Search FQXi

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

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 Fund.

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

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/31/12 at 22:46pm UTC, wrote Rich, You wrote: "The waves know nothing of the approaching medium so...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 10/30/12 at 9:30am UTC, wrote Judy Yes, thanks. I appreciate you comments and agree both CSL cases. Ref...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 10/30/12 at 9:24am UTC, wrote Eckard, I see your point, but consider; The waves know nothing of the...

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/20/12 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Peter, When I declared Fig. 1 of Richard Nixey's essay obviously wrong I...

Judy N: on 10/20/12 at 16:39pm UTC, wrote Peter I liked your clarification of Richards fig 1. I'd read Eckards post...

Peter Jackson: on 10/15/12 at 12:16pm UTC, wrote Richard Eckard suggests your Fig.1 is 'obviously wrong' (showing waves...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:57am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/3/12 at 6:10am UTC, wrote Dear Richard, I have read your essay a few times. I'm still not quite sure...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Mr Hosein, the MWI of Everett is a philosophical different..." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "Reality is a many-worlds Quantum level event." in Good Vibrations

Kwan Chiang: "Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Monika Součková: "What do you feel the most exciting or effective learning environment would..." in Quantum Machine Learning...

Jim Snowdon: "Had we evolved on a swiftly rotating planet like the Earth, our..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "If the rotational motion of the moon is 370km per hour, and the rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and..." in How does an Isolated...

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
January 18, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Kinetics and the Conserved Photon Particle Assumption by Richard William Kingsley-Nixey [refresh]

Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

ABSTRACT History has shown that at any moment in time the majority of assumptions used in theoretical physics are probably incorrect. Why should this have suddenly changed now? Inconsistencies and anomalies abound across and between all parts of physics, from cosmology and astro-physics to quantum mechanics (QM) and the standard model. We have identified a long held assumption with wide implications, perhaps equivalent to the single key log holding up a great river with a complex log-jam, representing confused physical theory. The assumption is the conserved ballistic light particle. We postulate plucking this log from the jam to see if it collapses and allows the natural kinetic flow of theory. But we find this task may take a new way of thinking, and other assumptions, often well hidden, to be abandoned. We also give a warning to those downriver. Academia may not be ready or willing to deal with the release of this log-jam and some destruction and mayhem may result. Those prepared for the change may do the best. We logically consider Cluster probe shock findings, radio signal behaviour, and implications for application of mathematics. We show a non conserved translating 4D twin vortex, produced 'en 'masse' at boundary interactions. We've also reading many excellent FQXi 2012 essays, find and identify much consistency with an underlying kinetic cosmos. Apologies to the many we've been unable to get to.

Author Bio

Graduated Brunel University, UK. Inc. Bachelors degree in bio-chemistry, Medical Research Council (MRC, Neuropsychiatric research unit). Research in physical chemistry and electro-magnetism. Biochemistry and related Research, Pfizer UK (developing growth promotants), Now specialising mainly in em, radio telemetry, and telecommunications with continued wider research interests in physics history, light, astrophysics, relativity and cosmology.

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 08:37 GMT
Richard

I'm humbled by the citations from you and others, and by your generosity in attributions when it's clear your own understanding is commendable. Thank you, if only for gleaning the meaning from my own essay, and it's central relevance. Seeing your visual interpretation of my translating toroidal em field/ mini black hole was a weird but wonderful experience and I agree with your views. Precisely how this would relate to a recycling and jetting (AGN) model I'm not sure. Any ideas?

The analysis of the effect on em energy crossing an em shock was simple and clear as a change in speed between media to conserve local c/n. My own essay makes the point, missed by all of physics up to now, that this change is twofold. Logical interpretation of Fresnel's index of refraction allows no other resolution, one is Kinetic (relative media v) the other related to the medium rest frame (relative n). This is implicit but not discussed at length in your essay, but you cover many aspects well. You've linked aspects of many other essays but resist a temptation to make yours a 'review'

Congratulations on dealing well with a seminally important aspect of nature. And thanks again for the mentions. Pleased o give me your views on the, quite new, findings of asymmetry of charge found by using non point particles.

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
Peter

Thanks. I agree with your Torus, and no big bang but the big 'bounce' or recycling theory. The particle model representation is indeed such a toroid twin vortex if considered at rest. I read your helical recycling paper and agree the ejection on the torus axis is implicit.

I was very impressed by the mechanisms described in your essay. It's crucial we get such a conceptual basis resolved before rushing off to abstract maths and get back something that has little resemblence or relevance to reality.

I hope you do well.

Rick

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 07:44 GMT
That is right. Quantization is on emission only, like my experiments, theory and historical analysis has shown, in many places and attempts to publish for ~10 years. For matter AND light.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

Thank You

Eric Reiter

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 07:48 GMT
I forgot to say absorption is thresholded, a subtle difference from quantized.

ER

report post as inappropriate
Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
Eric

Thanks. Thresholded absorption as Regazas essay etc and Planck loading theory is agreed, as the build up is gradual, but I suggest this has to be considered quantized re-emission at the threshold.

I think your and Peter Jackson's essays are very consistent and excellent, though Peters needs much thought on reading to extract all the value.

The Cluster data in mine is solid evidence for his heirarchical frame kinetics which follow a strict logical structure. I hope you and others can co-operate. Are we on the edge of a new paradigm? The main problem is that we're all just individuals at present.

Rich

Jude wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 09:33 GMT
Did the blue diamond pills come from your work on growth promotants?

Super sensible and easy to read essay, and some very important new ways of looking at things, consistent, as you identify, with a number of other good essays.

The Cluster probe data interpretation is a revelation.

Congratulations.

Good luck

Jude

report post as inappropriate

Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 12:12 GMT
Hi Jude.

My growth promotant research was prior to the blue pills, but they did emerge after a little time, and get quite big. It was very hard gaining experimental evidence, but the team grew substantially and with a better balance of female researchers. I did have some input to research on viXra more recently. It was very rewarding, but all things fade away after some time.

I'm now far more focussed on EM energy again, but I bring clarity of analysis and logical interpretation from other sciences. Perhaps also a fresh viewpoint too. I agree with the common view here that most physicist resort to mathematical abstraction far too quickly, before proper conceptual and logical analysis. They are then fooled by the meaningless numbers.

As somebody said of computers, rubbish in, rubbish out. If the universe rerally is a computer the picture we're currently getting from it can only be then rubbish.

Present information overload is just making it worse. I agree more logical structure and rigour of application to interpretations is essential. We just distort findings to match assumtions at present.

I'm convinced the answers are here, in kinetics, and particularly perhaps in the Jackson and Wharton essays, but also many others. They are however beyond the intellect of all those who can't drop chrished assumptions.

Thanks for your kind words, but how do we change things?

Rich

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:51 GMT
Richard

I liked your 'rubbish in rubbish out' reminder and used it elsewhere. I also agree that too many use far too limited information inputs to the decision making process. 'Information overload' is right, as no one person can read and absorb more that 1% of the data coming back from nature and across all the sciences. Like you I read voraciously and across many key subjects, but 'speed reading' has limited value in rationalising complex relationships.

Do you think we should develop new 'systems' of co-operation, to use more than one brain in assimilating, analysing and interpreting information? I can't see that computers are going to help on the business side of a unification theory. Actually I'm quite convinced we already have the sound basis of one between the essays you identify and a few others. Thanks again, and I agree about Ken Wharton's though even Ken also can't seem to see beyond a shortish horizon. I'm pleased at least that you found the commonality.

How do we change things? It's beyond me I'm afraid, I just keep plugging away as I'd feel guilty if I didn't. I have asked, is it really a good thing if we DO get science up to date? Is mankind really ready for it?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:24 GMT
Peter

"Is mankind really ready for it?"

That's a question to make us think! Probably not. But I do like the idea of multiple brains to deal with the overlosd. But we'd have to wire them up somehow. ESP?

I still think the content of your essay is the most important here, Best of luck.

Rich

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Richard,

As far as I know photons are seldom interact with cosmic substance which has small density. The model of photon as rotating fluid particle is described in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13. If such photon interacts with the electron in atom it can pass the rotational momentum to electron and in such way changes the energy of electron. If we suppose that in fluxes of gravitons there are charged gravitons then they can interact with the charges in substance of electrons. So in the fluid of photons we can suppose charged gravitons. The model of charged gravitons easily explains the electric force between two charges also.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 10:59 GMT
Sergey

low ion density, but space is very big, so equivalent interactions over a few light years to a solid lens a few cm thick. Some also may not consider 10^14/cm^-3 particle density that 'low'!

What we do know is that each one interacts. Peter Jacksons essay stunningly identifies the mechanism to produce the effect seen in my figure 2.

I don't subsrcibe to graviton particles, and have not yet seen how they 'easily explain' the electic force beween two charges, as least not in the real way Jacksons mechanism unites epistemological findings into an ontological construction. I none the less appreciated the majority of consistent elements in your essay.

You didn't comment on my translating toroid giving a helical structure, which may not be incompatible with your theory.

Best wishes

Rich

Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear G.S.

Thanks, much appreciated. Few seem to have read my essay. I did read and appreciated yours, which has good consistencies with mine and other good essays, many of which I cite. Indeed I think it was yours I was discussing aspects of with another author recently and you'll be pleased we both may be likely to score yours well.

I agree the system isn't ideal, and an important new mechanism for implementation of SR's CSL common to the Jackson essay and mine does not appear to have been noticed by many. i.e. the 'shock crossing' is what happens at all inertial frame boundaries, at all scales. If we look we find. Let me know if you'd include these two in your top few to give 10 to, as I think the converse is true. and I'd also like to see yours in the finals.

Best of luck.

Rich

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Rich

I enjoyed reading your essay and thank you for reading mine and referring to it when discussing some points. In fact I found it refreshing that you have tried to read so many fqxi essays and found some common themes among us unwashed rebels storming the Bastille of physics. Some thing is gotta give!

Your discussion of photons, constant speed of light (CSL) and phenomena relating to c/n, the absorption and emission of light and phenomena studied by Jackson all require more time to study and assimilate. However I find that discussions of relativity can be easier if one discards once and for all the CSL as a postulate. Because of the Lorentz transformations, the measured speed of light in inertial frames will turn out to be constant anyway. The payoff for discarding CSL as a postulate is when one considers gravitational fields as media of various optical density in which the speed of light slows down less than c, as happens when a car decelerates to take a curve. General Relativity would then becomes infinitely simpler as explained briefly in my essay, and in more detail in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory on which it is based.

I have suggested new starting points, and am gratified that they fit right in with some of the other exciting new ideas and findings, particularly Reiter's wonderful experimental findings disproving the photon-as-particle. You have described the dilemmas facing physics well, but things moving, Recognizing that there are foundational problems, as this fqxi contest theme shows, is an important step. Jackson's idea of combining our ideas is good and may be possible as a sort of internet wiki project. One day the great frozen logjam you describe in people's minds will thaw and a rush of new ideas will enlighten the world with new truths.

I wish you the best of luck now, and then.

report post as inappropriate

Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 04:30 GMT
Dear Richard,

I've been studying your essay for the past few days and can see the connection to Peter Jackson's essay and my own. I think your essay makes some very interesting points and ought to attract some serious attention. The information on Cluster probe shock findings is entirely new to me so I'll need to study it further and consider how it relates to other findings. And likewise with the wonderful visualization of the 4D twin vortex. I may need to ask some detailed questions a bit later as I've had more time to ponder.

Cheers,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Richard William Kingsley-Nixey

Very interesting to see your essay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

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

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Richard

An analogy; You shrink, and sit at rest in the NEW medium frame (K' at n=1), which is doing v through the background frame (K at n=1). You are at the refractive plane with a tape measure and a stopwatch. Your bird at rest (K) in the approach medium has told you the approaching waves are doing c and are 10 metres apart in her frame.

As a wave hits the refractive plane (at...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT
Rich,

A terrific essay. Not only bursting with intersting observations but drawing together synergistic ideas from a wide array of other essays showing the trend in emerging ideas, and fostering the collaborative work so much needed in the boundary areas of science. A nice combination with Peter Jackson's and GS Sandhu's especially. I'm sure you will do well in the finals!

Best wishes,

David

report post as inappropriate
David Rousseau replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT
Rich,

I have given you a very high rating reflecting your well-presented ideas. Hope you will rate our essay too. Thanks for the comments on our thread. Good luck in the finals - sure you will do well!

Best wishes,

David

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 08:59 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Richard,

I have read your essay a few times. I'm still not quite sure what to make of it I'm afraid. Your early point about photons not necessarily being conserved is, I think, important to consider. Very nice, helpful illustrations. There does also seem to be a growing acknowledgement of problems within science, which your turn your attention to at the end. I really just wanted to know that I have not ignored your entry and wish you well in getting constructive feedback, which we all would like. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:57 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 12:16 GMT
Richard

Eckard suggests your Fig.1 is 'obviously wrong' (showing waves doing c/n in a medium). However I've pointed out he was forgetting to allow for the fact that, in your Fig, the medium is moving, and that he must consider himself at rest IN that frame before he can validly measure propagation speed (in this case the 'outside'/background medium would be considered as in motion).

I characterise your explanation as consistent with that explanation, but if not do please advise. You may see Eckard's comment of today in a 7th Oct string on my essay blog. here. I'm not sure Eckard understood your more important Fig.2, so perhaps discuss this if you converse?

I thank you again for your kind comments on my own essay and commiserate that yours did not make the cut. Another who has comprehended and commented is a non author 'Judy N', who I think may share your last name, are you related?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Peter,

When I declared Fig. 1 of Richard Nixey's essay obviously wrong I referred to acoustic waves e.g. in air. I maintain, these waves propagate within air relatively to the medium air. I concluded from c+v on the left side that the medium is moving with v relative to the paper that shows Fig. 1. My point is, this motion of the medium air should be the same on the right side too. My own perspective and variants of measurement do not matter.

Judy,

My apology for my guess that N stands for Nixey. I wonder why your position is a reason for you to hide your identity. If you did reveal to which university you are belonging, this would certainly make your opinion more respected.

When I was a student fifty years ago in Dresden, N. J. Lehmann, our professor of mathematics did not reveal what N stood for. We called him therefore Nabla J. His name Nikolaus is unusual in Germany because to children the Nikolaus means Santa Claus. Nikolaus Joachim Lehmann was a pioneer of small computers in the early 1960 until the government of GDR stopped his work.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey replied on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 09:24 GMT
Eckard,

I see your point, but consider; The waves know nothing of the approaching medium so their speed in the background is relative c plus v in the medium frame.

Lambda then changes in the new medium (which may be a lens or any detector) inversely to frequency. (That is the part often ignored and which it seems Pentcho cannot see the consequences of).

Once the moving medium is traversed (at c in the medium frame) that moving medium ecomes an emitter. Still in that frame, the waves will then be emitted at, and travel at c (in the near field). The speed is then c not c+v, and the wavelength is thus altered.

The really cool bit about Peters model is that he finds (for the far field) how and why the waves then revert to what you propose (not shown in my fig), which is identical to the approaching waves, so relative c plus v again!

The magnetohydrodynamic coupling mechanism is shown in my next diagram (which Peter refers to as equivalent to a fluid dynamic torque converter (as an auto gearbox, but linear) i.e. the particles all emit at c locally, but are in different states of motion, so mechanistically evolving c to c'.

There is classical observed 'Relativity' direct from a quantum mechnism, which is what Einstein was searching for, and probably the biggest breakthrough in physics for over 100 years. It's sad and surprising that nobody seems to have yet noticed or understood. Perhaps it's that most minds only work mathematically not logically?

Rich

PS. No Judy is not related to me

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 22:46 GMT
Rich,

You wrote: "The waves know nothing of the approaching medium so their speed in the background is relative c plus v in the medium frame."

Let me try to understand this in terms of acoustic waves in air. Their speed re air is c. If their speed re a different medium/body is c plus v then I conclude that this medium/body is moving re air with velocity v. Correct? Given this is possible to the left of the medium/body. Why shouldn't then the velocity of the wave in the air to the right of the body also be c re air and c+v re medium/body?

A wave is not a bullet.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Judy N wrote on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT
Peter

I liked your clarification of Richards fig 1. I'd read Eckards post and smiled, There do seem to be few yet comprehending Peters model, supported by Richard, but I promise you don't have to be related to do so! Just intelligence and receptiveness to new conceps seem to suffice.

No, Eckard the N does not stand for Nixey, and we are not related in any way. I wish to be discrete due to my position, but the site admin has my Email address with my name, and I agree to Brendan confiming for you that the N is not for 'Nixey'.

Richard; I hope you're still about and interested. You must be disappointed at the results but so are many. I think the Cluster probes shock crossing analysis agreeing with Peter's hypothesis is quite brilliant. Thpough again few seem to comprehend the kinetics I encourage you to persist. I hope you also saw the close link with 'continuous spontaneous localisation' discussed, which seems to describe the coupling process in your shock.

Judy

report post as inappropriate

Author Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Judy

Yes, thanks. I appreciate you comments and agree both CSL cases. Ref Eckards matchmaking, I confirm I'm single and available but well over 60 I'm afraid.

Rich