FQXi Community

CIG Theory combines quantum physics with relativity.

This is the MTS equation.

T = %"c"

M = Matter

S = Space (vacuum energy)

www.CIGTheory.com

It is offered as a quantum gravity theory.

report post as inappropriate

"Quantum mechanics and relativity are based on two different conceptions of time. In quantum mechanics (...) this collapse occurs at one precise time. Relativity, by contrast, tells us that different observers can disagree on when in time an event occurred."

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

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

For light waves v=c and we have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT

Frank Wilczek suggests that special relativity's absurd concept of time is the root of evil:

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

view entire post

Frank Wilczek suggests that special relativity's absurd concept of time is the root of evil:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." Playing with paradoxes is part of a theoretical physicist's vocation, as well as high-class recreation. Let's play with this one. (...) As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

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

Petcho,

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Pentcho, Peter, John :

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

As regards Time Dilation:

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

"What about testing the gravitational time dilation predicted by general relativity? That's actually one of the simpler tests to carry out."

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT

Einsteinians test time dilation, the glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

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

view entire post

Einsteinians test time dilation, the glorious consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

MIT Department of Physics: "The idea of this experiment is, in effect, to compare the mean time from the creation event to the decay event (i.e. the mean life) of muons at rest with the mean time for muons in motion. Suppose that a given muon at rest lasts for a time tb. Equation 5 predicts that its life in a reference frame with respect to which it is moving with velocity v, is (gamma)tb, i.e. greater than its rest life by the Lorentz factor gamma. This is the effect called relativistic time dilation. (...) In this experiment you will observe the radioactive decay of muons and measure their decay curve (distribution in lifetime) after they have come to rest in a large block of plastic scintillator, and determine their mean life. From your previous measurement of the mean velocity of cosmic-ray muons at sea level and the known variation with altitude of their flux, you can infer a lower limit on the mean life of the muons in motion. A comparison of the inferred lower limit with the measured mean life at rest provides a vivid demonstration of relativistic time dilation."

Note that when Einsteinians refer to muons "at rest", they mean that those muons "come to rest in a large block of plastic scintillator". That is, any time a muon bumps into an obstacle so that its speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, the forced and quick disintegration of the muon makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because rationality in today's science is so devastated that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' (nobody cares to contradict them) and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons undergo time dilation, as predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, and so live longer than crashing ("at rest") muons. Sane scientists (if there are any) would compare the short lifetime of muons "at rest" with the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall:

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

"Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT

The Speed of Light Relative to the Receiver Varies with the Speed of the Receiver

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

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

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

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

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

Thinking out loud here...

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John M, doug, JC.

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

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

view entire post

John M, doug, JC.

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

Now was it JC or Akimbo who asked this and I forgot to respond? But when a fluctuation (wave), which has an optical axis normally normal to it's propagation direction, interacts with the torus it will be both helped on it's way (so toroid spin derives local c) AND it's axis on re-emission slightly changed due to 2 asymmetries;

A; The orientation of the torus (a local EM field function), and

B; The relative motion of the torus through the propagation medium (or wrt the last re-emission). OAM is involved but we won't got into that here.

Plasma n=1 means there's no 'delay', but the effect is a slight rotation (see last years essay, including the experimental evidence) of the optical axis which is 'apparent source position', AWAY from the causal wavefront plane.

If space is expanding AT ALL then each ion is moving slightly away from us, giving a tiny redshift at each interaction, but accumulating. (We also don't know the effect of the expanding dark energy 'continuum' on the waves!). However this discrete field 'DFM' description incorporates, so can explain, pretty well all phenomena, including the anomalous and poorly understood ones, a quick list includes;

Dark energy, dark matter, refraction, Faraday rotation, elliptical polarity, birefringence, annihilation, the kSZ effects and KRR, the LT, optical breakdown, special relativity, curved space-time, quantised gravity/GR, QM's Copenhagen interpretation, the Dynamic Casimir effect, virtual electrons, galaxy bars and cyclic evolution, pre 'big bang' conditions, the Kerr effects etc etc. (the list goes on). Each of those is derived in the DFM papers. Unfortunately the foundational mechanism is slightly different to current doctrine, with significant affect right across science, so the model is probably quite wrong. Does it sound correct to you?

Many perceive a new basis is needed, but can't see beyond the old. When we consider how many text books would need replacing and how many professors would need to throw away much of what they know, I suspect the ontology has almost zero chance of being assimilated let alone found correct (or at least not until ~2020). Perhaps that's a good thing. What do you think?

Peter

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John, As regards your comment:

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

The solution to the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

I concur.

THX

report post as inappropriate

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

Peter,

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

Background...

view entire post

Peter,

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

Background radiation would simply be the solution to Olber's paradox, ie. the light of ever distant sources, but shifted off the visible spectrum and remaining as black body radiation.

I think alot of this goes back to the dismissal of space as nothing more than a an effect of measurement points. I think it is the quanta that expand and contract, which we interpret as the expansion and gravitational contraction of space.

Doug,

"What started as a massive particle lost that mass and became spatial, and could then travel closer to the speed of light. Matter loses mass as it travels fatser and faster, it does not, as Einstein offers, gain mass."

I see it as close to this, though it is simply the quantum expanding out and where it is absorbed the quickest is what reacts first. Go back to Eric Rieter's entry in the Questioning the Foundations contest, where he experimentally shows what he calls the loading principle of light. That these detector atoms already have some residual radiation and it is what needs to be additionally absorbed to trip them to a higher level, sort of light popping corn, as Constantinos Ragazas describes it. Remember the only real measure of quanta are the amount of energy, not any particular object.

"Put a cold balloon in the refrigerator. Take it out and watch the space increase inside the balloon. Do we agree that there is new spatial volume inside the balloon? If yes, where did that space come from? MTS"

A big issue I have with all expanding space concepts is they still rely on a stable speed of light to measure the expansion. Thus C is the denominator and the expansion is the numerator. That's not expanding space, but an increasing amount of stable space. Remember 'space is what you measure with a ruler' and the cosmic ruler is a unit derived from C. So space outside the bubble just becomes space inside the bubble and the redshift is still classic doppler effect. So either we are at the center of the universe, or redshift is a optical effect.

Regards,

John M

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

doug,

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

doug,

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

Peter,

"A fast moving observer will encounter signals more frequently"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 14:58 GMT

The Lorentz transforms are equally valid whether one is moving toward the source or away from the source. The solutions for time dilation and length contraction are identical for equal by opposite velocities of the observer. In special relativity the equation e=mc², where e is total energy, is possible only if the direction of travel of the observer is irrelevant.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

No, no, no.

YES!

Does anyone understand CIG?

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil

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

view entire post

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil

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

An exaggeration? No. The idiotic concept of time introduced by special relativity has been paralyzing physics for a very long time. Actually everybody is avoiding it like plague but officially scientists have to regularly sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and pretend to believe the story of the travelling twin who returns younger than his sedentary brother:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

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

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil II

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

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

view entire post

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil II

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

Thibault Damour: "Textbook presentations of Special Relativity often fail to convey the revolutionary nature, with respect to the "common conception of time", of the seminal paper of Einstein in June 1905. It is true that many of the equations, and mathematical considerations, of this paper were also contained in a 1904 paper of Lorentz, and in two papers of Poincare submitted in June and July 1905. It is also true that the central informational core of a physical theory is defined by its fundamental equations, and that for some theories (notably Quantum Mechanics) the fundamental equations were discovered before their physical interpretation. However, in the case of Special Relativity, the egregious merit of Einstein was, apart from his new mathematical results and his new physical predictions (notably about the comparison of the readings of clocks which have moved with respect to each other) the conceptual breakthrough that the rescaled "local time" variable t' of Lorentz was "purely and simply, the time", as experienced by a moving observer. This new conceptualization of time implied a deep upheaval of the common conception of time. Max Planck immediately realized this and said, later, that Einstein's breakthrough exceeded in audacity everything that had been accomplished so far in speculative science, and that the idea of non-Euclidean geometries was, by comparison, mere "child's play"."

Poincaré could not take that step, although the Lorentz transforms (of which he was one of the authors) urged him to do so - the step led to the absurd conclusion that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source and, accordingly, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer nevertheless remains unchanged:

Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à la diffusion de la relativité?, Vincent Borella, p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil III

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

"Einstein’s proof that distant events cannot be unambiguously simultaneous (different observers, moving rapidly with respect to each other, may not always perceive the same time-order of events)."

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

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

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil IV

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 2, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil V

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

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

view entire post

Special Relativity : The Root of All the Evil V

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

"If there's one thing Einstein taught us, it's that time is relative. But physicist Petr Horava is challenging this notion... (...) Now Horava, at the University of California, Berkeley, claims to have found a solution that is both simple and - in physics terms, at least - sacrilegious. To make the two theories gel, he argues, you need to throw out Einstein's tenet that time is always relative, never absolute. Horava's controversial idea is based on the fact that the description of space and time in the quantum and relativistic worlds are in conflict. Quantum theory harks back to the Newtonian concept that time is absolute - an impassive backdrop against which events take place. In contrast, general relativity tells us that space and time are fundamentally intertwined; two events can only be marked relative to one another, and not relative to an absolute background clock. Einstein's subjective notion of time is well accepted and is the hallmark of Lorentz invariance, the property that lies at the heart of general relativity. "Lorentz invariance is not actually fundamental to a theory of quantum gravity," says Horava."

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ.(...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time."

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists... (...) NFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL. (...) In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Neil Turok in a Crazy Situation

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

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

Eckard

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 5, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT

Neil Turok in a Crazy Situation II

String "theorists" are mad at Neil Turok:

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 6, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT

Lee Smolin blames "Newton, Einstein and all the others" for the crisis in modern physics:

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

view entire post

Lee Smolin blames "Newton, Einstein and all the others" for the crisis in modern physics:

"Physics, he [Lee Smolin] says, is in crisis. What is needed is not more delving into the strange soup of string theory, or any other such work, but a fundamental re-working of the common conception of what physics is. Ever since Plato and up to Newton, Einstein and all the others, physics has been crippled by a terrible mistake. Physicists have been wrong in their assumptions about the science they studied. Smolin has arrived, he says, with the corrective. The concept on which Smolin bases his thesis is Time - that most confusing, fungible and counter-intuitive of all the ideas in science, and philosophy. Smolin's contention is that time has been excluded from physics - that the equations of physics have about them the property of being timeless, whereas the natural world does not. This is the contradiction that Smolin highlights and that he seeks to correct."

Two years ago Smolin blamed only Einstein - Newton was OK:

"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Ten years ago Smolin knew exactly where Einstein had gone wrong:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

From Wiki:

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

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

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

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

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

END WIKI

Enter CIG:

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

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

CIG Theory's single postulate:

Believe It or Not

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

He is probably very busy.

I am confused busy.

Pentcho - do you believe in my theory?

I have become Space.

doug

report post as inappropriate

Watching: The Uiverse:Microscopic Universe on TV

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

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

slow = particle

fast = space (wave sphere)

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

Use the CUPI quantification

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Peter & Community:

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

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Doug,

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

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

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

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

Is this the agreement then amongst cosmologists?

Peter's call.

[ ] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

[ ] Dark matter is darker than Dark Energy

THX always for responding

doug

report post as inappropriate

doug,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Thank you for responding. Very reliable you are.

[x] Dark Energy is darker than Dark Matter

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

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Article States:

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

End Excerpt

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

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

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

doug,

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

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

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

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

Best wishes.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

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

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

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

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

OK

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

So, here is my experiment:

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

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

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

Then, re-weigh.

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

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

Only thinking theoretically here.

Your thoughts on my seeding Space in this manner.

THHX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Regarding this picture:

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

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

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

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

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

doug - off topic again

report post as inappropriate

doug,

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

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

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

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter ,

Thank you.

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

Separately -

Going back a few posts:

In a Quasar Cluster Kill post I said:

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Unifying the Ununifiable in Divine Albert's World

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

view entire post

Unifying the Ununifiable in Divine Albert's World

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

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

Obviously if c'=c+v is true, c'=c is false and vice versa. Accordingly, it would be logically absurd to unify conceptions and theories based on c'=c+v and conceptions and theories based on c'=c. Yet in Divine Albert's world nothing is logically absurd ("anything goes") as long as all those conceptions and theories "do really well in their own domain":

Craig Callender: "Just as you said, Shane, the conception of time that quantum mechanics uses really is mostly classical. You can extend it to special relativity, and even there, you have some problems, but you are using this, essentially, Newtonian conception of time. Of course, that raises the big question, the million dollar question about how to unify quantum theory with relativity, since they both seem to do really well in their own domain." (see the interview in print here).

How can two theories both "do really well in their own domain" if at least one of them is based on a false assumption? The short answer is: At least one of the theories is an inconsistency. Here are more elaborate answers:

W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hi Pentcho,

As I understand it,

c = c + v = c - v = c

Proton Radius problem:

My current thoughts:

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

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

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

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

THX for trying to understand

doug

report post as inappropriate

Speed of Light Relative to a Moving Observer

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

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 5, 2013 @ 17:05 GMT

The Fundamental Equation of Special Relativity

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

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Considering that General relativity also predicts that clocks in different gravitational fields can run at different rates;

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 22, 2013 @ 12:26 GMT

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures says:

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

And,

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

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

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT

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

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

Indeed, given the General relativity equation

t_u = t_d (1 - GM/rc²),

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

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

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

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

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

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

Eckard,

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

Regards,

Akinbo

attachments: CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper.pdf

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 3, 2014 @ 18:21 GMT

Akinbo,

I am sure that some experts of IEEE, NIST, and other organizations are well aware of Pound and Rebka. Maybe they will nonetheless accept your abstract if there is only a limited number of those who intend participating.

Good luck,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jan. 4, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT

Eckard, as an EE who I know believes so much in safety, given Einstein's statement (modified) that: "...we can regard Caesium 133 atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so that the following statement will hold: Caesium 133 absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated. The frequency of Caesium 133 atom situated on the surface of Earth,9 192 631 770 Hz will be somewhat less than the frequency of Caesium 133 which is situated in free space...", p.157 and the BIPM definition of a second, what will you advice astronauts going above 10,000km into space? Remember if you are one of the engineers you can be sued knowing the theory and the corroborating experiments if an accident occurs. Will you say Einstein was responsible for the accident or BIPM? Now that commercial private space trips are coming up, if an instrument on board the spacecraft depends on the definition of a second, will you embark on the trip relying on BIPM definition alone or be a bit careful in case Einstein was right?

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

The Metamorphisis of the Ideal Gas Law into CIG Theory's MTS Equation - a New Interpretation (adulteration!) of the Ideal Gas Law

From Wiki:

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Off topic slightly, but stay with me:

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

OK - enter CIG Theory

In search of Fred Hoyle...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIG Theory

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

Can someone see my night sky?

(Does it on Hanukkah too)

Happy Holidays to all

doug

report post as inappropriate

I have developed the Spacetime Wave theory in an attempt to set a top level description for the unification of General Relativity and Quantum theory.

The unification of physics

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

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

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

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

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

Richard

report post as inappropriate

THE VACUUM

Some thoughts while I have them:

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

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

The Quantum Vacuum and the

Cosmological Constant Problem

S.E. Rughand H. Zinkernagely

To appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

With regard to, as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Note added to my last post entitled THE VACUUM

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.cigtheory.com

THX

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

report post as inappropriate

Clarification/correction:

Where in my last post it read:

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

IT SHOULD READ:

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

Thank you

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

report post as inappropriate

There should have been a question mark.

report post as inappropriate

To Professor Isham,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again.

doug

report post as inappropriate

Regarding previous posts:

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

Am I right?

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

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

view entire post

In another blog topic, Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?, Alan Lowey pointed out on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:37 GMT that not all clocks run faster in space, "It worth noting that pendulum clocks tick or swing more slowly at higher altitudes contrary to atomic clocks. This to me is proof that 'time' can't be thought of as running faster in a lower gravitational field, only *atomic* clocks can". This appears correct, given, T = 2π(√l/g) or T = 2π(√lr²/GM) but can still be tested in space. If confirmed, this will be in contrast to atomic clocks, e.g. Gravity Probe A: "At 10,000km above earth, general relativity predicted a clock should run 4.5 parts in 10^-10 faster than one on the Earth", Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that gravity slows the flow of time.

MATTERS ARISING: If pendulum clocks run slower in lesser gravity, and atomic clocks run faster, what is the implication for theoretical physics? I venture to suggest a few:

1. Since the effect of gravity on time-keeping devices NOW depends on the device, time is independent of gravity and the measurement of its flow depends on the device used.

2. Observed slowing and bending of light IS NOT due to gravity itself directly but is mediated by and is due to something else involved in light propagation, which something else can be affected by gravity. Perhaps, (in my opinion) a non-baryonic dark matter bound to the celestial body, since this is transparent to light and can form a medium for light propagation, slowing and refraction which medium's density can be affected also by gravity?

3. Since atomic clocks say one thing and pendulum clocks say the opposite, if time is perceived to flow, even if this is an illusion according to Paul Davies, a background 'illusory' time independent of device is required in physics. We may have to swallow the humble pie and return to Newton's Absolute Time.

Akinbo

*Any opinion on how to handle this discordant behaviour in time-keeping should be encouraged as it will help increase our understanding of reality.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

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

Akinbo,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:16 GMT

Yes John, I read and commented on Eric Reiter's essay sometime ago. It is worth reading again as more evidence seems to accumulate against a particle/ photon theory for light.

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

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

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

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

Akinbo

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

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:31 GMT

John, PERFECT! Then each action is its own clock and runs according to circumstance (from the Quark star blog). Resolves the dilemma.

report post as inappropriate

Ether in today Physics and Proposal of experimental Verification

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

attachments: Michelson-Morley_experiment_on_the_satelite.png

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 20:09 GMT

Yes Amrit, ether will come back but not the type of ether contemplated 100 years ago. "Regarding what you call the historical mistake of Michelson, namely that ether is still and earth moves through it with velocity 30 km/s..."

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

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

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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

Hi JH,

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

You have made a very good conjecture

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear All,

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

Dear Author,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

attachments: 2_CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 10:49 GMT

Just for the records. Similar paper withdrawn by Metrologia, the journal of the BIPM. See Editor's reason and my reply...

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

view entire post

attachments: CPEM_2014_Summary_Paper2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Richard Feynman and Newton's Emission Theory of Light

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

view entire post

Richard Feynman and Newton's Emission Theory of Light

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

Richard Feynman: "A photon of frequency w_0 has the energy E_0 = hw_0. Since the energy E_0 has the relativistic mass E_0/c^2 the photon has a mass (not rest mass) hw_0/c^2, and is "attracted" by the earth. In falling the distance H it will gain an additional energy (hw_0/c^2)gH, so it arrives with the energy E = hw_0(1+gH/c^2). But its frequency after the fall is E/h, giving again the result in Eq. (42.5). Our ideas about relativity, quantum physics, and energy conservation all fit together only if Einstein's predictions about clocks in a gravitational field are right. The frequency changes we are talking about are normally very small. For instance, for an altitude difference of 20 meters at the earth's surface the frequency difference is only about two parts in 10^15. However, just such a change has recently been found experimentally using the Mössbauer effect. [R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr., Physical Review Letters Vol. 4, p. 337 (1960)]. Einstein was perfectly correct."

Einstein was not "perfectly correct" - essentially (and implicitly), Feynman confirms Newton's emission theory of light (which says that the speed of photons falling in a gravitational field varies like the speed of ordinary falling objects) and refutes Einstein's relativity. Other authoritative confirmations:

Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory."

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

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

Pentcho Valev

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 08:46 GMT

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT

In a little introductory book I have which I highly recommend for beginners, 'Relativity for the layman' by J.A. Coleman, here is a response…

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

view entire post

In a little introductory book I have which I highly recommend for beginners, 'Relativity for the layman' by J.A. Coleman, here is a response…

The third possible explanation for the inability of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the ether assumed that the velocity of light was always constant with respect to the source which emitted it. This would mean that light always traveled at 186,000 miles a second with respect to the interferometer, regardless of how fast or slow it was moving with the earth through the ether. As a result, the velocity of light would vary with respect to the ether…

The main objection to this explanation was that it required velocity of light to vary with respect to the ether. This was contrary to the generally accepted notion of wave motion that the velocity of the wave must be constant in the material which carried the wave…. It was thus difficult for anyone really to believe that the velocity of light through ether was influenced by the velocity of the source…

There were also various astronomical observations which indicated that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the source. One of these was in connection with double stars. Double stars are two stars which are approximately the same size and are relatively close together. They rotate about each other with a fairly high velocity in somewhat the same way as would the ends of a dumb-bell… Now, some of these double stars rotate so that we are looking edgewise at the plane of rotation, i.e. we see one star coming towards us while the other is going away, and vice versa. If we assume that the velocity of the light leaving the star is increased or decreased by the velocity which the star is approaching or receding from us, then the star approaching us would appear to be rotating much faster than the receding one… The overall effect would be as if the stars were alternately speeding up and slowing down in their rotation about each other. Actual observation shows that this is not the case, however, and that the stars actually rotate about each other with uniform velocities. We conclude that it is entirely unlikely that the velocity of light is influenced by the velocity of the source, or that it is constant with respect to the source.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

University of Texas Refutes Einstein's Relativity

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

That is, in accordance with the formula

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 9, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT

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

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

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

c = d/t

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

c' = d/t' = c + v

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho, Peter,

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

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

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

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

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho, (Eckard).

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

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

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

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

Eckard,

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

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

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

Peter,

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

We are to choose between:

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

and

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

Any speculations that go beyond the above choice are irrelevant.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shocking at first. But all anomalies are entirely unlocked.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

Peter,

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

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

stationary receiver

moving receiver

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (6 not shown)

Pentcho,

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

Peter,

Consider Dopler shift (moving observer) for sound waves:

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 09:43 GMT

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

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

Akinbo,

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

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

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (10 not shown)

Peter,

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

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

Peter,

"Do you disagree with the insight?"

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Analogy Between Sound and Light Refutes Einstein

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

Pentcho,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Length Contraction and Schizophrenia

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

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

Lawrence Krauss teaches length contraction

Happy Einsteinians

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

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

Hi Pentcho ,

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

view entire post

Hi Pentcho ,

thanks for linking "the simplest version of the paradox". The coloured diagram is useful but the writer is still equating the manifestations seen with the substantial objects themselves which is not correct. The ladder, source of EM sensory data, and observed manifestation, output of sensory data processing, are distinct aspects of reality that belong to different categories of reality. These are on different sides of the Observer's Prime reality interface. Due to different observers obtaining different sensory data from the environment there is non simultaneity of events I.E they have different present experiences. Accounting for differences in dimensions of the objects observed and different reckoning of relative location of the objects in space. Thence different reckonings of when/where in relation to doors of garage. This is only paradoxical because the mathematics is not differentiating the different categories of reality. Making it seem that solid substantial objects are "magically" transformed into contradictory states of being.Where as it is perfectly reasonable that different observers produce different manifestations from differently acquired sensory data.

The Barn Pole Paradox, Mark L Lions

I think the next given example in the Ladder paradox, Wikipedia article (your "the simplest version of the paradox") is daft because it is talking about a man walking fast, not a significant fraction of the speed of light , and then falling down a grate. The man represented by a rod. At the speed needed for the length contraction to occur the momentum of man or rod Object would prevent him/it from falling. (Though he might trip) It seems there is no momentum in the paradox which makes it invalid.

The last example again I don't believe it would happen,as described in the article. The rod passing through the ring due to length contraction part. - the appearance of contraction is not the same as contraction of the source of the sensory data from which the contracted manifestation was formed. Though the change in orientation of the bar when considered from a different reference makes sense. Making this example of an optical illusion rather than a paradox.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 22:56 GMT

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

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 19, 2015 @ 23:37 GMT

The bug-rivet paradox offers an even more breathtaking spectacle:

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Akinbo,

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

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

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 20, 2015 @ 18:41 GMT

Pentcho, James Putnam, et al.

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

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

Hi Akinbo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

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

Hi James,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

James A Putnam replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 01:31 GMT

Akinbo,

Your questions:

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

Yes the mass of the pole increased from its rest value to its value as a function of the pole's velocity.

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

If a traveler is moving toward light that is coming toward the traveler, the traveler will receive the light sooner than if the traveler remained at rest. If the traveler is moving away from the approaching light, the traveler will receive the light later. The speed of the light, while not close to the traveler, is unaffected locally. Its speed is determined by the environment it is passing through. That environment will have specific electric permittivity and magnetic permeability values. Those values can be substituted into Maxwell's equation to determine the local speed of light. The light will typically pass through changing environments. At no time when the light is distant from the traveler will the speed of the light be affected by the traveler. The Lorentz transforms allow for only one environment and that environment is the environment of the observer who is stationary in that environment. That observer undergoes no changes. A second observer traveling through that environment, either toward or away from the stationary observer, will undergo length contraction. There will be an increase in mass for the traveler. There will also be an effect of slowing of rate of activity for the traveler.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 12:40 GMT

Akinbo,

You preceded your questions with:

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

I was not giving you a description of the Lorentz transforms as used in relativity theory. I answered about my interpretation which you can review in my essay.

"This is the meaning of the often stated cliché, "The velocity of light is constant to ALL observers irrespective of their motion". Because of its frequent repetition and use, its fundamental meaning is not often looked at any more. And I guess from your truthful reply, that you have yourself overlooked the fundamental meaning of this statement or cliché. I find this to also be the case even among experts."

I haven't overlooked it. I wasn't explaining a view that even includes it. The velocity of light is not constant to all observers irrespective of their motion. The velocity of light is a variable. In the description I gave: The traveler's speed of light is not the same as the observer's speed of light.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 25, 2015 @ 15:07 GMT

James,

I re-read your essay again. You bring up some interesting numerical co-incidences between velocity of light and sound. This could be worth further study.

Since we are in agreement that RESULTANT velocity of light is variable (as to be differentiated from velocity of light which depends on permitivity and permeability), I think we at least have a common ground.

The last sentence here remains curious and mysterious. Can a traveler observe and/or can an observer travel? Can a traveler travel and decide not to observe?

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on May. 26, 2015 @ 04:48 GMT

Akinbo,

Thank you for reading my essay. I have added a couple of explanations here for other readers. They are necessarily pulled out of context where the context is a fundamentally unified theory with one cause for all effects.

"I re-read your essay again. You bring up some interesting numerical co-incidences between velocity of light and sound. This could be worth further study."

My essay for this recent contest contains the derivations of equations to replace Maxwell's equations. It is in those derivations that a connection between the speed of light and the speed of sound arises. They make their appearances together in the definitions of magnetic permeability, u=v_s/v_c, and electric permittivity, e=1/(v_sv_c). The s identifies the speed of sound and the c identifies the speed of light.

"Since we are in agreement that RESULTANT velocity of light is variable (as to be differentiated from velocity of light which depends on permitivity and permeability), I think we at least have a common ground."

The speed of light is almost wholly determined by the background environment. That environment is formed from effects of the matter in the universe. When approaching close to local matter, the speed of light is affected increasingly by that local matter whether it is the Earth or an observer or an atom or a particle of matter. The strength of the effect is proportional to the amount of matter. In the case of a particle, such as a proton, its effect on the speed of light is significant only up to a distance of an atomic radius.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

James,

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 16:06 GMT

The only thing that you enjoy more than exploring the deep rabbit holes that are the nature of physical reality is dragging others down into those same deep rabbit holes. I have to admit, though, that your questions do make me think…

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

Steve,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 03:19 GMT

Ohhh...indeed, what mass and energy are? You do have a wonderful poetic way of expressing reality...since math is not your game, poetry can be to blame!

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

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

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

...and of course, just in time, the decay that I have been waiting for...

Universal Decay

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

report post as inappropriate

The dying universe represents a universal decay that is very similar to my decay constant, 20% over a Byrs. The paper is available as draft Galaxy and Mass Assembly...at Low z and is quite technical.

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Sounds promising Thanks

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

report post as inappropriate

EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity — https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

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

of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.

Present day quantum gravity theories suffer from

too many mathematical space dimensions, and from

too few conclusive experimental results.

My hypothesis is simple, clear,

and subject to easy empirical verification :

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

Should you have any questions or need clarification,

I am more than happy to answer.

report post as inappropriate

Hi, I have been looking for some straight alternatives regarding it almost three times. You affected me with a lot indeed and analyzing this your website. There is many new and useful particularly this subject. Well job and keep it up

Call girls in Delhi

report post as inappropriate