan! - ..well we have to laugh don't we!

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 12:07 GMT
Copy of copy of....Re; DEATH OF ENTANGLEMENT

Edwin

I'm sure you're watching the blogs, but just in case,just posted the below; (I forgot to also mention that geometrically this also explains the failure of the Law of Refraction between co-moving media, and reversal of time averaged Poynting vectors).

Florin

Thanks. The 'transient evolution' viewpoint v 'sudden death' of entanglement was interesting. If we consider the QED view and a Q-bit as a photon, in atomic scattering the energy is continually absorbed and re-emitted (at LOCAL 'c') so a string of 3 Q-bits may not only end up different distances apart (between moving media - [equiv to Doppler shift]) but are of course 'different' Q-bits each time, as, when emitted, their polarisation and path depends on the electron (PMD and birefringence). Looked at in another way this is equivalent to saying that (in macro classic terms) lots of quantum sudden deaths of entanglement may equal a gradual evolutionary death, in a process equivalent to 'diffraction'.

If a string of 3 Q-bits arrives at 'c' but the electron absorbing and emitting the energy is part of another dielectric moving towards the incident medium, the arrival rate will be faster than the emission rate. We therefore have inertial frame transition, maintaining 'c' in the new medium (or c/n subject to PMD) without needing a Lorentz transformation. So now, the gradual death of entanglement gives sudden death of the LT to allow SR with it's paradoxes exchanged for a logical quantum mechanism! And suddenly we have something that meets ALL observation, and the SR postulates! Hmmm.

It's called the discrete field model(DFM) Did you read the essay?; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 A few have grasped it but it but it really isn't easy. And let's toast Alain Connes and his famous toast ... "The Universe" (well.. our current real local one anyway!).

I look forward to your Blog post. And yes, if you'd like to see the Chromatic Dispersion paper mail me at the Email address on the essay.

Best wishes

Peter

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 13:14 GMT
I am familiar with Alain Connes view from Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com...ter-of-particle

"The picture that emerges from the Standard Model, then, is that of spacetime as a noncommutative space that can be viewed as consisting of two layers of a continuum, like the two sides of a piece of paper. The space between the two sides of the paper is an extra discrete (noncontinuous), noncommutative space. The discrete part creates the Higgs, whereas the continuum parts generate the gauge bosons, such as the W and Z particles, which mediate the weak force"

It seems to me non esthetic.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 15:29 GMT
Yuri

The standard model has never been aesthetic to me. See my above note to Alan today.

I've just posted a reply to Florin in the essay Blog to explain the DFM in two paragraphs. Here it is. Any comments?

Florin

Don't worry, It's still only 1 in 4 who do. It needs the 'different way of thinking' Einstein postulated, very difficult if you use the standards way! There...

view entire post

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Peter

If the standard model has never been aesthetic for you,can you comment following articles?

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHav
eABeginning.asp

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBprob
lems.asp

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

http://bou
rabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 23:54 GMT
With 300+ Posts, there is even still a vanishinly small possibility that you will see this.

Therefore hello again Dr. Jackson and wonderous essay please see my thourough commentary on my own thread, which has an Order of Magnitude leass posts!

To be as cryptic as needed: it is my skeptical concern that the sense with which you misspelled Piers Morgan (On a Pale Horse--read it as a teenager--also wondrous) was intentional and a device of eliciting verbiage. How do you respond? heh

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
Tommy

You did indeed spot my counterfeit triple entendre Fraudian slip. But, though educated to beyond PhD, I am not a Dr so please call me Peter. I repeat the thanks given in your string for your kind words;

"your essay was Magnificent. withdraw it immediately rewrite for Publication, and submit as an AstroPhysical model"

Thank you for your kind comment, which I shall frame for my wall, post to Peers Morgan for his review. With typical scientific anticipatory plagiarism I have indeed taken your good advice and been roundly and consistently rejected. Indeed Florin has just informed me in the Blog Dept (the string about the essay competition is good value) that apparently is it very difficult to get something accepted by 'Nature'. Florin has read it twice but not yet understood it. I had hoped winning here may encourage the chap in charge of science to take note. ..Hey Ho. By the way..who is he anyway?

Yet I am a tenacious type Tommy. As the DFM is quite a powerful weapon, and seems to fire magic bullets, I pointed it at a high profile astronomy problem, which it resolved immediately, and the paper was accepted for peer review! (The rejection letter is actually now overdue!)

If you'd like to have a go with it be my guest, just think of a high profile subject for headline story and we'll see what it can do. If you haven't seen this yet you may enjoy it;

I'm not actually convinced theoretical physics can now progress any more. We may be entrenched a bit too deep in the rut! What do you think?" (edited)

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 10:55 GMT
Dear Peter,

In my thread 833 you pointed me to a paper. I looked into it as to find data of measured velocity in excess of c according your claims. I only found values mentioned up to 500 km/s measured by means of (perhaps not relativistic) Doppler effect, while c roughly amounts 300 000 km/s. Errare humanum est. Why did you not yet reply and corrected me?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 14:31 GMT
Eckard

Sorry, to correct you; See Fig 5 caption, and AGN jets. (approx 7c). Also Ref to Blazars; 'ultrarelativistic'. (last page). But most importantly, the MEDIUM they move within. All this even after the attack by the thought police.

Best wishes

Peter

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Peter

I think that the experiments late Stefan Marinov contain answers to your questions.

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

All the best

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 01:23 GMT
Peter

I send to you e-mail about Marinov basic results of experiment (PDF)

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

AndyM wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/superlu

minal.pdf

seems to be a simple version of a geometric argument for apparent superluminal motion using very simple, standard physics/math. What is wrong with their geometrical argument?

Andy

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 16:14 GMT
Andy

Good question, and it perfectly demonstrates my point about our willingness to abandon logical rigour (or even BASIC logic) on the alter on mathematics. We simply forget logic and trust meaningless numbers. Yes. the numbers work fine, and do prove something, but bear little relation to reality! - by the same token as you can prove anything with statistics. Let's test your logic with the falsities of the 'solution';

1). It is only one case. In cases where the jet vector is close to 90 degrees it is inapplicable, and indeed indeed where receding it is the opposite! - the jet will appear slowed by the exact same amount. As almost ALL galactic (smbh) Quasar jets have apparent superluminal core pulses the orientation in space could not be anything like random compared to the Milky Way.

2). Spectroscopy can tell us relative speed without having to rely purely on apparent rate of lateral transit. There are some better coloured cross sections around than the one I posted for Eckard.

3). The Initial 'assumptions' say it all. We are supposed to ignore any motion of the emitter or observer, yet we are told space is expanding!, so effectively 'd' is increasing, i.e. either the emitter or receiver (or both) are receding quite quickly. This has a very significant effect on the results! Just add redshift z=6.5 to the equation and see what happens!!

In fact with a max of just short of 8c the 'real' apparent speed is likely to be nearer the order of 4c, but of course, like the centre of a stream viewed from the bank, the ions are only doing 'c' wrt their neighbours, which are only doing 'c' wrt theirs, etc. etc to the outer 'incentric' collimated layer, which does the same speed at the jet head, 'c' wrt the ambient medium.

Astronomers and physics still use the illogical 'maths' Oxford professor Charles Dodgson was parodying when he wrote is book "Alice in Wonderland". Can you now understand the issues and real solution?

Peter

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 12:16 GMT
Gentlemens

I wonder why you did not notice or do not want to notice the radical view that an independent investigator.Remember this name: name,Friedwardt Winterberg

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

http://
bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 30, 2011 @ 19:45 GMT
Yuri

Thank you.

I have followed all your links. I agree with much therein, but they don't have the magic bullet explaining CSL to give them the power to shift a paradigm. This is in the DFM. Please ask if you don't understand how it does it.

Anyway, I've now had a word with the man in charge of physics and managed to persuade him the current fools have it all wrong, so he's sent an edict out to change it, insisting all old text books are now burnt or returned. It should be appearing in all the journals this week. The 'New Scientist' scooped it and published ahead of the rest last week 26th March, see headline "Start from Scratch" He's told all professors and editors they'll loose their jobs by June if they don't get themselves up to date by then and stop teaching and publishing all the nonsense.

Ahhh.. we can all dream!

If you'd like to borrow my magic bullets you're very welcome. Just point at any problem you wish and fire. Throw a problem in the air if you wish me to show you how it works. Or if you know any geniuses who can knock it into something that looks like mainstream put them on to me. Mostly dissidents are one man crusades, completely useless to form a winning army from!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ replied on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Peter

I would like reminding Freeman Dyson quote:

"It seems to me that only two things could have action

In fact be disastrous for the future of physics. One of them

realized would be if we could resolve all major

unsolved problems. That would be a real disaster, but I do not afraid what can happen in any foreseeable future.

Second disaster caught up to us if we had to fight for the chi-

simplicity would be so isolated themselves from the problems of real life that no one of gifted and dedicated science students did not wish to engage in physics. This second danger is very real to me."

Freeman J. D y s o n , The Future of Physics, Phys. Today 23 (9) (1970).

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 2, 2011 @ 13:56 GMT
NOVEL PREDICTION CONFIRMED Post to Eckard, repeated here.

Eckard

As this concerns sound I thought you might like it.

A novel prediction of the DFM has just been proven correct; Sunlight can carry sound significantly faster than Mach1.

This is equivalent to the DFM explanation of apparent superluminal jets. This is anyway, (apparently against your insistence), already proven by the fact that on Concorde, at Mach2, sound and em waves do go forward as well as backwards, indeed even reputedly at the same speed each way wrt the jet!

I have watched Concord fly many times, with light inside it, and can promise you that, from my reference frame, the plane does NOT appear to contract when the lights are on, so the light is certainly moving superluminally from MY frame, (because mine and all other -non local- frames are invalid for measurement!) i.e. No LT needed.

I thought you may have finally understood this from my last post, but have yet to find a reply.

The Sunlight experiment confirms that our ideas about transmission of both are simplistic and archaic, and that they are related (via 'scattering'.) It was filmed live by the BBC, with a group of physicists. It was 'rough science', using two large bean cans, with a mirror fixed to the base of can 1, reflecting sunlight to the base of can 2 some way away. Speak into can 1. With the mirror covered nothing is heard at can 2. When light is reflected accurately it's carried almost instantaneously to can 2 and heard clearly. So much for old science!

Peter

Alec MacAndrew replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
This experiment doesn't require any novel predictions" of DFM or any other new "theory". It simply illustrates the fact that information (in this case speech) can be transmitted by amplitude modulation of a light beam. The light beam isn't "carrying" the sound - at the transmitter end the sound vibrations on the foil mirror deflect the light beam which in effect amplitude-modulates the light and the variations in intensity have to be detected by a light sensor (eg a photo-diode) at the receiver end and demodulated back into sound with headphones or speakers. Obviously the signal is transmitted at the speed of light not the speed of sound. This is no different, in principle, from radio or microwave communication or data transfer by optical fibre (although the modulation and demodulation schemes and means will be different in detail). Information transmission (including speech) by electromagnetic waves has been demonstrated since the 1890s. I carried out a very similar experiment to the Rough Science one but using a laser beam rather than sunlight as a simple exercise in lab work as a first year undergraduate 40 years ago. This stuff is elementary and fully understood. Old science indeed!

As for the nonsense about Concorde, of course sound waves inside it propagate forward even when it's flying at Mach 2 because sound propagates at its characteristic speed with respect to the medium, in this case air, which, inside the fuselage, is at rest with respect to the fuselage. The measured speed of sound depends on the motion of the observer relative to the medium. Light however is different in that its measured speed is always independent of the speed of the observer.

Finally, I am astonished that you think that you could observe Lorentz contraction of Concorde. Mach 2 is 680m/s, the speed of light is 300,000,000m/s so the Lorentz contracted length (sqrt(1-v2/c2)) at Mach 2 is 0.9999999999975 of the length at rest which, since Concorde is 62 meters long, represents a Lorentz contraction of 0.00015 microns or about 1.5 Angstroms (just slightly more than the diameter of a hydrogen atom). (At Mach 2, Concorde's length increases by about 15cm due to thermal effects - which effect is a billion times greater than the Lorentz contraction at Mach 2).

All these are baby mistakes that you are making and yet you are constantly contemptuous of professional physicists. It might help to learn some elementary physics.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Alec

Thanks for your interest but you've actually missed all 3 points! Partly my fault as I was posting to Eckard (Bleumstein) who is a sound specialist. Firstly; yes, of course we've assumed amplitude modulation, (and indeed other aspects) and for over 100 years, but the point is that this is suggesting something different;

It was a rigid mirror not foil, transmitted through air...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alec MacAndrew replied on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Peter,

The problem you have in this post (and more generally in your essays and other threads above) is that you don't really understand the meaning of the words and concepts you are using. What you write might seem to make sense to you, but to a professional physicist you clearly misunderstand nearly every concept you refer to. Physics is a wonderful career and hobby and if you used as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT
New Measurement of the Earth’s Absolute Velocity with the Help

of the “Coupled Shutters” Experiment

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-

05.PDF

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 18, 2011 @ 11:19 GMT
Yuri

Very interesting, consistent with the CMBR rest frame and the discrete field model.

Even more interesting, thank you for the Feynman quotes I noticed on Eckard's string, where he also agrees with the DFM and Einstein;

"I believe that the theory that space is continuous is wrong, because we get these infinities and other difficulties, and we are left with questions on what determines the size of all particles. I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry, extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong" [1]. "Another way of describing this difficulty is to say that perhaps the idea that two points can be infinitely close together is wrong - the assumption that we can use geometry down to the last notch is false" [2].

[1]R.P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (The M.I.T. Press, 1990), p. 166.

[2] R.P. Feynman, QED (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1985), p. 129.

That now seems to give the DFM concept a pretty full collection of the eminent's in support! Thank you.

Peter

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 10:20 GMT
Hi Peter,

Sorry to change the subject a bit, but I remember you talking about a vortex lattice, if I'm not mistaken. I came across the same words again in this Winterberg link with an accompanying diagram which I found intriguing. The thing is, I was modelling the field lines of a magnet in a similar way to Descartes in 1644 as it turns out and found the diagram inspirational. Descartes should have modelled the gravitons/anti-gravitons travelling in straight lines of course with the resultant force becoming the observed field lines in iron filings. This gives a good agreement but not a perfect one. The field lines extend further out from the centre of the magnet than anticipated with this simple adjustment. A solution is to use the Inclination Hypothesis i.e. that the gravity field is stronger on the plane of rotation of a celestial body, and incorporate it into the model to resolve this problem. This change of axis of the nucleons through 90 degrees towards the centre from each of the two ends is shown in the diagram attached.

I suspect you don't know what I'm talking about, but if you do, is this something that relates to your version of a vortex lattice diagram??

Kind regards,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 11:33 GMT
Peter,

I've created a new simple model of the proton and neutron which you may be interested in. See attached. The U-shaped proton will have the effect of bending the base quark into a lens shape. This will focus the graviton/anti-graviton emissions into a particle, the electron, which will then continue to travel outward as a discrete unit due it's new configuration.

Alan

attachments: 1_Quark_Lens_Creates_Electron.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 21:46 GMT
Alan

You lost me with that last bit. I saw what you were getting at in the 2nd fig, and ..perhaps translated to 3D as a toroid, but I visualise a helical field around the toroid 'sectional tube' as it rotates, indeed two opposing polar helical fields, as a scaled down AGN (smbh)/tokamak. There are three rotations in all as a torus has two axis and two directions round the 'tube'.

What you describe sunds like an option, But I don't remember the context I was talking about vortex lattice, and tend to shy away from particle physics, due mainly to it's unfalsifiability and the lack of intution of the standard model, which I haven't yet bought. Sorry I can't help more than that.

Peter

Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 09:37 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for the reply, it was helpful and allowed me to understand your mental image of the torus shaped quark. How do you envisage the configuration of the three tori in a proton and a neutron though? Is it any different to the view given in this simulation model? If you wait until the end of the simulation you'll see that the nucleus-nucleus collision results in debris which is at a 45 degree angle compared to the vertical proton-proton collision debris. Do you have an explanation for this at all? Any first thoughts about why the debris appears to 'flock' at around 110 particles or more as stated in the Scientific American based article?

Cheers,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT
Hi Alan

I don't fully understand what they're calling a nucleus compared to protons.

Considering the acceleration field configuration, possible particle configurations and relative masses, assuming the nucleus is much heavier, As a first intuitive guess, I'd expect it to have to find steeper 'banking' to make the curve at the same speed as a lighter particle, i.e. for instance it's polarisation or toroid orientation would change, ergo it's energy axis.

Sound fair? But we need much more knowledge for any more than wild guesses!

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 7, 2011 @ 10:03 GMT
Copy of post to Eckard Blumstein. see his important attachment;

Eckard

Excellent if not quite complete analysis in your post to Tom; [ attachments: Tom2.doc ] Your last sentence is entirely equivalent to my theorem, as stated to Tom, that of infinitely many possible inertial frames there is only one valid frame for measurement.

This removes any need for the LT to support SR (substituting plasma ion scattering/PMD), thus unifying it with QM and allowing Einstein's great goal of Local Reality.

Have I passed you this one;? You are in the space station observing a Pan American highway 10,000km long. Someone switches the street lights on, and they progressively light, from one end to the other, within 0.01 secs. You see this, do the math and, using current physics you'll say;, "..MEIN GOT! That light moved at over 3 x 'c'!.. we must apply the LT formulae to tame it! (if rotation/orbit is the opposite way it will appear even faster from your frame).

In fact the street lights are individual sources each emitting light, at 'c'. This is entirely equivalent to atomic scattering, which is how all light propagates in any dielectric, including ionospheres (plasma variable n = say 1.00001) the interplanetary medium (n = 1), and the glass of the space station windows (at c/n, where n = 1.55).

Imagine those street lights, and think it through, over and over again. Only your mind can handle the dynamics, if you train it to, maths can't.

The Earth, (and Concorde) and the space station are different discrete reference frames (fields) Do let me know if and when you start to see it.

Peter

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 19, 2011 @ 03:15 GMT
Peter

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 12:32 GMT
Yuri

Very interesting. Thank you. There's a strong Guage theory analogue to the DFM. I can't say I immediately understood or agreed with all his detail, but found many consistent concepts. I might even pop him an email through!

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Alan

Thanks for the latest dark matter Halo link in the blogs, (Law UCLA, AAS Jan 11) you're right, it's exactly as the DFM predicts, and also directly supports my galaxy secular evolution theory. NGC891, WHIM and 'Dark Gas' also does as and;.

Yuri

The Feynman quote;

"I believe that the theory that space is continuous is wrong, because we get these infinities and other difficulties,"

Was brilliant support too, as was his tacit recognition of the limits of maths 'vector space.'

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
Peter,

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 15:51 GMT mentions your essay as appropriate to the new blog on "Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit" here. You might want to check it out.

Also, thanks for the responses about QM on the other blog.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 27, 2011 @ 20:10 GMT
Edwin. Thanks, I'll take a look. In the meantime a repeat of an important Blog post which may get lost; Views?

Edwin, et al.

A proposition; - Light is only visible when scattered by matter. - (DFM). I've derived that to try to engender a new way of thinking.

We cannot 'see' a light wave or photon moving through a vacumm. If the em energy interacts with a particle, - it becomes 'visible'. This always includes the particles of our lenses. 'n' as we know, always applies to particles (media). We can only measure light speed in 2 ways. 1) dt. 2) via instruments with particles. We thought this was paradoxical if instruments move. Not if we understand the mechanism. If we understand the implications of this, it makes the DFM the biggest thing to hit science since the big bang!

Edwin; I believe this is largely compatible with the C-field. In your view, what is the mechanism for Polarisation mode dispersal (PMD), Birefringence, and up and downshifted scattering itself, from particles at rest, if they don't include inherent oscillatory motion? Is there any reason why the C- field, while stressing the central importance of the 'external wave' has to also rely on gluons being perhaps lumps of something stuck fast and 'frozen' stiff, instead of also allowing a certain duality?

For your interest; http://www.wbabin.net/files/4364_anderton109.pdf Roger Anderton is a committed Einstein critic and Newton fan, hasn't got a solution, and I believe is bogged down off track, but still has much pertinent to say, and this gives some interesting angles on Einsteins UFT.

Does anybody think they can see or detect light without it being scattered by particles of matter?

In that case, can anybody see where it was we all went off track and got bogged down ourselves?

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 21:34 GMT
Peter,

I'm not at all sure I understand most of your questions, but I'll try to respond to a few.

First, "Light is only visible when scattered by matter." Depending upon what you mean by 'visible' that certainly seems true. Until it interacts with intermediate matter, or directly with the matter in your eye, there is nothing that would be described as 'visible' about a photon.

Then you ask: "what is the mechanism for Polarisation mode dispersal (PMD), Birefringence, and up and downshifted scattering itself, from particles at rest, if they don't include inherent oscillatory motion?"

There is no such animal as a particle 'at rest' in an absolute sense. Most scattering occurs from electrons bound to an atom or ion and such bound particles are essentially oscillatory about the binding center.

You ask: "Is there any reason why the C-field, while stressing the central importance of the 'external wave' has to also rely on gluons being perhaps lumps of something stuck fast and 'frozen' stiff, instead of also allowing a certain duality?" I'm not sure where you got the idea of "lumps of something stuck fast and 'frozen' stiff" -- there's nothing like that in my theory. And 'gluons', in my theory, are C-field-based. The particle in my theory is a stable C-field toroid, but there's nothing "stuck fast and 'frozen' stiff". A stable Calabi-Yau manifold is a dynamic entity, but not a dualistic one.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Apr. 24, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT
It seems to me very interesting

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~oliver/Nature_article.pdf

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

John Gadway wrote on May. 7, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Peter,

You were the last person to comment on my essay, #903. That was March 13. I am pleased that you thought, based only on reading my essay, that you thought I might be competent to read yours. I’ve made two different runs at it, and I suspect that if I make a third I might start to get somewhere with it. I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, but am very interested in the findings and the philosophy of both fields.

I like your observation that we cannot see photons ‘in flight.’ I take a rather literary or poetic view of photons, basing myself on what I think physics has to say about them.

For example, travelling at the speed of light, in their frame of reference, time grinds to a halt. If they experience no extension in the time direction of spacetime, they are not ‘in’ spacetime, so how could we see them?

I also note that we see them when they enter spacetime by giving up their essence—energy—to an electron. We see their death in spacetime. Their lives are not in spacetime, so we can’t see them.

My thinking about photons has been stimulated by a remark by Bernard Haish [The God Theory] that, since they do not experience a lapse of time in their flight, being absorbed instantly after being emitted. If they didn’t know where they were going, they wouldn’t start their journey into the unknown. Unlike us, photons apparently don’t travel into the unknown.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 12, 2011 @ 10:36 GMT
Hi John

I make a point of heading for the 'unknown', which is how we learn. Unfortunately almost all of what we call known is ultimately proved wrong. (J Minkowski etc).

I have a more literal than literary view. There are real mechanisms going on which can be described in many ways by many creatures in the universe, including by mankind in poetry and maths. But we have forgotten logic!;

The important thing about electrons reabsorbing photons and re-emitting them is the fact that they do so at 'c'. Now - think carefully,. They do so at THEIR OWN 'c', so if they're in a different inertial frame (i.e. lump of ice with a plasma cloud round it in space) they go through it at c/n. (Refractive index is part of the Laws of Physics.)

This means it always changes speed to the local 'c'.

This means the reason for all the confusing nonsense we have in physics keeping SR and QM apart never existed in the first place! It means all observers will see light at 'c' whatever their motion.

The fact that this seems too complicated for most physicists to understand, or accept, is a sad indictment on human intelligence. But at least it may allow us to discern which ones to give the jobs to once it emerges!

You should see the logic better an a non indoctrinated student of nature. I hope you do. Do let me know.

Best wishes

Peter

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 8, 2011 @ 19:36 GMT
EXCELLENT NEWS

THE DFM PREDICTION THAT THE LENSE-THIRRING EFFECT (FRAME DRAGGING) WILL BE FOUND HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. (NASA GRAVITY PROBE B)

THIS MEANS THE PLANETS LOCAL FIELD HAS A DIFFERENT INERTIAL FRAME TO THE SPACE AROUND IT.

WE MAY EXPECT PATCHES TO BE PUT OVER THE GAPING HOLE IT TEARS IN MUCH OF PRESENT PHYSICS, BUT, ANYONE READING THIS, PLEASE CONSIDER THE LOGICAL AND FALSIFIABLE DFM SOLUTION.

Thank you Edwin, I'll respond to your post above shortly. (and John - Yes I think Haish has some excellent insight ref GR).

Peter

Alec MacAndrew wrote on May. 22, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
Hi Peter,

You said "THE DFM PREDICTION THAT THE LENSE-THIRRING EFFECT (FRAME DRAGGING) WILL BE FOUND HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. (NASA GRAVITY PROBE B)". Can you explain just how the Lense-Thirring effect could possibly be 'predicted' by you when the prediction was made 93 years ago in 1918 in the famous paper (Thirring and Lense, Phys Z 19, 156 - 163 (1918)). Lense and Thirring derived approximate solutions to the Einstein field equations in the presence of a rotating mass (and inside a rotating shell). This is a proper physics prediction mind you, with a formula from which the actual magnitude of the effect can be derived. Even the exact solution to the Einstein field equations in the presence of an uncharged rotating mass, the Kerr vacuum, has been known for nearly 50 years.

Can you tell us where you made the 'prediction' and show us how you use the DFM to arrive at a quantified value for the predicted drag at the earth's poles (something that Thirring and Lense did 93 years ago)?

(By the way the magnitude of the effect caused by the rotating earth is tiny - about 220 milliarcseconds per year or one degree in 16 and a half thousand years at the earth's poles). See Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler; or Gravitation and Inertia by Ciufolini and Wheeler.

You make reference to Gravity Probe B, but that experiment has been planned since the 1970s with the specific intention of detecting predicted relativistic effects in the earth's gravitational field. In the orbit of Gravity Probe B the effects on a gyroscope are the deSitter precession at about 6.6 arcsec per year and the Lense-Thirring drag at about 42 milliarcseconds per year.

The recent announcement by the Stanford team is that the GP-B results confirm the Lense-Thirring drag with an error of about 19%. If that's a triumph, it's a triumph for the accuracy of Einstein's General Relativity in describing gravitation effects in a spacetime curved by the presence of mass.

You also said: "WE MAY EXPECT PATCHES TO BE PUT OVER THE GAPING HOLE IT TEARS IN MUCH OF PRESENT PHYSICS...", but I'm at a loss to understand why patches are required or what gaping holes are torn in physics by the confirmation of a prediction of General Relativity made 93 years ago. I should have thought that would strengthen GR as a component of present physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 23, 2011 @ 08:02 GMT
Hi Alec

Reasonable questions, but still seems a little in line with your rather erroneous view that I "don't really understand the meaning of the words and concepts" I use.

The whole point is that I'm challenging and re-interpreting 'standard' understandings, most of which I am indeed familiar with. But those who believe science is 'all now sorted and correct' will of course not see...

view entire post

attachments: Essay_GUT_AbstractMay16.pdf

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
New evidence of "particle AND wave' versus 'particle OR wave':

Peter,

All sorts of good experiments being reported! On several threads I posted Seven Step Logic claiming that QM is based on 'particles AND waves' instead of the standard interpretation 'particles OR waves'.

It appears that a new two-slit experiment based on Aharonov's 'weak measurements' suggest that I am right on this:

From the article:

Explains Steinberg. "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"

"The double slit experiment heavily influenced the principle of complementarity devised by Niels Bohr. Complementarity states that observing complementary variables, such as the particle-like trajectories and the wave-like interference in the double-slit experiment, depends on the type of measurement made -- the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously."

"Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case -- the system can behave as both."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate